Website usability audit recommendations. What's wrong?

Question

CMS

Gentlemen,
I feel like a shoemaker without boots and I need your opinion, recommendations. I'm not a programmer, I'm a marketer and I made the site myself, focusing on my taste and "what was." I haven't received any orders yet, but I would like to. There may be some obvious problems with the site, but I don't see them. Point me to them, tell me what is superfluous, what is missing, what needs to be changed.
URL: violetdigit.xyz
Thanks in advance.
PS Oh, yes, I'll voice the original idea in advance. Usability audit of an economical option, at a low cost due to the presence of a very complete checklist, flexible, and suitable for most sites.

Answer 1

Conduct an audit of your site. This is a complete PI.
There is so much horror there that it makes no sense to even paint. Literally every pixel is terrible.

Answer 2

The title read "Violent Dig It". I mean, "Forcibly bury" :)
Actually, yes, for a service that offers a quality audit (by the way, a quality audit of a site costs a little more than 2 thousand rubles), and so - for such a service, the design is too rustic, boring, dull and gloomy. Violet? Well, yes, "Violet" (well, at least it's not VioleNt), but somehow this color itself is perceived as something dull, fading, leaving. Like a visited and no longer needed link. If there were any complementary colors - orange, turquoise, which would be in harmony with this purple.
Fonts. Ripples from white letters. The font is wrong. On large headings, something more lightweight would be put. Proxima Nova there or Lato, Ultra-Light inscription....
Well, an embittered (real Violent) cartoon dude, drawn on a cartoon laptop - what is it all about? Seeing such a face, I immediately want to leave.
A lot of thoughtless animation, flickering. The code is very dirty - there is a lot of garbage. It can be seen that it was created in some kind of visual editor (such as Adobe Muse, for example), and the goal was to do more animation in blocks than to give meaningful information.
Verdict: with such a color scheme and typography, with such an abundance of meaningless animation, and with such an approach to presenting information, this landing page is completely unsuitable for ordering a site audit. Well, maybe an audit for even more stupid landings.

Answer 3

I'll start simple - it's hard to read the text. Everything is very big. And the contrast is only in some headings, the main texts are faded. I do not understand the fashion for faded text. As a result, the text is not readable, it remains only to look at the scenery.
And the scenery itself is not bad for my taste - a rather unusual site, interesting animation. The usual slick, trendy landing pages just make you sick. I remember it much more than a horde of other twin sites made without a soul.
Reviews of cartoon characters are puzzling, because the explanation for them is hidden - I generally accidentally discovered it. They cause bewilderment because, nevertheless, it is necessary to do without jokes and jokes in this area, this is inappropriate, it seems to me.

Answer 4

Why did you choose the landing style in the first place (or did the idea come from a free WP template)?
It has long been clear that pages do not rotate, and landing-style design is a failure for a site with minimal traffic. There is a lot of information on the site that confuses and repels, you need to process the content: jokes don't work in this topic.
Another reason: the price. It is too low and can speak of poor-quality work (alas, they run away from a low price rather than vice versa). From my own experience, I know that a quality audit is much more expensive, and the work there can take over 10 hours (for an average site), so for a person with even a little knowledge, the audit execution time of 4 hours will be embarrassing!
Conduct an audit... The main thing is to abstract from the fact that the site is yours.
PS In the audit example, some prototypes are shown, they do not look very neat and the impression of the work as a whole is spoiled because of them, try more accurate prototyping (you can try Axure for work)