Interar WordPress Theme Review: Real Interior Studio Build, Portfolio UX, and Speed Benchmarks

I rebuilt an interior design studio’s website after a tough year of pitch losses and a portfolio that looked better in PDFs than on the web. Demos are seductive, but I needed a theme that behaves under real case studies, oversized imagery, and a finicky editorial team that updates once a quarter. I shortlisted a few options and shipped with the Interar WordPress Theme because its defaults felt like a design studio’s site should feel—quiet grids, disciplined whitespace, and project pages that don’t drown the story in effects. In this field report I’ll walk through my exact install, the toggles I flipped, what I cut, and the numbers I measured for speed and conversions. For category scouting I browsed Best WordPress Themes and sourced a GPL-licensed build for staging from gplpal—then I put Interar through the paces with live projects and real clients.

The brief (and why interior/architecture sites are fragile)

Design studios don’t sell widgets; they sell trust through visual proof and process. The previous site failed in three predictable ways:

1. Portfolio grid entropy. Mixed aspect ratios and inconsistent captions meant the grid felt jumpy.
2. Case study bloat. Page builders added parallax, counters, and sliders; the “story” lost its arc.
3. Pitch friction. On mobile, it was surprisingly hard for prospective clients to find the studio’s services, team, and inquiry form after browsing a case.

We defined three non-negotiables: a calm portfolio grid with repeatable crops, case pages that respect text as much as images, and a contact path that never hides behind theatrics.

My environment and reproducible install path

Stack: Nginx, PHP 8.2, MariaDB 10.6, HTTP/2 with Brotli at the edge, Redis object cache. Fresh WordPress install—no legacy plugins, no page-builder ballast.

1) Theme activation + child theme I installed Interar and immediately created a child theme. Into functions.php I placed three helpers:

• Selective scripts: Dequeue hero slider and counter JS on routes that don’t use them (most of the site).
• Canonical hygiene: Force canonical tags on paginated archives and filtered portfolio views to avoid index bloat.
• CTA normalization: One primary label—“Start a project”—across home, services, and case footers.

2) Tokens and type (lock them early)

• Color tokens: Coal #0F1114 for background, Porcelain #F6F7F8 for surface, Charcoal #20242A for text, Accent #9AA1FF for small highlights only.
• Typography: System stack for body (fast, no FOIT), high-x-height grotesk for headings at 600 weight. H1 40/28, H2 28/22, body 16/16 with 1.65 line height.
• Spacing: 8-point scale mapped to small/medium/large = 16/24/32. Editors see only these three; drift is impossible.

3) Content model

• Projects (CPT): Residential, Hospitality, Workplace, Retail. Each with location, scope, floor area, budget band, lead designer, and vendor credits.
• Process (CPT): Discover → Define → Design → Deliver steps with short copy and one supporting photo each.
• Team (CPT): Principles and leads with disciplines, licensure, and a 1-line point of view.
• Journal (CPT): Essays and behind-the-scenes posts; no press clippings on the list view to keep it clean. Interar’s templates mapped closely; I hid novelty blocks we didn’t need.

4) Media discipline I exported master images at 1600px (hero), 1200px (case images), and 800px (cards), WebP only, with explicit width/height in markup. Interar respects intrinsic ratios, so CLS stays tame.

5) Navigation Home, Projects, Services, Process, Journal, Studio, Contact. On mobile I pinned a compact sticky “Start a project” bar. Interar’s header handled it without clipping.

What Interar got right on day one

• Portfolio grid that breathes. The masonry layout respects fixed columns and a narrow gap; it looks curated rather than algorithmic. Each card shows project name, location, and type—no overbearing badges.
• Case study rhythm. Templates assume an editorial arc: context → constraints → moves → result. The gallery blocks are subdued; captions sit close to their images.
• Service tiles with real outcomes. Instead of generic “We do interiors,” Interar’s blocks read like brief scopes (“Concept to CA,” “FF&E selection,” “Tenant improvements”).
• Process page that respects attention. Four steps, one paragraph each, with a tiny artifact (moodboard, markup, or RCP snippet).
• Contact affordances. A quiet footer CTA renders on every page; the form is single-screen with only the fields that matter.

None of this is loud, which is exactly the point.

The changes I made (and the metrics they moved)

1. Kill carousels. I removed all hero carousels in favor of a single still on desktop and copy-first on mobile (headline + CTA as the LCP pair).

2. Impact: Mobile LCP dropped from ~2.8–3.0s to ~2.2–2.3s on a 4G throttle; bounce on paid landings fell ~10–12%.

3. Enforce 4:3 on portfolio cards. Architects love panoramic crops; the web does not. I standardized cards to 4:3 and pushed wides to case interiors.

4. Impact: CLS stabilized at ~0.01–0.03; grid scan time improved in user tests (fewer stop-scrolls).

5. Caption discipline. Every image got a 10–16 word caption naming the design move (“raked light along oak battens; concealed return air at reveal”).

6. Impact: Time on case pages climbed ~15–18%; sales calls referenced specific moves, not just vibes.

7. Spec table above the fold. Floor area, budget band, schedule, and GC sat right under the hero on case pages.

8. Impact: Fewer “can you send more details?” emails; clients trusted the story faster.

9. CTA placement and language. Primary: “Start a project.” Secondary: “See our process.” No tertiary ghosts.

10. Impact: Inquiry click-through on case pages rose ~14–16% week over week.

11. Journal list restraint. Title + deck + one thumbnail per entry; no author headshots or social icons.

12. Impact: List CTR concentrated on strong topics; first contentful paint improved slightly.

Real performance profile (reproducible numbers)

With live images, analytics, and a simple consent script:

• Home

• LCP: 2.1–2.3s (headline + CTA on mobile; preloaded desktop hero)

• CLS: 0.01–0.03 (explicit dimensions; min-height on hero)

• TBT: 70–100ms after dequeuing sliders/counters

• Projects archive

• LCP: ~2.0–2.2s with 12 cards visible; server-side render, light hydration

• Scroll: smooth; no jank from lazy images thanks to intrinsic sizing

• Case study

• LCP: ~2.2s with spec table near the fold

• Interaction: negligible input delay; galleries are click-quiet (no autoplay)

• Journal article

• LCP: ~2.1s with title/deck as LCP pair; images lazy-load with placeholders

Techniques used: WebP everywhere; inline tiny critical CSS (header, hero, first section); defer non-critical CSS; dequeue non-used JS by route; preload desktop LCP image only; explicit width/height attributes. Interar’s CSS is modular, so pulling a critical path took ~20 minutes.

Information architecture that matched buyer intent

I organized around how clients actually evaluate studios:

• Home: Value prop → selected work (six cards) → services snapshot → process strip → testimonials (short, not gushing) → CTA.
• Projects: Visible filters (type, location, budget band, year). Cards remain calm; no hover gimmicks beyond a subtle title reveal.
• Case study: Hero with single image → spec table → context block → gallery + captions → materials section → outcome + testimonial → CTA.
• Services: Tiles that map to real deliverables: programming, concept, DD/CD, CA, FF&E, turnkey. Each tile links to a detail section with artifacts.
• Process: Four steps, each with one artifact and one sentence about stakeholder cadence.
• Journal: Essays and site reports; each ends with a quiet link to related cases.
• Studio: Team, awards (text list, no collages), and a single paragraph about approach.
• Contact: Single-screen form with a 150-character project brief field and a checkbox for “send NDA first.”

Interar’s blocks made this IA feel native; no wrestling.

Editor workflow & governance (why the studio actually updates now)

• Tokenized design prevents rogue blues and freestyle spacing.
• Three reusable blocks do most of the work: “Spec table,” “Captioned gallery,” “Two-column story.”
• Honest media previews show card crops before publish; the design lead stopped DM’ing at 11 p.m. about “why does this look chopped?”
• Character limits on captions and decks keep the layout taut.
• One-click “duplicate case” scaffolds a new project with the right sections; editors replace images and copy, not structure.

A senior designer—not a developer—published two solid case studies in one afternoon after a 30-minute walkthrough.

SEO scaffolding that mattered (boring but effective)

• Index projects, services, process, journal articles, and studio; noindex faceted filters, search results, and paginated duplicates. Interar respects robots and canonicals.
• Schema: Organization site-wide, Article for journal, CreativeWork for projects with locationCreated and material notes. No collisions with Interar markup.
• Titles that say the thing: “Residence in Pacific Heights — oak, plaster, concealed air returns.” It reads like a person, not a keyword farm.
• Internal links: Each case links to one service detail and one journal article about a related method (“why we avoid recessed cans”).
• Alt text that describes the move rather than stuffing locations.

None of this is flashy, which is why it works.

Accessibility and trust details

• Contrast & focus: Micro-labels (floor area, schedule) meet AA; focus rings are visible against the coal background.
• Keyboard navigation: Galleries, accordions, and the contact form are reachable and clearly labeled.
• Reduced motion: Interar honors prefers-reduced-motion; simple fades remain, no parallax anywhere.
• Crediting vendors: A small “credits” list appears at the end of cases. It’s readable, not performative. Clients appreciate the transparency.

Portfolio storytelling: the structure that sold projects

Interar’s case template gently enforces a narrative. I leaned into it:

• Context names constraints (“north-facing yard,” “heritage plaster,” “acoustic privacy over an active café”).
• Moves are concrete decisions (“shifted kitchen 900mm to capture morning light; continuous datum line at 2.1m”).
• Materials list species, finishes, and the rationale (“rift white oak for calm grain; waxed plaster for light scatter”).
• Outcome is measured (“daylight factor in living increased 28%,” “ambient NC under 30 in bedrooms”).
• Client line is one sentence, not a love letter.

Clients felt briefed, not sold to.

Comparing Interar to two alternatives I tried

Alternative A: a dramatic “architecture” theme with heavy motion

• Pros: Demos look cinematic; full-bleed video heroes.
• Cons: Jank on mid-range phones; captions get lost; LCP/CLS budgets evaporate when real images replace mockups.
• Verdict: Great for a one-off exhibition micro-site; fragile for a working studio. Interar’s restraint wins.

Alternative B: multipurpose agency theme + page builder

• Pros: Endless layout permutations.
• Cons: Editors drown in options; spacing drifts; performance tuning becomes whack-a-mole; captions and specs never end up predictable.
• Verdict: Works if you have design-ops bandwidth. For a small studio, Interar’s guardrails are a gift.

If you’re still browsing, use Best WordPress Themes to judge structure, not spectacle—and choose the one that tempts you least to add fluff.

Measured outcomes (three weeks post-launch, comparable traffic)

• Projects archive → case CTR: +18% after standardizing card ratios and tightening captions.
• Case → inquiry click-through: +14–16% with clearer CTAs and the spec table above the fold.
• Time on case pages: +15–18% from caption discipline and calmer gallery pacing.
• Mobile bounce on paid landings: –11% after making the hero copy-first and preloading only the desktop LCP image.
• Editor throughput: Two new cases and one journal piece per week without developer involvement—this one matters more than it sounds.

These are unglamorous gains—the kind that compound.

Limits and edge cases I hit

• Ultra-bespoke layouts: If you need art-directed, per-case layouts with asymmetric type and scroll choreography, expect custom templates. Interar protects consistency by design.
• Deep spec documentation: If you want downloadable drawing sets or selection schedules inline, you’ll add a lightweight document viewer or link to a resource hub.
• Massive media libraries: Hundreds of images per case demand ruthless curation and compression; a theme can’t save you from 3-MB photos.

None of these are deal-breakers; they’re reminders to keep scope real.

Practical playbook you can copy

Before design

• Choose a crop ratio for cards (4:3) and stick to it.
• Define your spec table fields (area, budget band, schedule, GC).
• Decide your voice in captions (present tense, describe the move, not the feeling).

During build

• Kill carousels; make mobile heroes copy-first.
• Put the spec table above the fold; keep gallery images under 1200px WebP with explicit dimensions.
• Limit each case to 12–16 images; if it “needs more,” it needs editing.
• Unify CTAs: primary “Start a project,” secondary “See our process.”

Before launch

• Preload desktop LCP image on Home only; don’t preload on mobile.
• Verify canonical tags on archives and disable infinite scroll for SEO control.
• Keyboard-test galleries and the contact form; check reduced motion.

After launch

• Review analytics monthly: which captions win? which crops underperform?
• Rotate the six-card Home selection quarterly; keep it curated.
• Audit third-party scripts; anything not helping discovery or inquiry gets deferred or removed.

The human part: what surprised me about Interar

I expected to spend a weekend ripping out theatrics. Instead, I spent that time editing captions and tightening the spec table because Interar makes the layout ask for clarity. The second surprise was client behavior: prospects sent inquiries referencing specific moves (“that concealed return at the reveal,” “the oak datum line”), which tells me the story landed. Editors also relaxed—when a theme removes 90% of the ways to make a mess, updates actually happen.

Final verdict: who should choose Interar

If you’re an interior studio or architecture practice that values quiet confidence over spectacle, wants a portfolio that reads like a credible book, and needs an editor experience your team won’t avoid, Interar is a smart foundation. It keeps attention on projects, respects text alongside images, and behaves under real mobile traffic. You’ll still need discipline—compressed images, consistent crops, honest captions, and a coherent IA—but Interar won’t fight you while you do the grown-up work of winning trust.

Would I ship it again? Yes—especially for studios that pitch often, publish occasionally, and need a website that feels curated rather than performative. If the dream is a cinematic scroll opera, keep browsing. If the goal is inquiries from clients who understood your work before they reached out, Interar earns its place on the shortlist.