New Website / Blog

[FrankJohnson]

auto insurance quotes (http://www.thehighlandviewmotorsports.com/auto.insurance.quotes.html) lgzie life insurance companies (http://www.themissmouthtimes.com/life_insurance.html) 536 florida auto insurance (http://www.thehighlandviewmotorsports.com/cheap.car.insurance.html) >:(((

[crowsfan85]

Hey Frank,

Welcome. I like your site. Nicely done. Your ministry looks like a pretty unique one. I didn't even know there were Christian web strategists. I know a lot of churches that could sure use some stategists.

One suggestion I have for the site is to to make the image thumnbnails in the store section link to the items in the store.

Keep up the good work, Frank. Hope to see ya around.

[FrankJohnson]

Thanks Nick!

I agree - not many Christian web strategists around (although there are a few who probably wouldn't use that terminology but still fulfill the same role it seems to me- see e-vangelism.com (http://www.e-vangelism.com) and Effective Web Ministry Notes (http://www.eministrynotes.com) for example).

I also agree that the church needs web strategists (I would say the church desperately needs web strategists). I think the next big question the church has to answer about their websites is not, "Does it look professional?" (although there are certainly plenty of church websites that don't look professional yet), but "How can we effectively use our website?"

That's some of what I'm hoping to address at my new website.

Thanks for the tip on linking the thumbnails - you're the second person who has mentioned that, so it seems like a good thing to do. Funny how we often don't see things from the perspective of our site visitors until they tell us! I never would have thought of it, but it seems so simple now!

Thanks again,
Frank

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Frank,

I liked your site, too. I found myself following many of the links. Learned a lot.

I was going to say something about the navigation bar on your site. It looks really bad in IE 5.2 on Mac OSX (what I use to work on my site). The bar is an inch deep and the links are stacked in the middle, one on top of another, centered.

However, I see that the navigation bar works fine in Firefox, Safari and Opera on Mac OSX. I'll check the site tomorrow in the several browsers I have loaded on my Windows XP machine.

<< I think the next big question the church has to answer about their websites is not, "Does it look professional?" (although there are certainly plenty of church websites that don't look professional yet), but "How can we effectively use our website? >>

I agree with you, but I want to say also that my research shows that 85% of all church websites are poorly designed, primarily because of the use of outdated techniques. That's got to be a turnoff to today's sophisticated, internet-savvy unchurched people.

There certainly needs to be churches, and e-ministry websites, pushing the window in e-ministry, but let's not forget the 1000s of church websites out there that need to be gotten up to a minimally acceptable level of quality in their graphic design. (Of course, that's one of the purposes of Great Church Websites.)

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[FrankJohnson]

David:

Thanks for your reply.

I definitely understand where you're coming from, and I agree that a vast number of church websites are poorly designed.

But to me, the question is still whether or not the site is effective. In the end, that's really the purpose of a church website - to play a part in building God's kingdom.

Take a look at this post (http://www.strategicdigitaloutreach.com/index.php/weblog/more/low_cost_effective_church_websites/) on my site. I'm convinced that a church website which followed that approach, even though it would be one of the most boring church websites ever seen from the standpoint of appearance, would be vastly more effective than 99% of church websites today.

I like Great Church Websites - it inspires me to design more attractive sites. And I hope that those thousands of churches you mentioned all come to your site and are inspired as well.

But I fear that the vast majority of churches aren't really prepared to be inspired and then take action. They either don't see the church website as an integral part of their mission, or they don't have an in-house designer who is ready to take action (even though taking very small steps over time would accomplish a great deal), or they don't have the means to hire an outside designer.

That's why I prefer to talk about the strategic use of content. Although now that I think of it, getting a church to buy in to the concept of not putting staff bios, program descriptions, etc. on their website may be even a larger challenge than you face! :P

Thanks again for your reply. Let me know what you see on IE 5.2 for Mac. Alas, I don't have a Mac system yet (although I have periodic access) - hopefully soon.

Frank

[crowsfan85]

I like your fresh thinking. This forum is definitely the place to talk about the things you've brought up. And I definitely think church webmasters could benefit from your out-of-the-box ideas, even if it's just gets theirs wheels spinning in a different direction.

To no fault of their own church webmasters are, by nature, in a bind. They're required to do, or manage, many different things in many different fields of expertise (ie, graphic design, marketing, content writing, photography, web programming, etc). And then on top of all of this, they have to make sure that all the ministries and higher-ups are satisfied. Rant, rant, rant...

Whereas, on the other hand, larger, more professional sites (to which church websites are often unjustly compared) have teams of people each in their area of gifting. They also have people dedidated to thinking strategically about the site's real purpose: meeting the needs of, and generating more, users.

So, what I'm trying to say, is that with all these demands, it's real easy for church webmasters to get lost in the logistics, especially if a logistic is in their specific gifting.

With that said, I don't think it ever hurts to remember what's really important, and to have a more "eternal perspective" on how the website can be used and how the webmaster's time can be best spent to produce the most fruit.

Which is one reason I think web statistics are so important...

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Frank,

I finally had a chance to view your site on my PC running Windows XP. The navigation bar looks fine in IE, Opera and Firefox. But in all three browsers, the nice banner above the navigation bar is missing. I see only a white space. Can't imagine why this is happening.

(I never was able to successfully install Netscape on my PC, so I can't tell you what your site looks like in this browser.)

Regarding other comments: I think my position would still be that excellence in graphic design (at least a minimal level of quality) IS an aspect (but only one of many aspects) of making a church website effective. I say this out of the belief that poorly designed, outdated sites are a turnoff to people.

You stated:

<< But to me, the question is still whether or not the site is effective. In the end, that's really the purpose of a church website - to play a part in building God's kingdom. >>

<< Take a look at this post on my site. I'm convinced that a church website which followed that approach, even though it would be one of the most boring church websites ever seen from the standpoint of appearance, would be vastly more effective than 99% of church websites today. >>

It seems to me the implicit assumption behind this comment and the post on your site is that church websites are only for the purpose of reaching unchurched people. I share this conviction in part, in that I think it's important that a church website be focused on the needs of unchurched people. But for a church website "to play a part in building God's kingdom" means it should not only be effective at reaching unchurched people but also should be effective at discipling churched people (recall the Great Commission) and also effective at attracting people to come to a local church (which combines both purposes). That's why one of my Top 10 web design tips is put the church location and service times in plain sight on the home page.

I'm glad you are passionate about church websites being effective as possible at reaching unchurched people. I share that passion. But I also have a passion about church websites being effective as possible at meeting the needs of churched people. As well, I have a passion about church websites being as well-designed a "brochure" for the church as possible.

(I say this specifically because I've seen the church-website-as-a-brochure concept disparaged in other places. Sure, a church website should be more than just a brochure for a church, as people have said, but it ought to be at the very least an effective, well-designed brochure for the church. That's what Great Church Websites is all about. Moreover, if you're making a website for any kingdom purpose, you are making brochure. If you're not making a brochure for a local church, than you're making a brochure for the kingdom, but regardless, you're making a brochure. It should be as attractively done as possible, and made to be as effective as possible at accomplishing its purpose. If you can't make a well-designed brochure for your church, which meets in a building that is brick and mortar, whose members are flesh and blood, who are engaged in activities such as worship or youth activities that can be photographed or videotaped -- if you can't design an effective brochure for your church, how are you going to design an attractive, effective brochure for the kingdom, which is intangible?)

I'll leave it to people such as yourself, Andrew Careaga (e-vangelism.com), Tony Whittaker (Web Evangelism Bulletin), DJ Chuang (eQuip blog, but he really covers all bases) and others to focus on using the internet to reach the lost. To this end, today I added to my site a "jump menu" of quick links, pointing to your site and that of others I've mentioned. That's to encourage people to visit your site, and that of the others mentioned, to learn about e-vangelism. This is a subject about which you guys know more than I'll ever know. But my site (not this forum, I mean, but my site; the forum is intended to cover all bases) is unashamedly about helping church webmasters design the best-looking websites and effective websites possible.

Yes, I'm in the "church brochure" design business (metaphorically speaking). I have to be! I've seen too many poorly designed, outdated church websites to do otherwise.

***

In the post on your site that you cited, you propose putting a written interview on a webpage. This is a good concept, but consider taking it to the next level. Today's generation grew up on TV and movies; we're a visual generation and learn visually. The home page of Valley Creek Church (http://www.valleycreek.org/) in Flower Mound, Texas, offers a great video testimony -- the faith story of a woman whose life was changed by Jesus Christ. (See link to videos -- Windows Media or Quicktime versions -- at bottom right on the home page.)

With the inexpensive digital video cameras on the market today, and with free encoders available to make RealVideo files or Windows Media files, it seems to me video testimonies or interviews like this one can be done by any church for its website. (Quicktime videos can be encoded by spending $30 to upgrade to Quicktime Pro.) Location sound is still a problem -- people unfortunately still rely on the built-in mic of the camera, when there are better options for location sound.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[FrankJohnson]

David:

Thanks for your reply - sorry it's taken me so long to respond. The delay is not from a lack of desire to see the conversation continue - I've just been swamped lately. In my day job, December is by far the busiest month of the year, and it's been even more hectic than usual this year.

Regarding the banner not showing up on IE, Opera, and Firefox - strange, I'm not having any problem seeing it. Can you check again - maybe it was just a temporary glitch. I see the problem on Mac IE5.2 now - I'll have to address that in the near future. Right now, I just haven't had time.

You wrote:

<< I think my position would still be that excellence in graphic design (at least a minimal level of quality) IS an aspect (but only one of many aspects) of making a church website effective. I say this out of the belief that poorly designed, outdated sites are a turnoff to people. >>

I agree completely. I'm not saying that churches should not strive for excellence in design. But in my experience, most churches do not see the benefit of a website in the first place. Most pastors, I think, see it as sort of an appendage to their ministry. Something that is necessary in today's world, but they'd really rather not have to deal with it.

As a result, today's churches tend to not invest a lot of time or money in developing a website. That's tragic as so many more people are looking to the web for spiritual information and we are leaving a vacuum of that information in local areas because the church has not stepped up to provide that information.

Many churches that do create websites, as you know, tend to create sites which would be better off not existing (for exactly the reason you state above - they are poorly designed and outdated).

What I am suggesting to churches who are in this situation - not willing to invest a lot of time and money - is to create a site which does not reflect a poor design or a good design. I'm arguing for neutral design to begin with. In time, I would hope that all churches would develop sites which reflect excellence in design. But until they are ready to do that, I think an article and interview like I described, with just text on a white background, is infinitely better than sites with poor color schemes, spinning crosses, blinking text, scrolling text, etc. Once a church has their eyes opened to the power of a well-thought-out website to draw unbelievers to their community, then they will be persuaded to improve the site in terms of design. To me, the progression from neutral design to good design is much more desirable than wallowing in poor design. And I think starting with neutral design is an easy entry point for the vast majority of churches.

You wrote:

<< It seems to me the implicit assumption behind this comment and the post on your site is that church websites are only for the purpose of reaching unchurched people. I share this conviction in part, in that I think it's important that a church website be focused on the needs of unchurched people. But for a church website "to play a part in building God's kingdom" means it should not only be effective at reaching unchurched people but also should be effective at discipling churched people (recall the Great Commission) and also effective at attracting people to come to a local church (which combines both purposes). >>

The reason I believe that a church website should have a primary purpose of reaching unchurched people is simply because I think discipleship is better accomplished in the midst of face-to-face community. Actually, so is evangelism. That's why my focus is always to think of a website of a way to draw unbelievers to Christian community (rather than have them make a decision for Christ immediately after seeing the website). It's not that I think a website can't play a part in discipling believers, but that I think there are much better ways of doing so. Can a church's website play a part in discipling believers? Sure, but anything done on the website to accomplish that which hampers the goal of drawing unbelievers is a mistake.

Example: many church websites which concentrate on discipling believers unwittingly push unbelievers away because the language they use is so religious. A church website in our local area used to open with a Flash presentation that said something to the effect of "We will love you; we will mend you; we will train you; and we will send you." Perhaps very compelling for a believer wanting to switch churches but very off-putting for an unbeliever looking for spiritual meaning in life ("Why do I needed to be mended? How are they going to train me? Send me where?").

You wrote:

<< That's why one of my Top 10 web design tips is put the church location and service times in plain sight on the home page. >>

I actually advocate against doing this. The reason: I firmly believe that the majority of unbelievers don't care where our church is and what time our services are because they have no intention of joining us at our gatherings. I believe the church has to realize that we are mostly seen as irrelevant by unbelievers. That's a hurdle we have to get past before unbelievers will be interesting in knowing when and where we meet. Just my opinion, though. I know that lots of people disagree with me on that point.

You wrote:

<< To this end, today I added to my site a "jump menu" of quick links, pointing to your site and that of others I've mentioned. That's to encourage people to visit your site, and that of the others mentioned, to learn about e-vangelism. >>

Thanks for that! I really appreciate it.

You wrote:

<< In the post on your site that you cited, you propose putting a written interview on a webpage. This is a good concept, but consider taking it to the next level. Today's generation grew up on TV and movies; we're a visual generation and learn visually. The home page of Valley Creek Church in Flower Mound, Texas, offers a great video testimony. >>

Absolutely! I'm working with a church right now to help them do just this.

Thanks again! Gotta run to work - I may post more later today (especially in response to Nick's post above).

Frank

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Frank,

<< Regarding the banner not showing up on IE, Opera, and Firefox - strange, I'm not having any problem seeing it. Can you check again. >>

Maybe it's the result of a Windows XP security patch or something. I'll check your site again on the different browsers when I have time.

<< in my experience, most churches do not see the benefit of a website in the first place. [snip] As a result, ... [snip] ... we are leaving a vacuum of that information in local areas because the church has not stepped up to provide that information. >>

Yeah, I agree completely.

<< That's why my focus is always to think of a website of a way to draw unbelievers to Christian community (rather than have them make a decision for Christ immediately after seeing the website). >>

That's my first priority, too (as I explicitly state here and there on my site). But I know that not everyone shares that conviction. And, I feel it's legitimate to use a church website to attract believers (e.g., a Christian family that's just moved into the area and is looking for a church home). However, the website's greatest potential for the Kingdom is e-vangelism.

I'm wary of e-vangelism methods, however, that result in a person coming to Christ outside of a connection to a local church. (I think we share this concern.) But we are blessed in America to have so many churches and to have the freedom to worship as we please. There are countries where joining a local church is not so easy. So I have to be open to internet-based evangelism and discipling efforts not connected to a local church.

As for discipling via website, it will help to know that I have an interest in e-learning. I plan to obtain a master's degree in distance education or e-learning during the next few years, specifically to teach Christian principles and the Bible via the internet.

<< Example: many church websites which concentrate on discipling believers unwittingly push unbelievers away because the language they use is so religious. >>

I agree. There's a question elsewhere in the forum about whether a church needs two websites -- one for believers, one for unbelievers.

Regarding the question of whether a church should include its address on the home page, I have to say it doesn't hurt and it can only help. Also permit me to say churches need to put their address on the home page not only to inform visitors about where they are located but also about where they aren't located. A church can assume a person browsing the yellow pages is located within driving distance. But a visitor to a church website could be in the next state, next country, or next continent. Let's inform visitors upfront about where the church is located. If they're visiting the website of a church located on the other side of the country, let's inform them immediately of that fact. They can then make an informed decision about whether to continue browsing the site (hopefully the site encourages this) or visit another site.

Thanks for the continued dialog. I'm enjoying it.

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Frank,

I've started reviewing the websites of churches located in Maryland. I came across the website of Cedar Ridge Community Church (http://www.crcc.org) in Spencerville, Maryland. (The senior pastor, Brian McLaren, is author of numerous books on postmodern ministry.)

I mention this because the home page has links to six written testimonies, which seemed to me to be along the lines of the storytelling you discuss on this page on your site:

http://www.strategicdigitaloutreach.com/index.php/weblog/more/storytelling/

although I wonder why the church didn't do video testimonies instead, along the lines of the video faith story linked to from the home page of Valley Creek Church (http://www.valleycreek.org/) in Flower Mound, Texas (link is at lower right).

Sincerely,


David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[generalhavok]

Guys:

Thanks for letting us see such a good conversation. If only our church boards and elders and such could understand the issues at hand! Every local church could have a presence online that they would NEVER back away from...

[flutem3]

"Thanks for letting us see such a good conversation. If only our church boards and elders and such could understand the issues at hand! Every local church could have a presence online that they would NEVER back away from..."

I agree with The General. This is a super discussion and one which we all need to listen to carefully. The two goals which I set me when I started our website were:

1. To tell others about our church and the word of God
2. To provide resources and information for our membership

As a new website editor, that was as much as I could handle. But as time goes by, I am discovering the possibilities of outreach of many kinds are just limitless. However, I don't think that they should all be in one website. Right now, I think that a person should be able to look at a website and determine what the goals are without having to be told.

I also have a tertiary goal which perhaps is the first one really. That one is that the most unskilled computer user will be able to navigate our website and know where he/she is going to end up when a button is clicked. I remember some of the trouble I had just a couple of years ago. It was frustrating, and I would leave the website. I don't want that to happen on ours if I can help it.

What a wonderful forum this is!! And there are such terrific people on it. Thanks to one and all.

[David Gillaspey]

I also have a tertiary goal which perhaps is the first one really. That one is that the most unskilled computer user will be able to navigate our website and know where he/she is going to end up when a button is clicked. I remember some of the trouble I had just a couple of years ago. It was frustrating, and I would leave the website. I don't want that to happen on ours if I can help it.Hi Carol,

I think many website designers happen also to be experienced internet users. For this reason, they may not always be able to relate to newer internet users with less internet browsing skills.

Thus I think it's great that you still remember the frustration you felt as a new user (I'm reading between the lines there) trying to navigate websites. As a result, you are highly motivated to ensure your church's website can be navigated by everyone.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[flutem3]

Hi Carol,

I think many website designers happen also to be experienced internet users. For this reason, they may not always be able to relate to newer internet users with less internet browsing skills.

Thus I think it's great that you still remember the frustration you felt as a new user (I'm reading between the lines there) trying to navigate websites. As a result, you are highly motivated to ensure your church's website can be navigated by everyone.

Hi David,

In my one year + as a website designer I have run into a few experienced website builders, but it seems that about half are not very experienced. I am basing this basically on the people I have met on UMConnect. Of course, there are also some wonderfully experienced people on that forum.

You are reading correctly between the lines. Two years ago I would go to a site and just be so aggravated that I didn't end up where I wanted to be...and thought I would be. And I would leave...and I know I am not alone in my reaction. When a person is new, it is difficult enough to get where he/she wants to go, but then to be stymied by the navigation system is an insult...in my opinion.

I have become much better searching on the internet and enjoy doing it. But just yesterday I hit a site on which the navigation was just plain puzzling. I fiddled with it for a bit, left a note to the website editor about the navigation system, and left. I guess what I am saying is that the very least we can do as website editors is provide an easy means of navigation. People need to know where they are going. We like to know in other areas of our life. This is no different. Navigation is not meant to be a puzzle.