Got your PM asking me to look at this, and I hate to say it, but what you have here is what I would call a non-viable design concept. Unless you’re going to spend a bunch of time using media queries to re-arrange EVERYTHING, it’s just not a good idea from an accessibility or usability standpoint.
Amongst the issues without even TALKING about coding it, is your ‘home page’ concept that isn’t a home page because there’s no content of value on it. That’s a SPLASH page – something that is just another ‘click through’ to annoy visitors; there’s a reason back when they were in vogue they ended up on every ‘bad web design’ list alongside auto-playing music and gif animations. Your home page should include information on who you are and what the site is about-- it’s your pitch. You don’t put anything there, what’ the point of it being it’s own page? What you’re using for an ‘about’ page is probably a better choice for ‘home’.
Likewise you’re wasting a massive chunk of the window on nothing, while shoe-horning the content of the page into a narrow little side column – that’s NOT good usability… in fact it’s the exact opposite… you don’t blow 70% of the screen width on a logo and the menu, then shove the actual content – the part people actually visit websites for – into the remaining 30%. Content is royalty, treat it as such… everything else? Not so much.
I mean, I can see what you did here - you’re trying to be innovative - I applaud the effort… You don’t see websites laid out like this – but like all things that “hey, nobody else is doing it this way”, you really have to ask the question… “Maybe there’s a reason for that?”
The code from your most recent post has some things to point out as well. We’ll just talk the markup since from a coding standpoint, the markup should stand on it’s own without the layout.
The transitional doctype means you are coding ‘in transition’ from 1997 to 1998 – basically 15 year old coding methodologies… it’s saying “this is HTML 3.2 that I’m PRETENDING is HTML 4”. Even if the rest of the document is ‘modern’ you’re throwing up a flag right there. You didn’t include language specs which are required for XHTML, you didn’t declare the MEDIA attribute on your link, content-type should be in there as SOON as possible since it’s re-iterating the encoding type for everything else.
Your logo image should probably be your H1, and it makes no sense for a ‘tag line’ to be the H1; the topmost heading (h1) is unique on a page for a reason - all other headings are subsection of it. H2’s are subsections of the h1 preceeding them. H3’s indicate the start of subsections of the H2 preceeding it – this is why skipping numbers going down is bad, and why when you use different headings you really need to ask yourself “is this a subsection of the heading before it, or kin to the heading before it, or kin to the heading before that”… Because H1 is the topmost heading under which all other things are subsections, The site title/logo is usually the only logical choice for it.
Think of a newspaper – regardless of what they look like, what’s at the top of EVERY page? A heading with the name of the newspaper and the page number. While sure, on the front page you have a massive headline – that doesn’t make all those smaller headlines subsections of the largest one. “MAYOR CAUGHT TAKING MILLION DOLLAR BRIBE” may be the big-ass headline on the page, but that doesn’t mean that “K-6 gets new school building” or “Distressed woman goes on shooting spree” are subsections of it. (at least one would hope not). They’re ALL H2’s… The h1 being the title of the paper – something carried through to every page. A website is like a newspaper or book – you have the the H1 at the top of every page tying all the pages together. SOME people would argue that’s the title tag’s job – but TITLE is not a content element, so it doesn’t actually COUNT towards semantic markup or choosing headings – it’s not even guaranteed to be used by user agents in the first place! That’s why it’s in HEAD and not BODY.
You’ve got a div around your menu ul, that’s probably unnecessary… and – personal opinion warning I really hate the name ‘nav’ – it’s vague, it’s pointless – and even if you know it’s short for navigation, EVERY ANCHOR ON THE PAGE IS NAVIGATION… It’s why I call mine things like ‘topMenu’, ‘cartMenu’, ‘mainMenu’, etc, etc… Say what it is EXACTLY. In general that’s just about writing clear code.
Which at LEAST you seem to be doing a good job indenting… though a few more carriage returns wouldn’t hurt 
Your comments are placed in a manner that could trip rendering bugs in legacy versions of IE and FF – especially if you start adding floats. Yes, I said COMMENTS can trip rendering bugs… Mindblowingly stupid on the part of browser makers – you betja! In my code you’ll often see things like
<!-- #sideBar –></div>
Moving the comment BEFORE the closing tag prevents it from ending up between sibling elements – which is where comments can trip the various bugs like ‘double render’ or ‘disappearing content’… It also is a waste of time to say “end” because, well… that’s what </div> means. I mean, really… I had no clue </div> was the end of something… You’ll also notice the number sign used to indicate I’m closing a ID, just like in CSS. Helps keep track of things.
You also have a clearing DIV - that’s another outdated/outmoded approach to writing code. Usually an overflow trigger or float on the wrapping element can do the same job without bloating the markup… Now, you might think “but that’s just moving it into the CSS instead of the HTML” – and that’s right – and the point. If you use the same layout and CSS across multiple pages, and it’s in an external file, that CSS is CACHED instead of downloaded again from the server… so if it comes to making your markup bigger or your CSS bigger, choose the CSS because if people visit more than one page on your site, the cached CSS and smaller HTML will save you bandwidth.
… and make all those sub-pages appear to load faster… and faster loading is ALWAYS a plus.
Above I talked about comments and formatting and clear code/names. There’s an article on IBM’s linux developer site that while meant for C coders, I think anyone who is going to write code be it markup, scripting or real programming language should take the time to read.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-clear-code/index.html
Vague/short names and sloppy formatting usually end up being a case of laziness and shortcuts that do nothing but inconvenience everyone in the long run. Oh noes, you might have to type five or six more characters onto that name – not that…
Let’s see… what else… Well, that arrow for the menu probably doesn’t belong in a IMG tag. IMG is for content images, that’s presentation that doesn’t even make sense if CSS is disabled – so I’d move that into the CSS. Likewise that logo image is presentational affectation of the text… so make that the H1 and use some form of image-replacement method to put the image version on top of it. If your content with images disabled and CSS disabled (or not even written) doesn’t make sense and isn’t at least halfway decent looking, you most likely messed up on using semantic markup.
I just did a rewrite for another user that has my FULL documentation of the how/why/where – you might want to read it as it may clarify a few of the things I just said above:
Sorry to rain on your plans quite as hard as I did, but you did ask for it via PM. Basically from what I’ve seen of those pics – I’d be backpedaling away from that design so fast a Veyron would have trouble keeping up. It’s a perfect example of everything WRONG with drawing a pretty picture of a website before you’ve even got all the content together and marked up semantically.
Get your content together – semantically mark it up, make your layout using CSS, THEN go to the paint program to make all the graphics you’re going to hang on the layout, THEN add any scripts that will enhance the page without breaking it’s functionality if scripts are missing. It’s called “progressive enhancement” – you start simple (content and markup) and slowly build it up. That way if (ok, when!) all your fancy bits of extra tech like CSS, images and Scripts are not present or disabled on purpose by the user for whatever reason, the page doesn’t fall apart… in other words, it “gracefully degrades”…
Two phrases that typically terrify a lot of people slapping out PSD’s these days and then slathering jquery nonsense on top of it like shellac on a pile. “progressive enhancement” and “graceful degredation”
Because if while “designing” all you are thinking about is what it’s going to look like on a desktop resolution screen, you’ve missed the point of HTML.
