Overall rank: 48%
It is good that HTML copanies trying to use HTML5 as their own doctype. We also use it and can clearly see its advantages. However, bad thing is that some of them try to use HTML5 with very poor knowledge of HTML4 coding. 960Development is a good example of such company. All the test failed, only the compatibility test went pretty smoothly.. but it seems to be more a coincidence?
Pricing
There is no pricing info.
xHTML analysis 58%
Doctype: HTML5
Errors: Yes
Cleanliness: Above average
Indents: Great
Headings: Bad
Image handling: Average
Text/code ratio: 14%
CSS analysis 38%
Errors: No
Cleanliness: Great
Indents: Bad
Print version: No
Inline: Yes
Sprite usage: Average
Position: Average
JavaScript analysis 20%
Cleanliness:Bad
Inline:Yes
JS off version:No
JS efficiency:Bad
Position:Great
Efficiency 47%
Compression: No
Cache: Yes
Bad requests: No
Error page: Yes
Page size: 669 kB
- xHTML: 18 kB
- CSS: 73 kB
- JavaScript: 300 kB
- Images: 278 kB
Number of requests: 95
- xHTML: 1
- CSS: 3
- JavaScript: 11
- Images: 80
Search engine preparation 22%
Unique titles: Yes
Canonicalization: No
Robots: No
XML sitemaps: No
Favicon: Yes
Expire tags: No
Language: English
Microformats: No
Accessibility: No
Browser awareness 83%
Firefox: Yes
Chrome: Yes
Opera: Yes
Safari: Yes
Internet Explorer 9: Yes
Internet Explorer 8: Yes
Internet Explorer 7: Yes
Internet Explorer 6: Yes
Compatibility view: No
Fixes via: External CSS