Need constructive criticism about new project www.coolpeopleshop.com Please do not comment on logo as we are in the process of changing it. Current logo design was just a quick job to start Any helpful pointers will be highly appreciated. Thank you
The site looks very professional. I would give it 8/10 for design and 9/10 for implementation. Personally i wouldnt change a thing.
I agree with everyone here. A very nice design and the content placement is great. The only problem I have is when browsing "Products" and I click something, the menu doesn't highlight where I am so it is very easy to get lost. This is especially a problem when I click something that is in a sub-menu.
Thanx for all your comments. Will try to implement more changes and more products. AA.WebDev.Ltd could you tell me more about your idea. Thank you all again. Cheers
1) I hate the backslapping 10 word message "good job" posters who give it nothing more than a casual glance... leaving me wondering if they're even looking at the site in question. 2) this probably belongs in the reviews section of the forums. 3) fixed width layout and px metric fonts on content areas makes it an accessibility train wreck... though thankfully you at least are using sufficient color contrast between the font and background. 4) The HTML 5 bloat, endless pointless javascript for christmas only knows what, static CSS inlined in the markup, and sheer volume of handshakes (almost three times the image count!) makes it painfully slow to watch load here, making me wonder if I'm back on dialup... I'd hate to see how painful it is to watch load at anything slower than 1mbps, given what it does on my 22mbps connect. 5) The endless, pointless classes and endless pointless wrapping div, static CSS inlined in the markup, static scripting inlined in the markup, malformed forms, have all the hallmarks of what I expect from a turdpress template... I'm a little shocked it only has 3 validation errors, though with HTML 5's loosening of the structural rules and setting coding practices back a decade or more -- I shouldn't be that shocked. That's exactly how one ends up with 60k of markup for 3.5k of plaintext and two dozen content images -- basically three times the markup that should be needed. But in general it's what I've come to expect from just slapping together a bunch of off the shelf plugins and saying "close enough" -- the end result? The advice I give people a lot "throw it out and start over, there's nothing worth saving from that"... and I mean that in terms of accessibility, functionality and maintainability. Only users with more bandwidth than God and the magical combination of the same font metric and resolution as it was designed for will find it useful.