A New site check Please,

i have checked it on IE3.2 and 4 and 5 (in addition to all the major actual browsers on winxp and linux debian were it looks obviously neat).

on IE 3.2 all the graphics defined in the css are obviously off, but content is perfectly usable and readable since you designed a very well structured website.

IE 4 displays a bit scrambled layout with contents following the navbar, but i guess if the user is not pleased by it, can upgrade to a more actual browser.

IE 5 and up is ok as IE6 and other browsers.

beside the site check, i'd like to congratulate with you for your tremendous work.
i really like the code. i was just wondering why transitional since it validates strict as well.

on a pure graphical pedantry i'd say to fix the background texture to mesh seamlessly with the layout border.

as a last thing, I suggest you to think about the enormous header.
you'll require at least 1024x768 to display the paragraph and on lesser resolutions you'll never see the contents unless a hard scroll is given.
consider a web site should present the main contents in the first viewport otherwise is out-of-the-market.
i'm sure that if you cared so wisely to code good and accessible, you'll manage to get a thinner and less obtrusive header to help content visibility.

bye
tripleshift

...

I'd agree with those two points. Graphically, I think the site looks great but I think the huge header becomes an annoyance after you've viewed the first page because you have to scroll to find any content. It seems to me that maybe you'd be better off having a smaller header on your inside pages.
Another small point: on the 'tour' page you have the text wrapping round your pix to the right. I used to work in newspapers and one of the things they always told us was to use that technique sparingly particularly when the width of the text beside the pic is much smaller than the width of the whole column because the eye has too far to come in the wrong direction (ie not left-right) when the pic ends.
Other than that, you might want to make your xhtml 1.0 | css 2.0 | wai | section 508 into links with titles so that people actually know what they mean cos otherwise they're just strange numbers and letters.

holds together really well on in FF 1.0.6 and Safari 2.0 on the mac as well.

Thanks for precious comments, but it did not work out, customer tought the older design was even better than this www.lamia.com.tr . Then I thanked god that I am not one of them and terminated the agreement.

Thanks again...

fools!

better luck next time

bye
tripleshift

...

Sorry if this has already been said. It looks good but the buttons on the left (WinXpSP2 FF) need a rollover effect, there's nothing I find more anoying than buttons that don't repsond to a mouse over, even a slight colour change would be good feedback. That goes for all your links, users like to have some feedback such as a colour change and not just the little hand cursor.
Looks fine in all Mac and PC browsers from what I can see

Good work. One question, who still uses <IE5 browsers? :?

even a slight colour change would be good feedback.

actually there is a slight hover on those links.
i might agree with you though since is barely noticeable.

sadly, a lot and too many still.
it should be around 6-7% of the whole cake

bye
tripleshift

...

Hmm, it doesn't work in my Firefox (1.0.6), or opera, or netscape. IE is fine though.

that's strange, i'm viewing it in mozilla and I can see it in FF and opera and IE too.

look at the code:

#col1 li a {

    color: #003366;

    text-decoration: none;

    display: block;

    font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;

    font-weight: bold;

}

#col1 li a:hover {

    background: url(none) no-repeat scroll;

    color: #003333;

as you can see the difference is minimal (#003366 --> #003333), maybe your monitor brightness is too low to notice.

bye
tripleshift

...

hmm... jsut visually...

took a bit to load.

-wouldn't hurt to make the titles "photo gallery" etc, links.

-the images could prolly use harder shadows (not really a css issue)

-and rather than having the text change color in the hover, i think a background gradient from light blue to clear would look sleeker... not sure how to do that in css though.

Your site loads fairly quick. I used a 56kbps connection and it took less than 30 seconds. Nice, considering it's graphics-heavy.