New Site

[dickie1]

Hi guys can you review this site for me and give any ideas how to improve.
www.mcivorweddinghire.co.uk
i am also thinking of adding a flash banner.
would this work?

[WebJoel]

(dickie1, I moved your post to Website reviews)
-------------------------

In Firefox, this is how the site appears (see screenshot image). In IE7, the last two words "Car Hire" are 'hidden'. There is an error happening here..

Also, "px" is CSS, cannot be used in "HTML" as you have it here:<img src="images/location2.jpg" height="400px" width="240px" border="0" alt="Find Us" /></a>

[dtm32236]

good use of whitespace, and a nice looking site...

just check out webjoel's comments and fix up the "car hire" thing.

the only thing that bothers me is on the 'see the cars' page... viewing the images is a little slow - i want to be able to cycle through them quickly and to just see the cars. right now, to see all 5 images takes entirely too long. i'd rather see something like this (http://www.dynamicdrive.com/style/csslibrary/item/css-image-gallery/)

good job with it though - it looks nice.

[dickie1]

thanks for yor suggestions.

www.mcivorweddinghire.co.uk

[dtm32236]

wow - much nicer....

i like the border around the site.

one thing - the Google search at the bottom... it looks like a google.com search, maybe you can clarify that it's a search for your site:

maybe something like "search this site [searchbar] 'powered by google'", ya know? something like that.

[WebJoel]

"Wedding Hire" and "Airport Transfer" links are still covered by HEADER text in Firefox and thus, these two links are unclickable. Users of any browser that is not IE, are thus denied access. This is fairly serious. :(

Also, -note screenshot image: your text in the content is "centered", but in IE, it is "left-aligned". I must assume that Firefox is correctly doing what the code says to do, and IE is incorrectly doinig what it thinks you meant to do...

[dtm32236]

whoa - what happened?

when i looked at it earlier, it looked perfect.

[Andorphin]

Hey everyone thanks for reviewing the site, goods points raised.

I am the designer of this site and it is my first attempt, and well yesterday I pretty much spent the whole day breaking it in everyway I possibly could, but hey getting there.

The text came over the nav menu because the font that was supposed to be used was edwardian script ITC, which isn't on every machine, so this has now been replaced with a new header image.

I have resolved the issue at the foot of the page where in FF and opera etc the google search was misaligned.

The google search is a web search, it is NOT for the site :- http://www.mcivorweddinghire.co.uk as I don't feel the need for an internal search as there is only about 8/9 pages to the whole site.

any further comments are appreciated

[dtm32236]

it looks nice (again)

good job...

i don't really see the point in having the validation logos or the google search at the bottom. most people don't know what the w3c is nor do they know what xhtml 1.0 means, and everyone knows what google.com is, and how to do a search there.

i'd also take advantage of the "Powered by SJM Design" and link it to your site (if you have one).

[Andorphin]

Thanks

THe validation are more for my ego because it is my first website and I am not a professional coder so I am quite proud that my code is compliant.

The Google search bar is just for extra revenue as I am not getting paid for this site, I though I would add subtle tools to generate a small income from it, and as above states I am not a pro so do not have my own site yet, had fun on this so might do in the future.

Any comments on if you think it is appropriate design for the genre?

Thanks

[dtm32236]

it looks good... i like it

[WebJoel]

'For one's own ego' is a good rationalization of including the "W3C" and "Valid XHTML" logos, -even those entities state something to this effect as "valid" does not necessarily mean or imply "correct" or "good". A "Good site" can still have some warnings or errors in the code, and a site that has NO warnings or NO errors, can still be "bad".
It's just that the code passes validation and as such, is viewable across the widest variety of user-agents (browers, hand-helds, text-to-speech readers, etc).