moberemk

In places? Unclosed tags are easily avoided-it's a ridiculously amateur mistake, I have to say. As for you're look, it's really kinda plain. I mean, it's not bad or anything-it just seems as though it could use something more. Also, you're using tables for a layout that is easily done in CSS, which is really a bad thing to do overall.

In CSS3, you can use this kind of style tag:[code]style="::hover{hoverstuffhere}"[/code] along with all other types of pseudoclasses. Can't use it elsewhere though.

Whoa. That may be the single longest list of errors I've ever seen for a webpage. Ever.

Also, I seem to have forgotten to metion this before, but get rid of that font you're using on the home page for content-it's very hard to read and fairly uncommon.

I'm not sure why you have all of those pages/page links; if you're on an Apache server with mod_rewrite enabled, you should be able to get rid of them quite handily. Also, increase the bottom padding, so that the content doesn't run up against the bottom. And finally, after making it clickable to go to the home page, change the font of your logo-not sure I'm fond of the current one. Outside of that, looks good!

I'm afraid to say that I see absolutely nothing different from the last time I went there. Aside from the use of an image rollover for such a simple design, the occasional broken link that searches for an html file when it should say php, and the error message that just kinda float on a simple white page, and the incredibly poor forum layout design, it seems identical. For the forum design: take a look at this site. This is what people have grown to expect from a forum, this layout. And there's a good reason; there's a healthy list of options that are applicable to the post, and the least-important information is placed in discreet spots. No one needs to know when the post was posted, which is why it's discreetly tucked away at the title here.

What do I think of the color scheme? Throw it out. It's a hideous merging of grey, black, and horribly colored links. You'd best start over, methinks.

Do all the boxes have to automatically go the entire width? You're problem is that you're using a <div>, which is a block-type element. Block elements automatically go the full width, and they stack one on top of the other. To get them to work horizontally, just use a float: left; command once you have the width calculated. Alternatively, if you don't need to have them all be the right amount of width to fill the entire area automatically, just set their display value to display: inline;. Looking back over you're code, I'd say that there is definitely a better way to do this. Just have a bunch of subcontent div's with a width of, say, 100px. Then set them all to float: left;, and they'll all just align nicely next to each other. Give them all the subcontent class, and make you're subcontent1 class a subcontent class with an additional ID value that will let you say that this is the current one you need to pay attention to.

If you're working with Dreamweaver, why don't you just use the Dreamweaver features to recreate that connection and data?

Which div? Could you be a little more specific?

Yes. Just use the :focus and :hover pseudoclasses on your input fields. Here's there CSS as an example: [code]input, textarea{     background: #fff;     border: 1px solid #83cde1;     border-top: 3px solid #83cde1; } input:hover, textarea:hover {     background: #F0FDE2;     border-top: 3px solid #b1e77a } input:focus, textarea:focus {     background: #FCFFEC;     border-top: 3px solid #b1e77a }[/code]

You'll need a more complex SQL query for something like that. Unless you want to learn SQL, then I'd go with [a href=\"http://www.interaktonline.com/Products/Dreamweaver-Extensions/MXSiteSearch/Overview/\" target=\"_blank\"]InterAKT[/a]'s site search extension.

Educated guess, based on the fact that (a) there are still threads around from the pre-2.0 days, the fact that when I tried to log on with my forum username into the site it didn't work, and the way that the way that the forum is in the middle of the rest of the site stuff.

You're right, that background isn't very good. I'd suggest finding a better way to do it, like by removing the purple tint from it. As for the rest of it, it all seems very professional, though it doesn't validate. The validator says that it is [i]tentatively[/i] XHTML1.0 Strict. That's the first time I've seen that, so it must be linked to your lack of character encoding. The only real problem that I can see is that, when you open a sub-menu and go to an item, the sub-menu text turns black and impossible to read.

Well, as far as I can tell, they used the current version of IPB (at the time) and then built the rest of the site (tutorials, scripts, etc.) around that. Still don't have a unified member system though.

Yeah, but still, it's just an accessibility thing that you want to show that this is something that you can use and not just another header.

You have a floating element; that detaches it from the structure. To get the box to expand the whole way down, you need to have an element with clear: both; at the bottom of your container div, or use [a href=\"http://positioniseverything.net/easyclearing.html\" target=\"_blank\"]this[/a] technique that only works in non-IE browsers, which you can't use.

It's an interesting idea-lots of scripting is used, that's for sure. Now, something that annoys me, is the fact that the tabs take an eternity to load. Once they're loaded, they work great; but until then, it's just a "click on the link, nothing happens" situation. Also, I would contain the different sections of the collapsible sidebar, and make it so that when you hover over the sidebar, it will show you that yes, it is interactive; I wouldn't have known that you could use those to collapse if it weren't for the fact that you say it here. The logo doesn't go to the home page when you click on it, something that I've come to expect on websites, as have the rest of the online userbase. Finally, on the tabs, for the current tab, get rid of the bottom border-it's just an annoyance. On the code side, [a href=\"http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fneo-addict.net%2F\" target=\"_blank\"]here's[/a] a link to your HTML validation-you should probably fix those errors, and get rid of all deprecated tags in your design. It's not that the code won't work, but it seems to have been designed without much look towards semantic meaning, or readibility, or any of those things. But that's okay, because your target audience probably doesn't care.

That would be cool but you'd need to use AJAX for your site for that idea to actually work in practice. But no, I don't know of any programs that can do that, because something like that is something that computers just can't understand.

[code]<div id="footer">Footer Stuff Here</div>[/code] Put that at the end of the code. Then, you use this CSS: [code]#footer { clear: both; }[/code]

Well, instead of using positioning, you could just stick the element there and give it clear: both; so that it goes to the bottom. That's what I tend to do.

I'm surprised no one has said this before, but TABLES?!? Seriously, a site this simple doesn't need tables. You've done a lot of stuff that would be a whole lot easier with CSS.

Just wrap the image in a containing div and style the image with one border and the div with another.

Well that was pointless. Do you think that maybe you could share the problem and the solution for future reference?

I actually meant Web2.0 in the design sense. See this article: [a href=\"http://mittermayr.wordpress.com/2006/02/03/20-culture/\" target=\"_blank\"]http://mittermayr.wordpress.com/2006/02/03/20-culture/[/a].