deathshadow, thanks for answering and for your comments. I am not taking the "stupid" and such comments personally, I am a marketing+coding guy (which makes for a strange hybrid - hehe), so we're used to rejection, I consider it just a learning experience. My point was that you make VERY VALID points, but there is no need to use words like "stupid" in your post at all, just as there is no real reason to use obfuscation in my code... Perhaps there isn't, but it's just part of my work process. All my code is actually generated by python scripts, as I actually work in python behind the lines; and my code goes through an obfuscation and packing stage (you probably noticed the XXX_pak.XX filenames in my sources) just before it sends the generated pack to my server for deployment for public consumption. . Hey you probably have a great point here, I am not denying it. But the very small variation on contrast was intentional: Some sites have so much contrast they make my eyes bleed, and I did not want that. Sorry if I do not point to my original "inspiration" here, don't want to be sued for some reason - although I totally re-written their original code. Simply liked their work, and re-done it for my purpose. So that's not their problem. From your screencapture (thanks for posting it, it's very informative !!) that's exactly how it should look, so rendering and layout are 100% Ok. The only problem I can see is the size: what on my netbook fills the entire screen and a bit more, on your side only fills 1/4 of your screen If you did not understand that you are supposed to click on the "Product,Gallery,Demo,..." buttons to call various "pages" (which here are all rendered on the same page, I don't like re-doing the server round-trip with each page, so AJAX-ing even when I could do without, ) then that is my design fault, perhaps. Though the "original inspiration" had this exact same design and behavior, and I had no problem figuring that part out. So I'm probably losing some folks there. Sorry for automatically starting the video. The story here is this: I am actually a moderator on another very popular IM forum (no, not WF, another one). When I first released the site you are seeing, the first coment from my forum was that I should make the video autostart (initially it did not). So as you see, I listen to my feedback seriously, and I follow it when I find it valid. I never delude myself into thinking that I am an expert in anything, even if I've been doing this for long long time (started in 95 or so), so I guess in some fields I became one just by pure sweat equity. I live and die by Firebug, best thing since slice bread Obviously, the browser must understand "obfuscated" code in order to render it. So what you see is "rendered" html+js+css, or how your browser understood it. It's still "obfuscated", but that does not make it totally opaque to inspection. Just a tad more difficult, that's all. You can read my source code, but I'm just not making it easier for you to do so. frames ... yikes! yes, one main reason for my use of jquery is this exact argument: to avoid all the browser-specific spaghetti-code. Apparently IE didn't read that memo... and I don't have time to debug it, never use the thing myself in the first place. Can't please everybody, it would seem Ok, let's just say that's maybe personal style. I know, some gurus emerge here and there (you mentioned a few names in your posts), but I don't really follow any specific religion. If I find something useful, I'll use it, if not, if not, I won't. So admittedly my code is not embracing the latest fad or whatever: use this tag and not the other, use ICO and not PNGs, and so on. Totally guilty here, my friend. regarding IFRAME tags, you should complain to youtube, I never use such tags myself. regarding duplicating ID and CLASS attributes, that's my python scripts who generate that, too lazy to correct it I guess, besides: that specifically does not take too much bandwidth overall. If my code is not as compact as it should, it generally is because the code was generated by some python script on my devel server. the 5-page site IS simple despite appearances: if it looks like spaghettios on your site, the reason is the obfuscator and the python scripts who generate it. If you don't see any semantic meaning in my source-code, well that's a GOOD thing: you are NOT supposed to look at my sources, that's for "browser' eyes" only, and most everyone never waste a moment in going through my source-code to begin with, so no real harm here. I think I addressed this earlier. Google for what obfuscation really means ... browsers MUST understand obfuscated code, else there's no point! Obfuscation only makes it a tad more difficult for humans, but that's obviously no real protection for a motivated coder with lots of time on his hand. I never pretended otherwise... yes, this is your best point: my site DOES break on large screens, as I did not cover that, possibly if I'd have such humongous screens as you, I would have hit my head on that wall, and code accordingly. Apparently coding on netbooks does have its limits, and you just pointed out one. Well done, and thanks!! Correct! My time being a finite resource, I missed that part. Or rather I put that on a lower priority, but X-browser compatibility will have to be addressed... eventually. So far I am focusing on Chrome and FFox compatibility. I see that my site renders perfectly on your side - which is a good thing - the only hiccup being the sizes ... so I should maybe code some re-sizing function according to your screen resolution ... I really did not focus on that, sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. well, I don't know if my site there deserves all that attention, not sure that I have that much time to put into it (most of my time is sucked by the actual Squizmore web-app, and if you did not like my use of JS in here, there's 50 times more on the web-app side, with obfuscation and TONS of generated code, and all that - so looking at THAT source code probably means that you definitely have no better things to do with your time, though I obviously appreciate the attention). Let's face it: only very few people (like you and other web coders), really cares about looking at my source-code. But you're not part of my niche, so that's Ok. As long as my code renders on my niche's browsers "good-enough", they'll be happy and so would I. So "good enough" is my goal. I know I unfortunately lost IE-aficionados, and nothing I can do about that right now ... which actually is a jquery problem (!!!), not my code. As you see, I am not. I very much appreciate your comments, and try to see beyond the colorful language. I just pointed out that removing adjectives such as "stupid" and "idiotic" from your posts - in my personal opinion - would only add value to the overall conversation, and to your excellent points (!!). I know that guys like good Ol' Bill Gates and pals's shout-fests became legendary, but to me that is all a tad too adolescent for my taste. Making great points without such colorful language to me is a sign of maturity. yes, love good ole' George. Band of Brothers is one of my favorite movies "ever" (like the Rome series I watched last evening ... again, but we're going way off-topic now). But see, George might have been the best man on the allied's side (just as Erik Manstein was the best on the other side ... yes, believe it or not but I actually read Manstein's biography ... thrice ... it's called "Lost Victories" and you should definitely check this out if you like such topic ... but we're totally off-topic now - haha, so stopping that here) but George's language put him in trouble more than once. Didn't he lost his command because of that (and hitting a soldier)? Since a forum is not an army, diplomacy has greater value here. Ok, I believe we probably lost most of the other readers in this thread, haha. sorry guys, ok let's go back to the initial topic. Cheers!