my new (CSS) site

The first thing that caught my eye was the logo, not bad so-to-speak but different is the right word. The affordable visual dynamic thing bugs me because I can't click it, they look to much like links. I really like the navigation on the right because it is more unique.

The photos of the builders are strange, they look out of place. The photo that I do like is the google one. You probably could do without any of the photos and just have text.

Right now I am on the maintenance page and it looks like you're a professional lawn trimmer, with all those weird photos. I think more techy pictures would be a lot better.

>The first thing that caught my eye was the logo, not bad so-to-speak but different >is the right word.
Working on it.

>The affordable visual dynamic thing bugs me because I can't click it, they look to >much like links.
Really? thats odd... I'll reconsider perhaps

>I really like the navigation on the right because it is more unique.
Thanks

>The photos of the builders are strange, they look out of place. The photo that I do >like is the google one. You probably could do without any of the photos and just >have text.
I'm trying to draw an abstract parallel- physical services to virtual ones. Without photos it seems very bland, empty and boring. The photos are small, and I think they work well.

>Right now I am on the maintenance page and it looks like you're a professional lawn >trimmer, with all those weird photos. I think more techy pictures would be a lot >better.
Problem with 'techy' pics is that they are so stereotypical and completely lacking in originality. Go to any bad web designers site, and the first thing you notice is a load of smiling business people, computers, or such. I think it is quite obvious that we are selling web services due to the text content.

Very well done. Just a few things:

1) The whole header area where the logo is looks washed out to me...kind of blah compared to the rest of it. (I do like the logo, it's just that maybe it's too much orange up there, and things need a pop a bit)

2) Font size is too small..hard to read.

3) I'd like to see some good padding in the whole nav sidebar. The text is too close to the edge of the boxes.

I'm torn on the photos you are using. I mean I get the concept, and I DO like unique ideas like that, the question is will your end users 'get it', or will they be confused like has already been mentioned?

Interesting design concept. Just a few things:

1, the "::AFFORDABLE:: ::VISUAL:: ::DYNAMIC::"
- they looks too much like links because of the "::" try replacing them with something else of just take it out all together. I also noticed that they are images. have you tried using text and CSS for that instead?
2, the navigation links
- they don't seem to have the title attribute and although it is not essential, I recommend that it is put in and used just simply because it helps the user...

Quote: Very well done. Just a few things:

1) The whole header area where the logo is looks washed out to me...kind of blah compared to the rest of it. (I do like the logo, it's just that maybe it's too much orange up there, and things need a pop a bit)

Yes, It definately needs work.

Quote: 2) Font size is too small..hard to read.

Working on it.

Quote: 3) I'd like to see some good padding in the whole nav sidebar. The text is too close to the edge of the boxes.

Good point, I will do.

Quote: I'm torn on the photos you are using. I mean I get the concept, and I DO like unique ideas like that, the question is will your end users 'get it', or will they be confused like has already been mentioned?

Yes, I am thinking about it, perhaps lessening their visual impact slightly.
-

Interesting design concept. Just a few things:

Quote: 1, the "::AFFORDABLE:: ::VISUAL:: ::DYNAMIC::"
- they looks too much like links because of the "::" try replacing them with something else of just take it out all together. I also noticed that they are images. have you tried using text and CSS for that instead?

Yes, I should make them CSS. Just laziness on my part!

Quote: 2, the navigation links
- they don't seem to have the title attribute and although it is not essential, I recommend that it is put in and used just simply because it helps the user...

OK, will do. I had them in the body links, but you're right.

Thanks for the good crit.

Change your body link colours. They're underlined, which is their only salvation. But given the small font size, they're still hard to detect. You have such a lovely range of rich colours to choose from -- oranges, reds, perhaps blue too as a secondary colour -- so use one for the links.

Otherwise, it's looking good. Well done on the CSS and valid HTML. Why don't you try XHTML?

Quote: Change your body link colours. They're underlined, which is their only salvation. But given the small font size, they're still hard to detect. You have such a lovely range of rich colours to choose from -- oranges, reds, perhaps blue too as a secondary colour -- so use one for the links.

Good point - will do. Also, I'm moving the text size up from 62.5% to 75%, (about 12pt), and changing it to veranda (more legible.)

Quote: Otherwise, it's looking good. Well done on the CSS and valid HTML. Why don't you try XHTML?

Thanks. What are the advantages of XHTML? Is there any difference at the moment?

BTW: Like your sites!

I like "::AFFORDABLE:: ::VISUAL:: :DYNAMIC::" so make each one into a link to pages that tells us how affordable, how visual and how dynamic your sites are.
I'd be tempted to make it wider and potentially lose...?
Change font or text size.
Looks very professional , fresh and inviting.
Well done.
JB

Quote:
Originally posted by Abhishek Reddy:
Usually, I'd list a whole bunch of advantages regarding CSS, but you've already discovered that. XHTML just goes hand in hand with CSS -- it's more accessible, and it's theoretically superior. With XHTML, you're discouraged from using s for layouts, employing tags, and you're compelled to be stricter with how precisely you open and close tags. For example, you have to "close" tags by using , and replaces . XHTML just makes more sense; it's a lot more XML-like. Consequently, you separate content and style better, present the important text in a cleaner, semantically sensible way.

I like it! XHTML here I come...
BTW, I've got content style and structure seperate: using perl/flatfile database. I'd really recommend it, its so easy to handle.

Quote:
Originally posted by jbxel:
I like "::AFFORDABLE:: ::VISUAL:: YNAMIC::" so make each one into a link to pages that tells us how affordable, how visual and how dynamic your sites are.

Thats a great idea, thanks.

Quote: I'd be tempted to make it wider and potentially lose...?

Loose as in liquid? I find that complete liquidity can get a bit out of control, so I sacrificed some for design. It is only 655px wide, so it will work well on any resolution. For this reason, I don't want it to be wider.

Quote: Change font or text size.

I've now done that.

Quote: Looks very professional , fresh and inviting.
Well done.
JB

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

As previously mentioned, the top header is terrible. The font is uninspired, the symbol is confusing and forgettable, the colour is bland etc. What you might want to try is looking for a good stock photo to use as a base. Something like A List Apart does with their header area. They've actually got paintings there but you get the point.

From there down the design looks good. I agree about the photos being confusing though. Visually they look really good but the content doesn't relate.

Looking at the menu, I think it should be restyled so the text looks less like plain text and more like menu links.

I also think that the font size in the content area is way too small. I can't believe how often I have talked about this on here. You may be young with good eyesight, but not everyone is like you. Who is your target audience? They're probably adults. They may likely be over the age of 45. You know, people who aren't very tech-savvy. What do people over the age of 45 have in common? They need reading glasses! They can't read tiny text. Make your text easy for them to read! While I'm talking about text, some of your lists (particularly on the services page) don't look like lists! Why??? You've got them marked up as lists, but there are no bullet points to define them visually.

BTW, everything works fine and looks good in Opera 7.5. Good job on the code! Validates perfectly

I like the design its good

The portfolio section has each site you designed, flipped on its side. I didnt really like that. Maybe modify the graphics so they sit proper

It looks good. I think that the colom width of the site is to narrow. You can make it 780px if you are worried about 800x600 dinosaurs.

You are killing the rest of us with those prices though