http://www.drobinson.com.au

Site Description: Web Development/IT business

Comments: My first post here! This site has a number of sub-sites, but I'm mainly interested in critique for the home page itself. The sub-sites are big enough for their own reveuews :o

Any constructive feedback great and I 'will' reciprocate all responses :)

Thanks,
H

your site is easily navigated, loads quickly and looks very good...
I don't know who your target audience is, but some of your information is probably beyond the comprehension of a lot of people... especially about programs you are using... the average person does not care about the behind the scenes - they just want to know if you can get the job done...
I like the fact that you have given very detailed info about yourself...
All in all, your site looks really good...

__________________
Mary Ann
Affordable Websites Designed - www.m-goret.com

The site is good looking. Organized? You do quite a lot, don't you? What I couldn't get was a cohesive focus, or a coherent proposition. It comes of sounding like "we added a little here, a little there, and now we do pretty much everything for everybody"

This can be an overextension in the customer's mind, where -- instead of being the first to mind as might be expected -- everything doesn't come to mind for any specific thing.

The site is good looking, but under focused -- what's called the tagline blues. It needs a coherent proposition which binds the parts together. Put that into a tagline, and you'd be pretty well off.

Thanks very much for the replies and useful feedback.

Both posts had interesting ideas which I hadn't thought of.

The tag line does need changing... Perhaps even to something like "Providing quality Internet solutions" (too vague?) or maybe "IT solutions provider.." (any suggestions guys/gals?).

It does need a better way of outlining services - that part is still under development.

mmm ways to make it all appear cohesive... That is an issue - thankls for bringing that to my attention. The first text blurb needs work there, as does the 'services' table. Could be expressed far more succinctly!

Please let me know if you'd like some recriprocal feedback, I'd love to give you constructive opinions as well :)

Thanks for the feedback!