OK, here goes...
- The main page ([link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/|[link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/]]):
- As Peter said, perhaps the two text blocks in the upper corners should be in some kind of delimiting boxes -- I can't say for sure, though. It partly depends on the answer to my next consideration: Should the first (and longest) lines be split in two so as to leave the logo more unencumbered, or are you intentionally going for a bit of a "portal" (or "vault") effect, with them framing the logo? If so, then I suppose both boxes and linesplits are *not* what you want. Further, should the services you offer ("network...", "workflow...", etc) perhaps be capitalised? That's not a given, either -- perhaps you've tried it, and found there were too many capitals for it to look good? If so, disregard this too. (This goes for every page, not just this one, of course.)
- In the (.PNG-format) logo itself, the word 'Consultation' is nice and sharp, but 'Troughton' is a little fuzzy around the edges (or is this so only on my screen?). It's probably (or at least I guess it is) some kind of text-to-graphics conversion artifact -- maybe it comes out better if you move your name one or two pixels in some direction and try again? (I really like the slightly Escherian "CT" graphic though! :-)
DamnThank you, Meerkat, for putting the pressure on me to be the proof-reader here... :-) I certainly can't find any fault with your language here, Jack; at least not from the syntax-and-grammar angle. From a style-and-content viewpoint, the impertinent Antipodean already mentioned how "as an IT worker" clashes with "We can provide you"... And that's the only fault I can find with it, too.- The 'Contact' link in the last paragraph is a dud; the URL is [link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/company/contact.html|[link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/company/contact.html|http://ct-mtl.dhs.o...contact.html]], but should apparently be [link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/company/contact.html|[link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/company/contact.html|http://ct-mtl.dhs.o...contact.html]] in stead -- you dropped the 'english' bit.
- The 'Company' page ([link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/company/|[link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/company/|http://ct-mtl.dhs.o...ish/company/]]):
- In the second sentence, "stand our customers in good stead" -- are you sure it shouldn't be "in good steed" in stead? Hmm, naah, probably not -- see the 'in stead' in my previous sentence. I'll defer to you native English-speakers on this one; anyway, that was the only pure-language thing I even wondered about.
- The we/I thing works much better here. Funny, isn't it -- could it be because you're talking about yourself in the third person, as "Mr. Troughton"? I don't know, but this is heartening: It shows that you can get it right on the main page too. (Albeit not necessarily by using the same technique there as here.)
- The 'Contact' link (cf my comment on the Site Map, below) works OK.
- The News page ([link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/news/|[link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/news/|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/news/]]):
- Are the down-to-the-minute posting times ("12:31pm on Sunday", "8:57am on Friday") on each item perhaps too much information; don't they make the page look just a little bit too "fussy"? I'd say the day -- preferably with a comma in between, like "Sunday, 24 Feb 2002" -- is enough accuracy for this purpose. Contrariwise, the technical notice at the foot of each page ("Last updated: 2002/02/24 12:36:41") can very well be down-to-the-minute as far as I am concerned; it's out of the way, doesn't repeat more than once, and is in a smaller font too. (If anything, perhaps drop the seconds from it... :-)
- Uh, this is perhaps a stupid question, but... from your top item, "ct-mtl Website development proceeding" -- what does 'ct-mtl' mean? Sure, I can guess the 'ct' part (Heheh... :-), but what's 'mtl'; some canadian form of "Inc." or "Ltd"? It's in your URL too -- in your domain name, that is, so it's obviously something to do with your company, but... Oh, waitaminnit -- Montreal? Hmm, anyway, you may want to get a "real" domasin name of your own, in stead of this dhs.org, whatever that is; something like "throughton.com" or "throughton.ca" ("throughton.co.ca"?). (Hope you can afford that.)
- Finally, depending on how many new(s) items you put up here and how often, you'll probably want to put an "Old News" (Heh! :-) or "News Archive" page under this one some time, and move stuff to that so this one doesn't grow too huge... If you do, remember to include that one on the Site Map, too!
- The main Products page ([link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/products/|[link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/products/|http://ct-mtl.dhs.o...sh/products/]]): Not much to say...
- The main eComStation page ([link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/products/ecomstation/|[link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/products/ecomstation/|http://ct-mtl.dhs.o...ecomstation/]]):
- Ultra-nitpick: The desktop image ([link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/images/desktop.png|[link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/images/desktop.png|http://ct-mtl.dhs.o.../desktop.png]]) shows the same page where the image is linked from -- but apparently an earlier version, because the text in the large image isn't quite the same as what surrounds the thumbnail picture... ;^)
- Somewhat less outrageously unreasonable nitpick: In the third paragraph, you talk about "third party addons" -- that should, I think, be 'add-ons', i.e, with a hyphen.
- From the list of reasons to buy eComStation:
eComStation is easy to use.
Uh, repeat repeat much repeat repeat much? That second line needs a little re-working, I'd say. This bit, further down, though:
eComStation is easy to use...eComStation is reliable.
is different, IMO: The repetition isn't exact; there's enough variation there for the text not to jump off the page and clobber you around the ears around the ears.
eComStation is a very reliable system... - From the bit about viruses, etc: "your business's data" -- what, I tohught you Canucks would write that in Little Dumpy Mrs Windsor's English, as "your business' data"? I could be wrong, tho, and either way, it's no biggie.
- Getting tired, just a quick look at the version-specific pages:
- On the Standard Edition page, you mention "Stardock System" -- I thought that maybe it should be "Systems", plural, with an 's' at the end... But on their home page, they call themselves "Stardock Corporation"! On the Stellar Frontier page ([link|http://www.stardock.com/products/sf/|[link|http://www.stardock.com/products/sf/|http://www.stardock.com/products/sf/]]), OTOH, the copyright notice says "Stardock Systems, Inc." Weird -- and more their foul-up than yours, it appears.
- On the eComStation Pro page, in the last paragraph, you write "If [...] them eComStation Pro is right for you!" That's a typo; you obviously meant to write "then", with an 'n'.
- The Upgrade Protection page looks fine as-is.
- Hmmm... From the main eComStation page on "downwards" (i.e, in the version-specific ones "under" it, too), the Prices link drops out of the navigation bar on the left. Is this by design? If so, then it's debatable (IMO) whether that's a good design; if not, then it's a bug. About the Prices page itself, there is of course not much to say... At least not yet! :-)
- Likewise, the supply of Services looks a little paltry, so far. ;^)
- The Site Map ([link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/sitemap/|[link|http://ct-mtl.dhs.org/english/sitemap/|http://ct-mtl.dhs.o...ish/sitemap/]]):
- On the first two lines (of the "body proper", not counting the repeating header and headline), you have "Canadian source for eComStation news" followed by "Canadian eComStation source" -- a little too repetitive?
- But that's as nothing, compared to the phrase "Consultation Troughton" -- you have that on TEN out of fourteen lines! (This time, including the headline.) OK, you want to "brand" your site, everybody says one should... but isn't this a little too much?!?
Sorry I've mixed in a few more general comments among the page-specific ones, under the page where I first noticed them; hope it doesn't make this critique too messy and hard to read.
N.B: I think I've followed most of the internal links, but none of the external ones (except for Stardock); I've only "checked" those to the extent that the URL that showed up in the status bar of my browser looked "sensible".
HTH!