A friend of mine recently opened her own website at www.bioservice.dk .
She asked me to make some comments - in particular critical/constructive. 
That I have done, but I thought that comments from someone among you
500 website-searchers might be even more useful for her.  
May I suggest that you come up with some,say, 6-10
comments/recommendations, which she could possibly use for changes at
next overhaul with her webmaster.
The version in English is at http://www.bioservice.dk/uk/index.php .
Language choice in top left corner.

Greetings!
The first thing that I will say is that overall the site is
aesthetically pleasing. It has a professional look to it and would not
scare me away if I was looking for "Consultancy services".  However,
here are things things which stood out to me...

*The first thing is that the site did not validate properly to W3C
standards.  While there are a lot of good sites out there which do not
meet these standards, they are important in ensuring compatibility
among web browsers.

"Rendering properly in the major browsers" is not an excuse for
failing to design to current standards. Simply because the page
renders on the screen does not mean that it will do so predictably.
This is especially important when you consider the myriad of off
brand-browsers. Some designers answer this problem by designing
multiple versions of their site or using multiple style sheets.
"Creating multiple versions of the same Web page because of
incompatibilities among browsers is wasteful and self-defeating for
Web developers and their clients. The alternative is to try to resolve
the incompatibilities by often complicated workarounds that are costly
for developers and their clients - at the cost of preventing Web pages
from being flexible enough to be used by emerging technology.""

http://www.karlcore.com/articles/article.php?id=9

Here is the link to the W3C standard validation check I ran:

Index Page
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bioservice.dk%2Fuk%2Findex.php

That is only for the index page.  You can run it on all subsequent
pages to find the standards violations.

*The three pictures on the index page to the left of the page seem out
of place to me.  A large block of white space like that will draw your
eyes in but it is taking the focus away from the other, more important
features of the page.

I would find something more interesting to put there or get rid of it
all together and scale the page to compensate.

*Also, as far as those same pictures go, they appear to be links,
however they do not go anywhere.  Upon clicking them I am taken back
to local host.

The links need to either point somewhere or be delinked.  

*The overall layout is done by using tables.  Though this is not
something you can see without looking at the source, it is sloppy and
generally advised against in modern day web design.

*The "Read more" link on the Joint Organic Congress and Vitafoods
International 2006 is hard to find/see.  A better approach would be to
darken the arrow and bold the "Read More" text so that it doesn't
blend in with the rest of the text.  Also the "Read More" text as well
as the arrow should be a link to the full story.

*The drop down top bar javascript navigation links are nice however
they are hard to navigate if you are not careful with your mouse.  The
goal is to allow people to access the information they want quickly
and easily without too much frustration.  More often then not it is
hard to keep the drop down links there when going to click on one.  I
would have her work with the developer to come up with a better
option.

*On the "services" page http://www.bioservice.dk/uk/ydelser.php , the
headline for the second box on the left is out side of the box.

*There is an inconsistency on the subsequent pages about where the
extra elements go.  On the main page the two news type boxes "Joint
organic congress" and "Vitafoods" are on the right while the pictures
are on the left.  Then on the sub pages the order is reversed. 
Consistency can be important so that your readers absorb the whole
page.  Personally I like the news boxes more on the left.  You avoid
the trapped white space that happens when the pictures are there.

*The contact page should provide a web form for getting in contact
with her.  They are easy to create and greatly increase the number of
contacts she will get.  Having an email link is fine, but a lot of
people do not have outlook set up so clicking on a link won't help
them, it will in fact likely annoy them.  Many use web mail so for
them to send an email it'll require a lot more work then they may be
willing to do.

Where as a web form will allow them to quickly punch in their contact
info and their question.

-----

That's the list of things that I could come up with.  As I said,
overall its a good site.  I hope this is what you were looking for. 
If you need anything cleared up, please request a clarification and I
will be happy to help.

Best,
djbaker-ga

The ultimate owner of the website in question reverted and found the
comments very useful. Thanks.

The site loads up slowly over dialup, but I was able to navigate
almost immediately. This is good.

The three items in the upper right of the opening page, do not have
any indication that are items buried underneath until you mouseover.

The type was too small, green, and hard to read for my old eyes.

I like that the pictures load after the text. I never saw the last two pics.
I have things to do today.  Grin.