Please review it as you see fit, but my main question is, at a glance does the site explain itself enough about our product ? URL: audio-adverts.com
For me I think you need a graphic/image that will represent audio, coz for me that will explain more on your product.. And also I kind it hard to read on those light blue text.
I'm not really a fan of the hyphen in the url and it is because it would be hard for people to find your site easier. If you want to change some stuff to make it look better, then I suggest you make the headlines and the tabs to stand out a bit more. Other than that it looks fine.
Thanks for the suggestions... I have taken all the advise here and well basically I have redesigned the site completely.
The site looks great now, good job. The only criticism I have is the grammar/spelling. If you want anyone to take your business seriously you'll need to fix it up.
I agree with Ponynugget, your site is awesome, use a spell checker before you upload the pages. If someone sees a mis-spelt word they may think its fraud or useless etc.
Again thanks to all that took part in this thread, to you @Ponynugget I would really appreciate it if you could point our the spelling/grammar errors ? Maybe I have already fixed those, some of witch where IP script related.
Ooh, engrish moist goodry. Get a professional writer in there to review your copy. As to the site it self, crappy little fixed-width stripe for no good reason... I think I'm seeing render bugs at large fonts/120 dpi, and the inconsistant use of fonts and spacing makes it look piecemeal. 14 validation errors, I've seen worse of late - however the codebase is a decade out of date. 9 tables on a layout that even AS tables shouldn't need more than one. DIV's around elements that don't need them, classes thrown around willy-nilly, not a proper heading tag to be found anywhere, and a completely absurd overuse of deprecated presentational tags. You've got empty paragraph tags and entity spaces doing CSS's job, presentational images in your markup, and little or no image-off graceful degredation. The bad code is evident by the filesize - a 16k HTML file for 1.7k of markup. There's no good reason for the HTML for the home page to be more than 5k, with maybe 5 to 7k of CSS for the entire site. This one falls into the category of "There's more of 1998 to this site than 2008"
@deathshadow I really appreciate your criticisms and I'm aware of the bad English, thats mainly why I created this thread to see if the product was explained etc.. I will take your advice and have the home page written some time soon. As for the sites errors, I'm using software called xsite pro which I would have thought is pretty modern, I would really like to get to the bottom of your comments, so could I ask for your suggestions ?
Ah, that would explain a lot - 99.99% of such things generate garbage code that /FAIL/ on so many levels that once you understand HTML/CSS, you realize that their use of the word 'professional' is so inappropriate that it's akin to someone in their freshman year of college claiming to have a full understanding of their major. Xsite's website has all the problems I listed and more. No image off degredation, no CSS off degredation, undersized fonts, bloated nested tables, a horde of javascript thrown into the codebase that isn't actually doing anything that CSS can't already do, presentational images in the markup, invalid markup (13 validation errors) and hordes of deprecated tags. Again, more of 1998 to it than 2008. It's really a shame any halfwit with a decade out of date skills set can have the nerve to label their rubbish as professional, then lure people like you into using their software. Sometimes they just need corporate backing like adobe, other times you just need to incorporate and slap up a very pretty but miserable accessability website like Intellimon did. Programs like Xsite Pro are a shortcut - you take shortcuts, you're rolling the dice. Web development is WORK, you aren't willing to put in the work to learn the technologies and do it right, you aren't doing professional grade stuff. 90% of your WYSIWYG editors and frameworks, like Intellimon, prey on the ignorance of new users and people unwilling to put the time in to do it right.
Ok so apart from the fact that you know more about HTML/CSS then the rest of us asking for reviews etc... do you have any further points or is that as far as your review goes ?
Nice site, i do think tho it needs a tagline to spell out what you do eg "we put sound clips on your site 4 advertising" etc
Well, I only really pointed out what's wrong - that's usually what a review should do as the stuff that's RIGHT doesn't NEED to have anything done to it. Just going "great site" is less constructive than "look at this pile of crap" - though a good review should be somewhere in-between. If something is crap, you call it crap - but explain WHY. That's what I do - Someone asks for a review I list what's wrong (IMHO) with the page. There are a number of things I didn't mention because they aren't problems; You've got 'enough' copy so fix the language issues and that's good. The layout concept is good: Header, top menu, sidebar, content area, footer - no real shockers there. You do NOT have the color contrast issues a lot of designs encounter, the page is NOT bloated out with monstrous unneccessary images, and the actual sizes of the fonts are acceptable. Oh, one thing I didn't mention that is a problem - you've got a lot of scripting doing nothing for you. The use of javascript to generate the menu for example is an accessability /FAIL/ since not everyone browses with javascript on, and scripted menus prevent search engines from indexing the site properly.
Hmm.. thats something I was unaware of, I'll see if the software has an alternative. So far I have rewritten the home page a little, cleaned up the html and its validating on all pages, but with 3 warnings... anyway thanks again for your time and to the others who took part in this thread. PS: Tip for Galway today : Green Mile