Hello! If anyone would be willing to critique the layout, color scheme, and functionality of my airsoft site I'd really appreciate it! w ww.airsoftica.com
The site loaded fairly quickly. The color scheme and functionality of the site are good. The only thing that I didn't like was that you show real people in your header graphic, but then have cartoon characters right below it. Other than that - I think it's good. Nice job.
Looks like there's lots of stuff squeezed in at the loaded page. Not a bad thing though .The two things that bugs me are, 1) The search bar in the header get in the way of the header picture, it kind of spoils the header image. A relocation should fix it but the question is where to 2) The double row navigation is kind of messy. The header is already small enough and the navigation kind of takes up a lot of space. Only just my opinion
Not bad, but still need to improve this site. I think, your site is powered by word press. So, u can take help from some word press professional.
Initially the site looks great! The overall layout is decent and you have a good mix of text and graphics. A deeper look reveals that some work could be done on a few things: Fix your CSS (21 errors) Fix your XHTML (190 errors!) The page would take a 56k user 153 seconds to load!!! Enable gzip compression optimize your images use CSS rollovers instead of graphics (also boosts search rankings) Combine and eliminate javascripts, there are 11 different script files being loaded. this file is defined by the CSS but doesn't seem to exist: www.airsoftica.com/wp-includes/js/thickbox/macFFBgHack.png setup a real 404 page
Thanks for all of the reviews! I'm working on reducing the number of XHTML, JS, & CSS errors as this will help the site become W3C compliant. I heard that W3C compliance helps with SERPS and SEO and whatnot, as well as just helping out cross-platform uniformity. As far as taking 156 seconds to load, it's a bullet I'll have to bite. I've toned down the graphic quality on most of the pics but that's as low as it can decently go. What do you mean by CSS rollovers? I'd like to hear more about that. Thank you for pointing out that I do indeed still lack a 404 page.
this link may help some with finding the objects creating the most drag http://www.websiteoptimization.com/cgi-bin/wso/wso.pl?url=http://www.airsoftica.com/ CSS rollovers are a method using text links a CSS to replace images. These sites may help: http://www.designmeme.com/articles/cssrollovers/ http://www.alistapart.com/stories/rollovers/ You could also consider using CSS slicing to place several smaller images into a single file.
Okay rep +added! I redid the style to match what some of you told me. Let me know if this is better than before.
awesome. I see a huge difference on the surface! I would still try to fix all the validation errors (CSS) (XHTML) (this will improve render time, enhance search engine performance and give the site a more professional attitude) You've really improved the load time (almost 50 seconds better), that's great. I would still suggest seeing about enabling gzip compression All of the main body links seem to be set to white for hover/rollover but that makes most of them disappear The post you're showing on the main page is quite long, but has three videos at the bottom. Instead of placing them at the bottom, consider including them in different places thru the article/review to break up the monotony of the big blocks of text. The 404 page is great! Maybe offer the user a search box on the page?