Since I've torn enough sites apart in my time, so it's only fair that I let you guys rip mine apart. Have at it any way you like: aesthetics, code, accessibility, etc. The url is http://www.infinitywebdesign.com/
I've also written up a little bit about the release on my personal site, if anyone is interested.
Originally posted by Vladdy Other than ... I have nothing to complain about (which knowing me - is a HUGE compliment)
Yes it is, and it was taken as such.
Originally posted by Vladdy BTW, I see nothing in the design that would prevent using font units for element sizes to make the design scalable.
Perhaps that will be version 4.1 The original plan was to make a liquid layout, but as design elements started falling into place, the variability that liquid layout bring was rather undesireable. An elastic layout is a thought, though.
I really like the "rice paper" look you have implemented and as samij586 could testify I'm not that big on patterns.
Yeah, the italized words need to be a darker colour, I'm sure that this is not a text-decoration but <em>, or for semantic purposes should be. And since it is near the same colour as your link hover, I can see some getting these two mixed up.
Also, your bottom footer graphic keeps attracting my attention, for some reason I keep mousing over the graphic thinking its an anchor. Probably because it looks like an underline .
And finally, I saw your other works on the previous portfolio, so I know that your earlier designs aren't as sophisticated, but shouldn't they be presented as well? At the very least they can be used as a chronological timeline showing your progress. Potential clients may look the other way if all they see are examples of personal works and not previous clientel. After all this v4.0 right? What did the first three versions do? It suggests that you've been in the business for a while now, but haven't had any customers. Someone is bound to ask why.
Originally posted by tonyh Yeah, the italized words need to be a darker colour, I'm sure that this is not a text-decoration but <em>, or for semantic purposes should be.
You lost me on that one. What do semantics and the color of the <em> have to do with anything? Thanks for the suggestions on the color, though. I may darken it a bit.
Originally posted by tonyh Also, your bottom footer graphic keeps attracting my attention, for some reason I keep mousing over the graphic thinking its an anchor.
There are links in the footer.
Originally posted by tonyh It suggests that you've been in the business for a while now, but haven't had any customers. Someone is bound to ask why.
There are a few projects that I am in the middle of that will end up in the portfolio. Frankly, I'd rather not have my older work showcased next to my newer stuff, as some of it (the older work) is very unprofessional.
Originally posted by Vladdy pyro, out of curiousity, what monitor do you use when developing???
A Samsung 150s LCD monitor. I'd like to get something with better color, as soon as I can afford it. Why? Do the colors look weird?
1. I think you should make the navigation menu in em's, because if you increase the font size, it kind of screws it up.
2. You have accesskeys, but the usr has no way of knowing that they exist. You should underline/bold the accesskey character in each link.
Originally posted by pyro I tried that. It messes the hell out of the naviagtion bar.
setting #nav ul li a's height to 1.6em allows it to go 8 mousewheels of font size up before the layout breaks at all (and at that point its only because Portfolio is a long word), granted, I only tested this in mozilla, but it seemed to do the trick there
Also, one more thing: I think you should have a bottom glow at the foot the pages for pages that don't have enough content to scroll. For example, hosting. As you can see, the glow effect looks rather cut off or discontinued, and it looks like it's missing something at the bottom...
Due to my "scan-lineish" (??) background, I'm not sure how well this would work. I can give it a try, because it if would work, it would indeed be better. I actually switched the background just yesterday, and with the old background, there's no way it would have worked. It may work, but it usually does not with backgrounds like mine (check out photomatt.net to see what I mean - some pages look find, some don't. It all depens on the page's length). Since mine has some noise added, and the colors aren't very pronounced, it might work.