Hello there

Just resize your browser window to any size smaller than the width of your header content - you'll find that the translucent background for the header (and footer) does not extend across the page - scroll right and see.

You'll want to use a min-width or something.

PS. This isn't really an _error_, per se, but more of a usability issue (should that have been an "an" ? Technically it should be "an usability..", but it felt wrong.. pooh)

The slideshow thing. It doesn't have any navigation on it - add some code so that users can move around + play/pause it (eg. if someone wants to take another look at something).

I have three serious issues with the site:

1. The never ending animation is annoying beyond belief. On my machine, a less than cutting edge model, the animation is jerky. This is especially obvious as the sequence goes from last to first images. I understand that lots of designers are enamored of movement for some reason; influenced by Flash and, the gods help us, gif sequences. Using javascript (and lots of people are also in love with jQuery) is the poorest choice for animations of this type.

2. Look as I might, I found only the sub-menus in the footer had structured, semantic markup. Since, except for one bit in the header and another in the footer, the page is nothing but lists, why is it marked up with non-semantic, overly nested <div> elements? Re-code the page with semantically correct structural containers.

3. Have you viewed the page with images disabled? There is nothing there. Your image replacement method breaks the page when images, but not css, are disabled. When both are disabled, the text shows, but then the page is only a series of links except for one small statement in the footer, a location that implies it's not all that important.

cheers,

gary

I'd be interested to hear what you think is the correct choice for this type of thing as it's quite a common feature on websites these days.

As much as I hate to, I have to give props to Flash for this type of animation.

cheers,

gary

But surely the likelihood of a Flash animation of this type being created correctly so that the content is accessible to non-visual readers is likely to be far less than if it's marked up in plain HTML with js providing the movement? I'd be inclined to think that you're more likely to be able to massage the js to ease the jerkiness (it could just be a case of using the jQuery Easing plugin) than you are to make a similar Flash file accessible to everyone.

Sorry to chip in, not my place really, but regarding Tyssen/Gary's conversation I'm afraid to confess I'm now also a lover of JQuery for page animations/slideshows etc... Particularly compared to Flash.

My only problem in this scenario is that it's practically the whole page cycling which after a short while actually seems to make me feel a little dizzy oddly. Perhaps Fade In/Fade Out would be better with such a large sized box?

Good point Burlster. The fade-in/out would be less annoying, but not ideal.

As to accessibility, it's not accessible now. If images are disabled, the page is broken to the point of not being usable at all for anyone.

If tweaking the js will help the image transitions, fine. That does not remove the constant animation irritation factor, though.

cheers,

gary