www.webworksent.com/houseoftara


its a site im still working on. pls review just the home page.

i am trying to make the site as light as possible that's why some things are not animated.

from a bird's eye view:

I would say that for your photo gallery, you should have the picture popup, either lightbox style, or in a smaller window/layer as opposed to a brand new page in which case I have to manually click back to get back to the gallery page. If the client insists, then provide a "back to gallery page" and/or "back to home page" link at the bottom of each photo.

I hope this helps

thanks man, acctually the gallery is in flash where you have all the pictures on the left in thumbnails and u click to see a larger view on the right. this is just a demo for the interface of the site. there are a bunch of other things not included on the site like music animations etc. but thanks anyway.

Nice Design. Quite stylish. I like the style of the site plus the colors fit the description of the service offered.

Seems u wanted those particular fonts in the site and decided to use images to show the font as it is. I'll agree with Prodgal son and say maybe u shud try using flash. Or use other fonts that are similar and more popular.

Your gallery seems a little out of place, maybe u can try Pink borders on the pictures to match some of the elements in your design. I'll also suggest that you download Magic Lantern v1.0 from http://www.urbannetfibre.com/magiclantern (its free), and use the 'pinkslip' skin. It will go nicely with the theme of your site. You can also put the images in the gallery for download in a magic lantern slideshow (in a zip file) as a "take home gift" for visitors to download.

I love your work. Keep it up.

thanks all. i'll take note of all these and let y'all know when im done.

-Prod, can i compress the sound before using the flash stuff? to reduce the size more without affecting the quality?thanks

i'm working on the mp3 streaming now.

email : adesanyakofo@yahoo.com (prefered), adesanyakofo@gmail.com, adesanyakofo@hotmail.com, adesanyakofo@webworksent.com

thanks

hi guys, can u please review this too?

www.webworksent.com/ocular

Disclaimer: I browse exclusively in FF

- In the product section, I think you should separate the 2 products in green so as to make for better readability.

- The "Services" text is butting up against the "welcome" text ("home page" and "about us".

- The ocular minds graphic in the "service" section is also chopping off the last sentence in that section.

- The "solutions driven software" graphic is blocking your contact info on the home page.

- Finally, and this is more of a personal preference , is it possible to set some kind of cookie for the header so that once it has been determined that the flash has loaded once, it doesn't "flash" on subsequent pages? It was kind of distracting to me having to concentrate on the content with the page loading. Same applies to the phone logo on the home page.

Overall, the site meets my KISS criteria

That's all for now. Good job and good luck! As u jus dey release sites every 2 weeks, abi u need help?

bros, i no dey design site every 2 weeks o! ocular minds has been in my portfolio for sometime now. and thanks for the review. its not easy designing for different browsers really. i personally dont like firefox. event with all its awards. so i dont really know where to check in order to see the things you complained about. but i'll try a friends system. thanks again

Having looked at your code again, I know exactly what the problem is: You are using absolute positioning and both IE and FF treat positioning differently.

If you used FF for development and had one particular really cool plugin, the web developer tool, you would have been able to narrow down the problem very quickly. For one, you can edit CSS and HTML inline via the browser and immediately see how your change affects the page layout.

To get rid of your problem, you are going to have to use a hack. There are many kinds (I will list some here, and give a few examples. I don't know their technical names but google will probably do a better job): CSS conditional statement, using "!important" and using "html>body". The 2nd and 3rd options is what you would use for FF exclusively. The first I blv is something that works in IE. So you could say (in pseudocode. Again, refer to google), "if gte IE7, do stuff".

For the last 2, let's say you have layer77 with its positions. To take care of it in both browsers, you could do:

top: 50px !important;
top: 45px;

This tells FF to position layer77 at 50px from the top, but 45px for IE. From my experience, you have to list the "!important" line first for this hack to work properly.

The next hack:
div#layer77 {
top 50px;
}

html>body div#layer77 {
top: 60px;
}

the first one tells IE what to do while the second one is for FF.

Out of curiousity, why use positioning and not just let the divs flow naturally? Also, why make those headers in flash and not plain old images? I am sure you have your reasons but I am just curious as to why. Your way will be hard to maintain on the client's end.

If I were to redo this page, I would probably have 2 column containers floated left and within each container, have the divs for each section. Hopefully, you are using includes, in which case, making changes will require minimal effort:

<div id="container">
<div id="left-column" style="float: left;">
<div id="1">Welcome to our site</div>
<div id="2">Our services</div>
</div>
<div id="right-column" style="float: left;">
<div id="3">Welcome to our site</div>
<div id="4">Our services</div>
</div>

<br style="clear:both;" />
</div>

Of course, you would move the inline styles to a CSS file. And since each inner div would have the same xtics, you could probably turn my ids into one class with its xtics having a header image (which you could create using an H1 tag with a background for SEO reasons, if you must use an image) and body text.

Positioning, from my experience, can be a pain and I would highly discourage its use unless you absolutely have to use it. From your design, I would say you don't have to.

I hope this helps.

wow, all this for firefox? i'll try it sha. thanks

Yep, but it's worth it.

In general, it may seem a bit much but hey, you want all the users possible right? You want to be able to put out a website that is based on web standards so that everyone, and not just the 80% who use IE, has access to it. By the "long tail" principle, you will probably make more money off of the 10 or so % combined than from the 80% who use firefox.

I pretty much rewrote your site in my previous post. If you take the time upfront to plan the site architecture, by laying out all the pages on the floor and coming up with a uniform approach, you can eliminate a lot of potential pitfalls. Spend the time to do it right once and not have to worry about refactoring or giving your client premature balding cos of code that is hard to maintain. First off, you should never, except in one-off situations, write your styles inline. Sure, there are 1001 ways of doing things, which is why I asked of your approach, but some approaches are better than others.

Besides, as a web developer, you owe it to yourself to code for all major browsers anyways