CSS could do a lot to help you simplify your HTML, starting with your main navigation menu. An inline unordered list consisting of text links would be compact and
SEO friendly.
Consider, for example,
Code:
<a onmouseout='RestoreImage()' onmouseover='SwapImage('button38','acatalog/butaboutus_on.gif')' target='_self' href='acatalog/aboutus.html'>
</a>
which could be written as follows:
Code:
[*]
<a title="About KJ Beckett - Bath England - Mens Accessories" href="acatalog/aboutus.html">
About Us
</a>
There are a number of very straight forward CSS techniques to take care of the positioning and mouseover behaviors.
If you're not comfortable with lists, then a simple table of links, 720px wide, with nine 80px TDs could be styled to center link text and apply rollovers using CSS (similar to the bottom menu). This will eliminate 18 image files and shave about 4kb off the download in the process.
But we won't stop there. The Home page is about 220kb with all images. At any speed, this is a large page, roughly three to four times the generally recommended size for a home page. So it becomes paramount to shave bytes from everywhere, the HTML and external files, and the images.
A great deal of text is displayed in image form, which is definitely not
SEO friendly since spiders are essentially blind. If it's text, let the HTML supply it, not the gifs and jpegs.
The table structure is a little disjointed. Each row of accessory lines, the picture, the title and the description, is actually tagged in three separate TDs on separate rows, rather than one, which goes against the coherence of the information. Each item could have its three components grouped into a single TD for a much simpler structure with closely related information nicely organized. Again, using scalable, selectable, searchable text instead of images will eliminiate a dozen images and shave about another 13kb from the page. Smaller pictures could also shave another 24kb from the page.
Some of the table and td widths don't compute. For instance, there is a table 670px wide inside one that is only 660px; and further down, 610px worth of tds in a 600px wide table.
I think Webnauts said it best when he suggested using 'sophisticated tables' in preference to complex nested tables.
Lastly, it might do well to consider that a great many users still cling to 800px displays. Your content could be made to fit nicely into that width with a little less whitespace amongst your groupings. Luxury denotes elegance, and elegance denotes order without clutter. It may prove more elegant to structure the site to break up the content a little further for smaller, more succinct and faster loading pages. Your About and Contact pages' central content are a good example.