Mary Jane Middleton wrote:
The page adapts well to increased font size.
The page looks okay without CSS.
The page looks okay without graphics.
1995-style table-base layout.
1995-style "tag soup" styling, mixed with CSS.
Basically a fixed width design. Barely fits in a 900px wide viewport.
"Transitional" doctype used for new work. Transitional is for lazy
people converting from html 3.2 and earlier.
You should choose which to use: HTML or XHTML. The markup has a mix of both.
Invalid markup: 166 errors.
<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.2createawebsi te.com%2F>
<style> in the <body> section.
Invalid syntax: class="box3 , small"
Main content text size set to less than 100%; it is set to 12px, 75% of
my preferred font size. I have to squint. And be annoyed that yet another
damn deezyner doesn't know the business.
Use of px and pt for font sizes. Neither are appropriate. Used ems or %.
I do not know what the Javascript is doing but it causes the browser
(Seamonkey) to hang for several seconds. No JS, no hang.
The markup is horrid. There is no excuse for such poor work especially
since you are promoting yourself as a learned web developer.
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)