Hi with the sidebar on the laft-hand side, I think there could be more room between that and the main content - looks a little squashed if you know what I mean?
I love the colour's that are used, overall clean and good looking design. I personally wouldn't change anything about it!
It's hard to say a whole lot without seeing it actually as a real website live -- you know, a DESIGN. So far all you have is a bunch of pictures of what a site MIGHT look like... if those are screencaps, you may or may not be ok -- if ALL you've been doing is dicking around in Photoshop, you may have already screwed the pooch and not even know it yet... How does it handle different screen sizes? Different font metrics? A lot of the design elements reek of fixed size design thinking in both widths and fonts, and that could bite you long term on the accessibility front. That's why drawing pictures in Photoshop is NOT web design no matter how many graphics design teachers and ignorant scam artists who don't know enough about HTML, CSS, emissive colourspace or accessible design to be designing a blasted thing for anyone say otherwise. Your very first image raises a BIG warning flag with me, in that you have "false simplicity" in the form of "PLACEHOLDER IS NOT A LABEL" -- you lose the label when you focus a field, and that's crap usability. It was artsy fartsy inaccessible bull when dispshits were doing it with JavaScript, it's artsy fartsy inaccessible bull when you do it with HTML 5's placeholder attribute. Some suggested reading: http://baymard.com/blog/false-simplicity http://www.webaxe.org/placeholder-attribute-is-not-a-label/ http://www.pardot.com/faqs/forms/placeholders-and-labels/ and of course the HTML 5 specification itself: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/forms.html#the-placeholder-attribute ... and I quote: "The placeholder attribute should not be used as a replacement for a label." Pay particular attention to the "informative" box below that... You also worry me with some of your light grey on white that are far below accessibility minimums. Don't know if you ever heard of it, but there's a formula for legible contrasts... you take the RGB of your background (or the median of your background - gaussian blur is good for determining that on complex ones) and foreground colours, and plug them into this: Y = 29.9% Red + 58.7% Green + 11.4% Blue Where the Y result is actually the luma component of the colour, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luma_(video) 50% difference between the two should be considered bare minimum -- and smaller thin fonts mixed with todays font smoothing technology can often make the ideal closer to 75% or more -- which admittedly can greatly limit your range of colour choices, but that beats the crap out of having people not being able to read your content. A nice side effect of this is that not only does it aid normally sighted people, you follow that formula and it's near impossible to come up with a combination the colour blind can't read. Those three side-by-side greyed out areas in the footer for example you've got what looks like is probably #BBBBBB on #FFFFFF, that's 187 and 255 luma respectively, for a difference of only 27% -- WAY below that 50% and most likely meaning around a quarter the population wouldn't even see text there. For a white background #7F7F7F should be considered the minimum, and if you're gonna go with baby sized thin glyph fonts, #444444 or darker should REALLY be considered your minumum. Your four columns of dark grey on light grey on the second image is similarly afflicted -- It's hard to say post-render with the font smoothing in place, but in the ballpark of #888 on #F4F4F4 is right up against the 50% "by the book" minimum, and with some of the "thin glyph" fonts strokes dipping as close as #BBB -- you've got some major legibility issues. Also, just a suggestion, avoid the goofy "three bar" hide and go seek mobile menu bull -- you're just making things HARDER to use and probably tying yourself to a waste of scripttardery and code ineptitude.