Looks Simple and Clean. Just thought to bring to your notice; Font is mistmatched with the content and button "More Notice". They both are from diffent family.
Again a site offering Amazon products only. 908.4KB for a site not offering much content is too much. This is what Google Page Speed addon tells me: The following images are resized in HTML or CSS. Serving scaled images could save 506.3KiB (72% reduction). * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/large 01.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 1107x1200 to 137x85. Serving a scaled image could save 339.3KiB (99% reduction). * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/large 03.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 480x400 to 137x85. Serving a scaled image could save 87.9KiB (93% reduction). * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/615ST6IsuXL.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 500x376 to 137x85. Serving a scaled image could save 61.0KiB (93% reduction). * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/large green.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 600x400 to 600x375. Serving a scaled image could save 9.6KiB (6% reduction). * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/61uOzvgcxEL__SL160_.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 160x160 to 142x140. Serving a scaled image could save 2.6KiB (22% reduction). * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/51cbSZzVokL__SL160_.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 160x160 to 142x140. Serving a scaled image could save 2.0KiB (22% reduction). * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/51eVT7OKHtL__SL160_.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 159x160 to 142x140. Serving a scaled image could save 1.6KiB (21% reduction). * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/61SxHq0YOdL._SL160_.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 160x142 to 142x140. Serving a scaled image could save 1.4KiB (12% reduction). * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/51l2pEpPDrL__SL160_.jpg is resized in HTML or CSS from 160x127 to 142x140. Serving a scaled image could save 902B (11% reduction). --- Optimizing the following images could reduce their size by 58.3KiB (22% reduction). * Losslessly compressing http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/large green.jpg could save 24.1KiB (15% reduction). See optimized version or Save as. * Losslessly compressing http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/large 03.jpg could save 21.9KiB (23% reduction). See optimized version or Save as. * Losslessly compressing http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/details.jpg could save 12.3KiB (85% reduction). See optimized version or Save as. --- The following image(s) are missing width and/or height attributes. * http://www.giraffecomforter.com/images/details.jpg (Dimensions: 104 x 29) (5 uses) --- Validator tells me 181 errors. Check here for a report: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0 You use XHTML 1.0 Strict DOCTYPE. There is a lot of code to fix, lot's of graphics to compress. Design of the site is simple. It looks like a template, HTML code shows me: <!-- InstanceBegin template="/Templates/main_temp.dwt" codeOutsideHTMLIsLocked="false" --> Code (markup): Michael
I saw the footer, you're using a free template? Anyway, the product lists are very simple, even the color of the link which is blue. The product lists layout, you can do better. - Normally, the product title is vertically aligned-to top - on same level with the product image. - I agree that you should make more styling specially on the product lists on the main page, it will attract more potential customers or even just visitors to stay longer and browse your site. Make it more appealing and interesting. - Another note, use High-Res Product Images. Just having an attractive product Image - already attracts potential costumers. Sorry, on my browser - the featured images are COMPACTED in fixed size, it seems it's not proportionally resized, it looked bad. Make it proportionally sized. I love the last brown comforter. (I used to work on preparing product images for a window treatment website)
You have css inline and not in a separate file... what's that about? <li><a href="images/large 01.jpg"><img src="images/large 01.jpg" title="Grand Tetons" alt="" width="1107" height="1200" onmouseover="this.style.opacity=1;this.filters.alpha.opacity=100" onmouseout="this.style.opacity=0.4;this.filters.alpha.opacity=70" /></a></li> Code (markup): Why use javascript to do a job that CSS can do?
Design is too simple, pictures are blurry and destorted, you have no logo, category page is all destorted on my computer, my advice is: Find a new script and rebuild evrything
The biggest problem is pictures, need more modifications. good pictures always can encourage people to purchase.
OMGosh Michael, I wish I knew half of what you did to find out the info in this post! (not kidding or being a punk... totally serious!) - If you're in SoCal... lemme buy you a beer and download a bit of your brain (the bit with all the tech info). Anyway... as I loaded this site, I thought the same thing that you came up with analytics for. It's simple and loads waaaaayyy too slowly for such a simple site. Good info Michael!
On the speed issue there's one more thing. The server is not gzipping content which can increase the speed dramatically. Especially on slower connections. But you do need access to servers configuration to activate it AFAIK. If your host does not enable it by default you might consider changing hosts.