layout is 'busy' making document flow and sections... hard to follow/navigate. Red links on green background in sidebar illegible to sighted person, much less that it violates color-blind rules. In general the contrast between text and color is too low, so that's just bad accessability. Absurdly undersized fixed size fonts means large fonts/120dpi users have to use a browser like opera to zoom in 50% or more Fixed width design that's not 800 wide friendly - on a layout that could just as easily have a fluid center column and semi-fluid layout (I'd not go full fluid, there's not enough content) Header area WAY too big, at 1024x768 the actual CONTENT, you know, the stuff people go to websites to see - is pushed off the first page needing at least one full page-down to see anything 'meaningful' on the page. Left Sidebar has obvious categories, yet this appears to be styled as a single flat list. Making the categories headers and indenting their subcontent would clarify what right now is a confusing jumble. No indicators of the current page in the title or menu, combined with the content being 'off screen' makes the menu look like it doesn't do anything on displays with less than 960 pixels height available. ... and that's just the appearance. The code - first up no doctype, so welcome to hacking around IE being in quirks mode and throwing silver bullet fixes at broken code.. EMPTY title tag, it's obviously HTML 3.2 leading to the question "What is this, 1997?" - inlined styling with a perfectly good stylesheet available, Javascripted menu rubbish, inlined script for barely any functionality that wouldn't be better served server side, urchin before the content instead of after, Steaming pile of ashx scripts, tables with inlined presentation, tables nesting single elements, 74 tables on a layout that even AS tables shouldn't need more than ... uhm... ONE. More stupid javascript tricks, presentational images in the markup... and of course the prerequisite 157k of markup for 15k of actual content - which by my guesstimates should be less than a FIFTH the current filesize. Do me a favor, and relate this to your 'friend': The layout is an eyesore jumbled mess, and as to the code, there is more of 1997 to it than 2008. Codewise - If they spent that good deal of money in 1997, they got a bargain. If they spent that good deal of money between 1998 and 2003, they broke even. If they spent for that 2004 or later, they got ripped off and should sue whoever did it for ineptitude.... and if they got that done after 2006 - Where's my shotgun? We need to put someone down like Old Yeller. Design-wise, they got ripped off WHENEVER it was made.
It almost looks like a web2.0 site without the web2.0 stuff to go along with it Those flashing images must go...
Flashing images? Oh, sheesh, I browse with plugins disabled, I didn't even see all the flashtard manure.