I don't know anything about font types, layouts and the like, your website looks like most websites. In my perverse mind, That's good and bad, good in that it's status quo and seems professional, but bad in the sense that for a typical web surfer, who might be looking at many many sites, your site joins the slushpile. The typical website overwhelms me with data. This world overwhelms me with data. If I was looking for a vacation home, I'd have two considerations: 1) where is it and 2) what's it look like. To #1, the parameters of the search hopefully established that. To #2, that takes some navigating. There's a good chance, I might move on if my search had turned up multiple hits. I love to cut to the chase.enid wrote:Thanks for you prompt if rather brief review. I shall add you comments to the list.
This is just my personal take on sites, I have no idea if it's valid, but it's what I believe. People generally don't like reading. They like pictures, especially moving pictures--hence the success of sites like youtube. If you can't do a video, then a nice flattering photo of your property to set the hook. Look at magazine at your newstand, they don't have tons of text and thumbnails, they have big, eye grabbing photo. the detailed stuff is all on page 2, inside. I can't think of any objective reason that websites should follow the same paradigm as print media.
Sorry, I don't represent the orthodoxy on this, but it's my take.