What do they mean?

A brief bit of history: when I first started applying for website awards (longer ago than I like to think about) I was one of those people who (whispering) didn't read the criteria. I didn't keep track of my applications; I received some awards; I didn't get others.

Then I wandered onto an award rating service listing - wow, I was in heaven! All these awards in one place and all I had to do was to apply! Well, as you've probably guessed - or found out for yourself by now - it wasn't as simple as that!

The first time I had an inkling that maybe I'd do better by actually reading the criteria of each program was when one kind award master sent me a notice of rejection. It listed the reasons why I hadn't achieved their award! Wow, what a stroke of lightning! Suddenly I realised there might be a reason why I wasn't achieving every award I applied for!

Then I looked at the criteria item I hadn't fulfilled:
"Page longer than 3 clicks."
What? I had NO idea what this meant. Well, okay, I knew it meant that my page was longer than three clicks down on the scrollbar - but why would anybody care about that?

So I set out on a quest to discover just what award masters were really asking for, and the reasons behind those requirements. It was an interesting journey ...

Standard criteria item no 1: no right-click scripts

I've seen this criteria item on probably half of the award programs I've visited. It's not a script I've ever used myself - I'm not what you might call graphically talented, so who on earth would want to steal my stuff, has always been my view. But having the script on your page shouldn't cause a problem for anyone, should it?

Wrong. When I first started my award program, I discovered just how annoying that little snippet of script is. Picture the scene: I'm viewing an applicant's site and so far he's scoring really well. I decide to check point number 24 on my criteria: graphics should be well optmised. So I right click on an image to check its file weight, and guess what pops up? A little box saying, "Hands off you thief!" Well - I don't like to be called a thief! But okay, we'll move on. Now, point number 25 is for correctness of HTML code. So I right click to view source - argh, here we go again! Yes, I can use the browser menu instead, but hey, I'm lazy! Now I come to number 26 on my criteria, checking all links are functioning okay. So that I don't lose my place, I decide to right-click to open the link in a new window ... Guess what?

Well, I suppose I should just thank my lucky stars that I'm right-handed - at least I have my mouse buttons the "right" way around - otherwise that code would be preventing me from clicking on anything within the page at all!

In addition to this, there's that fact that using a no-right-click script does absolutely NOTHING to protect your images or code. I can think of at least 3 ways offhand that I can otherwise get at your images or source. And, as someone once said, "If you think you have to protect it with this method, then you have nothing worth protecting."

Standard criteria item no 2: No horizontal scrollbars

It would seem fairly obvious to most people that scrolling left and right, left and right in order to read all the content on your page would be a bit of a drag. But it's something that's often forgotten by those who are designing and viewing at higher resolutions than 800x600. Yes, there are still those who surf at that resolution - many visually impaired people, for a start, who really won't like having to flick back and forth. Surfing like this can really make a visitor feel tired and lose their concentration.

The lesson to be learned is that it is important to check your site in ALL resolutions that you can. Don't just look for horizontal scrollbars, either - check out your positioning on the page. Your site might look wonderful at 800x600 but be squeezed into the top left corner at higher resolutions.

Standard criteria item no 3: Must be compatible with Netscape and IE

(and sometimes Opera, AOL, all versions down to 4.0, all versions above 4.0 ... the list is pretty endless, depending on which program you're visiting.)

Now, if you're anything like me when I first came across this item, you probably only have one browser installed on your computer ... and there's a 90% probability that it's Internet Explorer, since that's what Windows in installed with, and it's what most ISPs have on their set-up discs. However, things are rapidly changing - AOL, which is undoubtedly the world's largest internet provider, whatever else one may say about it, has gone from basing its own default browser on IE coding, to using Netscape code. AOL versions 7 and above will be using a Netscape based browser, and if you haven't ever checked your site in Netscape, well, you'd better.

I won't go into any tricks or tips for attaining browser compatibility here, there are plenty of other, more well informed people than me for that. What I will tell you is that browser compatibility is becoming more important, and is expected of high-performing sites.

The best way to see how the award program owner views the subject is to download another browser and view their site in both. Do they look similar, or are there gaping holes? If the former, then you can bet that the site owner has at least two browsers installed and has worked darn hard to make their site compatible, and they will expect a similar standard from you. If the latter, then you may well find statements like "We don't expect your site to look perfect in all browsers but it must actually load." In this case, as long as your navigation is functional (and you will need to check this - Netscape has some nasty habits, including knocking off the bottoms of frames so that you can't click on some buttons) then you are probably safe, even if your pages are not the jewel-like beauty to behold that they appear in your primary browser.

Top

Standard criteria item no 4: pages should not be longer than 3 scrolls/clicks

(Or 5 clicks, or must not be longer than x clicks without "Back to top" links, or longer than 10 clicks, or "a reasonable length" ...)

The reasoning behind this is fairly simple and coming from the same place as the "Horizontal scrolling" rule - unfeasibly long pages are a pain in the neck for viewers. As a seasoned web surfer, I can't begin to describe how my heart sinks when I watch the scrollbar slider shrink, and shrink, and shrink ... until it's barely large enough to click on. The thought that comes into my head is, "Oh no, you mean I've got to read all that?" If you have a page like this, then you seriously need to think about reorganising your text or graphics into more manageable chunks. There's a great article on this very site that includes something about this subject - why don't you check it out, after finishing this article of course?

Standard criteria item no 5: no broken links

Internal, external, your links are important. Most vital are the internal ones of course - how long do you think most visitors will stay if they are constantly running into 404 errors? Or confronted with a page of white boxes with that attractive little red "X" in the corner?

But your external links are also important - having them in working order is a courtesy to your visitors. Not only this, but you really should periodically check your links to ensure that the content is still what you intended to link to. Domains come and go these days, and on more than one occasion I've found an innocently-titled link which is now leading to an adult site!

A great tool for checking links is Xenu Link Sleuth. It's a free program that will check all the external and internal links on your site. It's not infallible, but it's a darn good starting place.

Standard criteria item no 6: No excessive animations/JavaScripts

This item fits neatly into two categories, really: page loading time and tasteful design.

Firstly, adding animated graphics and java applets to your page might seem like a funky thing to do, just the thing to liven up your page. However, they will massively add to the load time of your page, and if that time becomes too long, your visitors will not stay around to see the page. A great place to check your load time is NetMechanic.com, which works out the total load time at a variety of speeds. Also bear in mind that processor speed and RAM of the visitor will affect how well the page performs - too many applets, particularly, and the browser - or even machine - may crash.

The second point is that these graphics and goodies rarely add anything to the page and in some cases can severely impact on the design. This is particularly the case with public domain animations. Yes, there are some nice ones, but bear in mind that award program owners by definition view an awful lot of sites, and have seen what feels like every public domain animation out there. We're sick of them!

Standard criteria item no 7: page must load in 30 seconds

(1 minute, 1 minute 30 seconds, 15 seconds, etc ...)

Plain and simple, your public won't wait for a long time to view your page, so why should we? Use NetMechanic to analyse your load times and use their free graphic optimiser to shrink your file sizes - this can make a lot of difference. Remember, although you may be using a T1 connection and everything loads in 5 seconds, a lot of us are still on dial-up modem and have to wait a lot longer.

Standard criteria item no 8: embedded sound must have a switch-off option

(Or sometimes, must have a switch-off option that is located without scrolling)

So you've chosen, with great care, the midis that you feel enhance your page to the maximum, you've obtained the proper permissions from the creator to use them (if not, you'd better!) and embedded them in your page. Why bother putting sound controls in, when your choice is so impeccable?

I've got to tell you a terrible truth - I hate midis! I have come to loathe the cheesy, synthesized notes that ooze from my speakers like the unfortunate smell from behind the toilet. On occasion, I have become so enraged, as I hear the genius of my favourite Pink Floyd track being translated into unspeakable elevator musak, as to be on the verge of ripping my speakers from my computer and tossing them through the window. (I didn't, though. I just dropped a note of copyright violation to the Floyd's music publishing company.)

Providing music controls is another courtesy to your visitors. I don't expect you to sit and listen to my favourite Iron Maiden, Metallica and Deep Purple tracks, so why should you impose your choice on me?

Standard criteria item no 9: no advertising pop-ups

(Sometimes excluding host-enforced pop-ups, or occasionally phrased as "Must be a top-level domain")

If there's one thing that irritates me (apart from the murdering of hapless Pink Floyd tracks, of course) it's pop-up windows. I can't tell you how annoying it is when my taskbar is taken over by an accumulation of windows exhorting me to buy this, view the other, or download that. If you are using the onLoad command to launch pop-ups, stop. Now. The vast majority of commercial websites have seen that pop-ups simply do not work. Banners might, sometimes, but pop-ups will simply be ignored. Switch to a host without pop-ups, if you're reliant on free hosting.

Top-level domains are sometimes stipulated partly to avoid this annoyance but also in recognition of a truism: if you care enough about your site to create it in an award-winning manner, you're likely to have also cared enough to brand your site. This can be, I freely admit, an easy way of weeding out applicants who don't qualify for an award. In my own program, I make no stipulation about hosting or pop-ups. However, of the sites I awarded in the last six weeks, all of them were on paid-for hosting. Coincidence?

Standard criteria no 10: no adult content

(Or, sites must be family friendly)

A tricky subject. Obviously the award program owner will not want to award a site that contains graphic images of violence or sex - that's a definite. However, the definition of adult content can range from the loose - "Should not contain nudity unless part of an artistic image, and then in a tasteful manner" - to the strict - "Site should be rated "All Ages" with an accredited organisation".

If you have a site which could be classed as unsuitable for younger children - for example, a site about domestic violence, which might contain accounts of survivors, or a site on conception and pregnancy, which might contain medical advice concerning sexual matters - in many cases, the only way around this is to e-mail the program owner and ask them for their opinion on the subject. You will probably get a different reply from every program owner you contact, but please remember not to be offended if their version of "adult content" doesn't agree with yours - we all have a right to view only the content we find comfortable.

If you feel you may have been rejected in the past because of content, there's no reason not to e-mail the program owner and ask - politely - if this was the reason. (The phrase "If this is the case, we respect your view, and ask you to let us know so that we don't bother you with repeat applications" can work wonders.)

Top

In closing ...

I would like to leave you with a few things to think about, and to address some concerns. Some people, on reading this article, and perhaps reading the criteria of some award programs, may feel that they are being asked for too much, or subject to petty details, or in other words made to "jump through hoops". Well, I have known award programs like this - fortunately few - who do seem to take a positive delight in disqualifying applicants, thus making their award ever more "elite". But, they are few and far between - the reasoning behind most award programs' exacting criteria is quite simple.

Most, if not all, award program owners hope that their winners' lists will become a "hot list" of excellent sites on the web. Owners are driven to set these criteria by their desire to see their winners' list stay consistently good. If a list of winners isn't good, then very few people will ever bother surfing it.

When you ask an award program for a review, you are asking the evaluator(s) for their objective opinions. These people have probably never met you or spoken to you before, or visited your site. Your site will be reviewed as if by a member of the general public - which is exactly the type of visitor you will receive.

An evaluator's opinion can be seen as a sort of distilled version of the "general surfing public" - with the difference that an experienced evaluator can probably tell you why something doesn't quite work or would be better if it weren't neon pink.

The reasoning behind nearly all of the above "standard criteria items" is quite simple - compliance with them shows respect and courtesy to the general public, and that is, after all, what you want to extend to your visitors - isn't it?

This article is also published at Awardsville.

[Back] :: [Top]