Looking for comments..

I think I like the old one better. It would depend on what you do with the rest of the pages though. THe font on the new one is a problem - it's very hard to read. "Make it happen. Let us help" - what the heck is that supposed to mean? Sorry, these extremely vague catch phrases that a lot of sites use really bug me. I would be more impressed with a cross browser site than differnet ones for each.

A couple of comments on the old version (I think you asked for a review before but I was busy at the time and didn't get around to it...)

THe IE enhanced version is a problem for the following reasons:

1. Pop-up windows are annoying and too small.
2. Text is way too small and hard to read

I feel like I'm being lead in a random path somewhere - I don't know what's going to happen when I click on a link. That might be okay for an artistic personal site, but for a business it could be very confusing to your visitors.

The cross browser version of the old site is much better. YOu just need to add a little padding to those text cells and lose the default borders. You should probably add more specifics about what exactly you do and how much you charge. That's probably what your visitors will be looking to find out on your site. Everything here seems really vague to me. Remember that a lot of these people are new to this (which is why they would be looking for your help).

Oh, and on the splash page the background of your graphics isn't quite matching with the page background on my monitor. You might have to use some transparency on there. Actually, those graphics for the IE only/Cross Browser choices should probably be a little less fancy to make it easier for people to read.

Apparently 'Make it Happen, Let us Help' is going to mean a headache for me to change.

That font on the new one will -only- be used for the titles and such like that. Big huge chunks of text are out of the question.

-Actually,- the IE version will be cross-browser to an extent--Netscape Six will be able to read it with little trouble. [Won't be able to see all of the nifty effects, damn netscape.]

I'm not going to answer the other review, because it hurt my feelings. Erm. Actually, it didn't.
However, I am well aware of those problems, and my answer is: they simply -can not- be fixed. A reason why I am moving to the new version [maybe]: Flexiblity.

About the colors: That's a problem for -few- people. It comes from having the gamma correction on your monitor not correctly set. Another reason why I will [probably] be switching to this new version.

Personally, I like it. If the font is just used for headers, it's fine. I can read it.

I am not big on having the choices of what browser you are using - but that's a personal preference.

The only thing that I feel that it needs (not much to review) is a brief explanation of what you do. Is it graphic desing, web design? Put one sentance there saying what you do!

Good job.

Brooke

Alright, here's an idea:
How about I put an auto-browser detection script on there and redirect the people based on their browsers?

Would this be more satisfactory?

I am not sure if my comments will be very useful since I am still new at this web design stuff but you have been more then generous with reviewing my site.

Onwards -

I love the old "look" with its text problems and pop up windows, both of which you are aware of.

The new site doesn't appeal to me on the same level as the old one. Artisitically speaking, the old site just wow's me in terms of the graphics and the flash (it is flash isn't it) but from the standpoint of being a novice I don't understand what it is you are doing. Obviously it is design related but in what capacity I am not sure.

My immediate first impression of the new look was that of architectural drawings. This is due in part from the grid pattern and the icon bar that at first site made me think of a ruler.

It loaded for me very quickly. I am on a cable modem so keep that in mind.

As far as the other comments go, I think the title font is very interesting but when compared to the graphics, a little out of place. Again, I am relying on my senses.

The autodetect browser is a great idea. It would also free up space to maybe elaborate a little in terms of specifics of what it is you exactly do.

Finally, I have to admit that after seeing the new version, I immediately went to the old version. I do like the old better because it is more elaborate but as someone mentioned, this is fine for a personal site, or to demonstrate your capabilites and knowledge. But for people who are looking for designers, I think the new one is more appropriate.

Hope that helps somewhat.

Bob

Maybe I should've waiting until I had a subpage or something ready.

Well, I solve all of those problems on the subpages by adding tons of DHTML and things like that to make the site interactive, and non-stagnant.

...I don't think I have a real point for this message, either.