My site, please review!

[mcguiver178]

I recently launched my site, but I did it fast and without thinking, I would love to recieve any reviews about the layout and/or content. So please throw in some possitive critics !!

http://www.roberto-motta.com

thanks everyone :)

[TheDoc]

Your background image is 2.28MB – this needs to be lowered significantly!

[Blackhawkso]

Very nice looking site. I’m liking your nav animation not too over the top. I have to agree with everyone else that you really could do with doing something about your background image just takes too long to load.

[snillor]

I must agree that the pages load too slowly – that’ll turn off many visitors.

Also agree that it’s a nice, clean, and simple design that is easy to grasp at a glance. Nice textures, good use of transparency too.

The bright colors in the background are a little garish for my tastes, but that’s probably just me.

If the goal of your site is to get you more web design customers, I’d recommend fixing the HTML errors (26 of them per the W3C, most of which are easily corrected) and the CSS errors (9 per the W3C validator; 6 of them are not real errors and the other 3 are easily fixed). The reason I suggest this is because, IMHO, having errors on your site sends the wrong message to potential customers. If I was looking for a web designer/developer, the first thing I’d do is check his/her website. And if I found a number of easily-correctable errors I would quickly decide to find someone else who is a little more detail-oriented and produces valid markup and CSS.

[snillor]

andy_unleash

You’re absolutely right that many errors that the W3C validators spit out are either not really errors (buggy or not up-to-date validator?) or inconsequential. It’s the more serious, legitimate errors (that you and I both saw) that should be addressed.

It’s hard (and I’d even say unnecessary) to achieve 100% validation, but it’s important to have properly formed markup and CSS.

[Author]

Posts