Can you please review my design work?

[Rand]

Hello all,

As you can see i'm new here.
I really need a review for my Pennsylvania Employment Law website-design since it's usually really not my style.

Say everything you think please! i'm begging you for it, don't be easy with me...
Thanks!

[dillankid]

I say VERY well done. Colors are great, graphics are excellent (simple and well put together.) The Design itself is great and seems to work perfectly on all browsers.

[Snookerman]

The first thing that came to my mind was that the page is really narrow. Most of the users nowadays have quite wide screens. I would recommend a width of around 900 pixels, 960 being the best choice for various reasons.

[Twey]

The design's nice but the implementation's terrible.

I would recommend a width of around 900 pixels, 960 being the best choice for various reasons.

If you're trying to decide what width in pixels to make your page, you're already doing it wrong. Nothing on your page should be pixel-sized — doing so immediately destroys all hopes of flexibility and resolution-independence you might have had. HTML is not a visual medium: it's semantic. Treating it as if it were visual will give you a lovely, static site... on one system, for one user. If your users have a different system, or need to modify how it's displayed, or have disabilities, they're screwed. Additionally, you're using pseudo-XHTML Transitional, and it's not valid even as that. Fix it: use HTML 4.01 Strict, and make it validate.

Edit: On second thoughts, the hard lines and harsh orange at the bottom don't really go with the pastel colours and gradients at the top. It does occur in the header too, but it's somewhat offset there.

[Snookerman]

If you're trying to decide what width in pixels to make your page, you're already doing it wrong. Nothing on your page should be pixel-sized — doing so immediately destroys all hopes of flexibility and resolution-independence you might have had.

I guess I should have been more clear. I said "around" 900 pixels meaning that something close to that value is better the the current one. I mentioned 960 pixels since I noticed the current site has a fixed width and I assumed that a flexible width site might be too difficult for the designer to handle. Widening the page would be much more simpler than rewriting it.

[Twey]

It would, but it would not solve the main problem (and would break compatibility with small resolutions as a result).

[JasonDFR]

Took me 5 secs to figure out where I need to click to return to the home page. Most of that time was spent clicking on the header logo to no avail.

[X96 Web Design]

Good Design,

The pages are a bit bogged down with text, but it's fine. The colour scheme is great, and design is appropriate for the firm.

Good Job!

// X96 WD