Would like some feedback on our church's new site, please!

[bbond]

David,
Thanks so much for this site. Over the last several months I decided to totally change our website at our church. I found your site and looked at every single site you had. Making notes and checking out all of the tips and do's and don'ts I went to our new provider/designer with definite ideas about what I wanted. I wanted to see how our site measured up since nearly all of the ideas came from researching your site. It radically changed my thoughts on websites. Please check out our site and let me know how we did. My church is Greenwood Baptist Church in Weatherford, TX. www.greenwoodbc.com (http://www.greenwoodbc.com) Your site was the single biggest factor in our site design. The Student ministry pages are about the only parts still not completed. Thanks for sharing your research and your expertise.

Brian Bond
Senior Pastor

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the kind comments about my site. I'm not sure I'm an "expert," however. The real experts are the members of this forum who do web ministry on a regular basis. Also people like Tony Whittaker in England, who's an expert on designing church websites for the unchurched.

(You'll see that I already include his webpage of design tips on my site, with full credit to him. In a few days, I'll be adding his latest offering to the Church, http://ied.gospelcom.net/church-site-design.php, which is a "quiz" that allows you to rate your church website on various factors. Again, he'll receive full credit.)

I've only tried to provide some information on my site that were a compilation of my observations from seeing the same problems over and over again when researching church websites. Long range plans for my site include transitioning my site to a online magazine format (with other people besides me -- the real experts -- providing the content), but that's a few months off.

As you probably are aware already, I've taken steps to make my database of the best of church website design even more useful. Last week, I launched some new search features (see http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/search.php ). The database can now be searched in about 25 different combinations of options. (The backend programming to make that possible was arduous.) I'm now in the midst of updating the database, hoping to replace as many as half of the churches (that is, church home pages) with new ones by reviewing a list of 5,000 church website URLs that I've purchased. As I add new churches to the database, I now include a comment about the home page (in most cases), as well as notations about the features and/or subjective qualities of the home page (I call these home page "descriptors" or "tags"). And finally, I've started visiting almost every page of every site chosen for inclusion in the database, in order to spotlight unusual features or standard features that are unusually well done. (Sadly, on most church websites, something worth spotlighting is hard to find.) I call this feature "Check Inside!" (with a nod to Amazon.com). All this is very time-consuming, but I think helpful to church webmasters everywhere. (And commercial web designers, a few of whom are paid members of my site.)

Regarding your site, I took a look at the home page, and I must say it looks very nice indeed. I see that you've chosen to use a proprietary web Content Management System (NetMinistry). A CMS is a wise choice. Presumably this vendor worked with you (or vice versa) to provide a custom design for the site. There's not much I can suggest for improvement for the home page (regarding design), but I would offer the following tips:

* Try to provide more real information on the home page, particularly in the bottom center area. A church home page is valuable "real estate" and should not be wasted.

* There's a mix of text alignment -- some is left aligned, some centered. For good design, stick with one or the other.

* In the lefthand column, in the boxes highlighting ministries, a serif font is used. Since the type is small, there's little chance the serifs can be rendered well on a 72ppi resolution computer screen. Thus it would be better, and the type would be a little more legible, if a sans serif font were used instead. (Same font as used elsewhere on the page.)

* I note there is no "alt" attribute in the source code. A blind person browsing the home page with the assistance of a screen reader has no way of knowing what the pictures are. That's what the "alt" attribute is for. It also helps a bit with search engine optimization. (To be blunt, the vendor should know to design at least minimally accessible pages by including the "alt" attribute.)

Those are my thoughts. I'll try to find time to look at inside page in a few days.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[JackWolfgang]

Please check out our site and let me know how we did. My church is Greenwood Baptist Church in Weatherford, TX. www.greenwoodbc.com (http://www.greenwoodbc.com) Your site was the single biggest factor in our site design.

This is going to be my brief and terse lunchtime response:


Encoding Error Prevents (X)HTML Validation (http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenwoodbc.com%2F)
42 (X)HTML Validation Errors (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenwoodbc.com%2F&charset=iso-8859-1&doctype=Inline&verbose=1)

[JackWolfgang]

Now for the long form:

Get yourself a copy of Zeldman's Designing with Web Standards, 2nd edition.

Visually, your web site looks great, but you do your church a disservice by having code that doesn't validate. Why?

1. Valid code shows pride in crafstmanship and doing things right (see I Corinthians 10:31).
2. Valid code is a huge first step to accessibility (see James 2:1-9).
3. Valid code is a key to cross-technology compatibility (see James 2:1-9).
4. Valid code is good stewardship, because you don't have to re-do code to maintain compatibility with new browsers/technologies (see Matthew 25:21, 23; I Corinthians 4:2).

[JackWolfgang]

2. Valid code is a huge first step to accessibility (see James 2:1-9).

Expanding on this point with two quotes:

David Gillaspey (administrator of this forum):
Why should you care whether such people [people with disabilities] can browse your site or not? Because they matter to God, too.

Zeldman (Designing with Web Standards, 2nd edition):
Moreover, web crawlers, are in effect, blind users. At a recent conference I attended, a speaker pointed out that the Google search engine is the biggest blind user on the web. This "user" give out recommendations in the form of search results to a metric ton of customers every day.

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Jack,

While we all appreciate your focus on web standards, in this case, you've aimed at the wrong target. Greenwood Baptist Church's website is based on a proprietary web Content Management System, NetMinistry. (Look for the tagline at bottom right on the home page.) This CMS has an impressive list of features (see http://www.netministry.com/main_features.asp), although the base storage space of 25M (yeah, megs) is so ... 1995. The site design is custom, however. Regardless, if there's a problem with web standards, the fault lies with the vendor, not with Brian's web ministry team.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[JackWolfgang]

Hi Jack,

While we all appreciate your focus on web standards, in this case, you've aimed at the wrong target. Greenwood Baptist Church's website is based on a proprietary web Content Management System, NetMinistry. (Look for the tagline at bottom right on the home page.) This CMS has an impressive list of features (see http://www.netministry.com/main_features.asp), although the base storage space of 25M (yeah, megs) is so ... 1995. The site design is custom, however. Regardless, if there's a problem with web standards, the fault lies with the vendor, not with Brian's web ministry team.

Good point, David. It means as churches, we need to demand that our vendors provide us with tools that generate standards-compliant code.

Brian, I apologize if my remarks offended. As David said, I am very standards-focused, and it is the first thing I check on a site when asked to review one.

[bbond]

Thank you for your responses. Perhaps I have led you to believe that I know more than I do about websites because I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I will, however, try to figure out the problem and speak with our provider about it.
Thanks,
Brian

[JackWolfgang]

Thank you for your responses. Perhaps I have led you to believe that I know more than I do about websites because I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I will, however, try to figure out the problem and speak with our provider about it.

Brian--

I just wrote a blog post about this the other night, so this may sound similar to that post.

Like English, there is a language for writing web pages: HTML. There are two flavors, and so sometimes, you will see references to XHTML or (X)HTML. HTML stands for HyperText Markup Language, and the X stands for eXtensible. Just as there is in English, there is proper grammar and structure to (X)HTML. The grammar and structure is put together by the World Wide Web Consortium and released as W3C Recommendations (which is confusing, because they are standards, not recommendations).

If you click the links in my first reply (the brief, terse lunchtime reply), you will be taken to a site (http://validator.w3.org/) that can check if the language behind a site conforms to the standards. In the case of the links above, the Validator (which is what the site is called) is set to check your site for conformance. The site gives one of two results, pass or fail. A fail comes with a list of corrections to be made to pass.

The issue here is, as David pointed out, you used NetMinistry to create your site, so NetMinistry's program created the HTML for you. This leaves you little control over what the HTML is. However, some people, myself included, either write HTML ourselves or select tools that output valid HTML.

My suggestion was that churches, in general, need to work with the vendors they have selected to ensure that their sites comply with these standards for the reasons above.

I hope that this helps you to understand the issues, but if things are still not clear, feel free to reply to this thread.

[flutem3]

Hi, all,

I must say it is a wonder you don't scare everyone right off the forum, and in fact some people have been scared off.

Before any of us criticize another person's work, we need to find out where that person is in their website development.

If I am not mistaken, David, administrator, very much hoped that beginning designers would come here in order to learn the craft. However, that has not been the general case except for one particularly obstinate soul that I know personally.

I did not understand whit about what people were talking about. I still don't some of the time.

And when a person asks me to look at a website, I look at it as if I were a "regular" person ending up on the website or a person who is searching for something specific.

If that website has the information that I want, I do not care if it is pea green with purple polka dots. I will stay to get the information. If not, I will leave. Conversely, if the most beautiful, "correct" website does not contain what I want, I will be gone in a flash...just as we all are.

Our website will never validate. That does not mean that validation is not a good thing. It is. But if a website is judged by validation before anything else...especially a church website...it seems that technology has won; people have lost. Now, I know that in the long run good technology is important to people. It is...granted. But I think it matters a lot more whether a navigation menu takes a person where he/she is trying to go.

Eventually the various WYSIWYG software will have to validate. The government will require it if nothing else so that websites pass accessibility standards. That is fine.

But please, if we must be judgmental (critical) even when asked, it doesn't hurt to do it with a light touch instead of a heavy hand. How would Jesus tell a person about his/her church website? I don't know except that it would be in a kind way. We, including myself, can do no less.

And we do not need to give a list of negative information and little positive. What has the person done right? And why? Some of us will do something correctly by accident...but would not be able to duplicate the feature because we don't know why it was good. A good critique of anything contains both positive and negative aspects to it...not just the negative. That only discourages people...at least it discourages me so I better just speak for myself. My grandfather who was a Methodist minister said that if you must say something negative to a person, include something positive as well. But as we all know, we all remember the negatives. In my life I have decided that it takes 8-10 positives to offset one negative in our lives. I think that applies to everything including websites.

This forum is such wonderful place in which to nourish people, encourage them, even uplift them and reach out in faith to a fellow worker in the service of God. It is outreach and participation in the finest tradition. Let faith thrive!

Now, I hope I have not been unkind in what I have said. But I have been on this forum for a good time now. I have seen people come and go. And the majority of the people who leave are the people who could benefit from the expertise the most...at least that is my observation. And as a matter of fact, I have contacted a couple of those people off-list and helped a bit. We need to welcome everyone.

I don't submit stuff here very often because I don't like to have people tear it to shreds the way some people do. However, some of you will remember Curtis. He could take a website apart with the best of them. I wrote to Curtis offlist and asked him to check out our website when I redid it. And he replied...off-list. Now, the moral of that story is that the feedback I received did not get posted so that others could benefit from it.

Yes, we owe the best we have to God. But my best and other people's best are very different things. In most of the things I am able to do in many areas of my life my contribution is the widow's mite...but it is the best I can do at the time. That is all God asks. Man asks more.

Carol

[David Gillaspey]

[SIZE=3]except for one particularly obstinate soul that I know personally.Hi Carol,

I assume you're referring to yourself, there. ;)

Anyway, thanks for posting.

Jack graciously apologized when I pointed out that Pastor Brian's website was developed by a vendor of a proprietary web Content Management System (NetMinistry).

There is some merit to what you say, however. A standards compliant website that is poorly designed is still an ugly website. A standards-compliant website that uses animated gifs and rainbow colors is still a website that's using outdated web design techniques. A standards-compliant website that hasn't had new content in six months is still a static website. A standards-compliant website that's "churchy" and focused on members is still a website that doesn't meet the needs of non Christians.

All of these factors, including standards compliance, are important. The mission of this website (and forum) is to help churches everywhere to develop and maintain the best possible website that they are able to, given the limitations of (in most cases) unskilled, volunteer help.

We don't expect new Christians to become fully devoted followers of Christ in the very hour they accept Jesus as savior. We know this a long-term (even lifetime) goal, and so we meet them where they are. We help them to grow in Christ as they are able to and as the Spirit enables them to. In the same way, I cannot and will not expect overnight perfection on the part of volunteer church webmasters (which is the case with the vast majority of churches).

Now regarding paid staff church webmasters, they do have the responsibility to keep up to date with the latest techniques, but then, that is also true of children's ministers, youth ministers, worship leaders, and the like. Also, as Jack points out, any company that is in the business of creating websites for profit, or which sells a web Content Management System (but see below), as the highest responsibility to ensure their sites are up to current standards, not only with regard to XHTML but other factors, such as design, usability, information design, appropriate use of Flash, etc.

But ... in NetMinistry's defense, any vendor of a CMS will have made a huge investment in their current system which will have been extensively tested (in the field, by many customers) to ensure it's bug free. For CMS vendors, it's not a matter of reading a book on web standards and deciding, hey, let's change all our code tonight so we can become standards compliant. They're not in a position to risk breaking something that's proven to work, even for the promise of "working better."

At the same time, they have to be competitive, and if they wait too long to update their product, then they'll lose sales. In the same way, most web hosters offer only the tried and true PHP 4. Few are willing to be innovative and offer PHP5, which as been available for some time. Eventually, this will begin to hurt the former class of web hosters, who offer only PHP 4.

With regard to web standards, I would encourage all church webmasters to take the first step of learning and using CSS. Then, take the next (and huge) step of switching from tables-based layout to CSS-based layouts. Other steps to take are learning about accessibility (use of ALT and TITLE attributes, for example) and incorporating those into their layouts. But the point is, it's a process. And finally, web standards are a means to an end, never the end.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[flutem3]

Hi. David,

What a wonderful reply!!! You do that so well. I understand compliance is a means to an end. And since it is, a person need not be whacked over the head with it first thing off the bat.

I do have questions about CSS. From everything I can tell about it, a person needs to know HTML first...that CSS enhances HTML and makes it easier, quicker to make projects and can result in more complex pages.

You know and I know that without some people who have done not church websites or any other kind for that matter, there would not be many websites. There are some people who think that if it cannot be a "decent" website, it hardly has a right to exist.

I know of a website which is off-center, the pictures are humongous files, and has all kinds of "errors". But, guess what, the people in the church love their website! The pictures change weekly, and the pictures are well taken. This is a website which is done for a specific church. The rest of the world is welcome to look in, but that is not the purpose of the website. It is purely and simply for the enjoyment of the congregation. It doesn't even pass my "specs"!! But it does what it is designed to do, and it does it well. Oh, and the sermons can be heard as well.

All that I am saying is that many eyes and many perspectives look at a website and for zillions of reasons. We all know that, but I have forgotten that myself sometimes.

Jack, hang in there. I am done ranting and raving...I think. :D

I wish I were at church, but because of the flu here I am.

Bless one and all in your ministries,

Carol

Of course, it is I, David!!! I am the person I know best...ususally.

[JackWolfgang]

I must say it is a wonder you don't scare everyone right off the forum, and in fact some people have been scared off.

Carol--

Again I apologize if I scared people off. You're right, I should have first complemented the visual design of the site and the lack of download this plugin messages that I get from other church web sites (including some of the big churches).

David, of course, is completely right. I can design a standards compliant site that looks as boring as watching paint dry. And that's just as ineffective as the site that needs hours of work before it validates.

Ninety percent of your visitors won't care if the site validates or not, but I believe (perhaps too strongly) that there are reasons for churches to be at the forefront of standards-compliant web design.

Allow me to express my apologies again.

--Jack

[flutem3]

Hi, Jack,

Hey, I didn't mean that you all by yourself have scared people off. It is just that over the years it is easy to watch as people back away...sometimes for good reasons and sometimes not.

One time on UMConnect a person was really nasty to another person. In my zeal to point out the error of the person's ways, I wasn't much better...and I was taken to task for it quite firmly. It left no doubt in my mind that I had done precisely what I had been so adamant about the other person's having done. You see, I didn't pull the "mote" out of my own eye first. Therefore, I understand how stuff happens.

But I will always speak up and out, and I expect people to yank my chain if I am off-base. One difficult thing about writing is that we are unable to see features, body language, etc. and feedback is delayed. It is easy to misunderstand as well as to think an issue has been explained "beautifully" only to discover that not a soul had any idea of the point of the sermon, lecture, etc.

You are a good man, Jack. I enjoy reading your posts. And I understand why you think validation is important. It is the way you think for one thing. And it is important. I am not saying that it isn't. And I hope I am making that clear.

My brain and the way I look at a website goes in a bit of a different direction. One reason, of course, is that I don't have the skill to build a website that validates. Secondly, I enjoy doing some of the other things more and spend more time on them. If I had all the energy I would like to have, maybe I could learn some of the other stuff. Right now, I keep scramblin' just to hang in. :D

Bless you and your work, Jack.

Carol
www.wabashfirstumc.org

Hey, by the way, you all, I just set up podcasting for our Christ Alive! service and the Mid-morning Service. And, yes, I had help with the files!! And I am grateful. Otherwise, we would have no podcasts!!!

[David Gillaspey]

Allow me to express my apologies again.--JackHi Jack,

Well, you didn't actually hurt anyone's feelings anyway.

Jack, you were one of the earliest members of this forum and have been a faithful contributor ever since, along with Carol and a handful of others. Allow me to use this opportunity to express my heartfelt appreciation for your contributions to this forum. (And many thanks to you, also, Carol.)

As Carol points out, members have come and gone, but that's really just the nature of forums. For a forum to succeed over time, however, there must be members such as yourself and Carol and others who steadfastly and unselfishly continue to take time from their busy schedules to post in the forum and respond to other's posts.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[StubbyD]

and in fact some people have been scared off.

Well I'm still here and probably would be considered one of the newer members. :) Nobody scares me off.

Of recent though, I've had nothing to post about so have been quiet. But still reading, still contemplating, still present and hopefully acounted for.

Unfortunately it is a nature of the beast that places such as these will attract some folks who are in to get an answer and when they get that answer are never seen again. Whilst others will stay and stay and stay.

You mention Curtis - I don't know him, but what was his purpose in coming and why didn't he stay. Did he leave because he was scared of, bored or had got his necessary. Those are rhetorical and don't need an answer.

Humbly.

[tmreg]

Not sure if anyone cares about critiquing the site anymore, but if they do....

The "thinking about visiting" picture is bloated try resizing the pic to match the display size. It will display better and load faster.

Sorry for the interuption, back to the off topic discussion.

[mrbelfry]

Hi Brian

I love the 'You Belong Here' tagline and the site looks very nice. I would really love to see your service times and address highlighted more - it took me a while to see that your services started at 10.30 - we've had people specifically attend our church because our website was the only local church that had our services times displayed prominently.

I also like your 'What to expect' section - especially the 'is the service going to be boring?' question and response. I also noticed on this page that the font changes near the bottom. There are a couple of other things I would personally iron out but that would make me hypocritical (because your site is better than mine!).

mrbelfry

[David Gillaspey]

The "thinking about visiting" picture is bloated try resizing the pic to match the display size. It will display better and load faster.Thanks, Matt.

(To everyone.) What Matt means is that the block on the home page that stretches from "Thinking about visiting" down to "Click here," with an actual photo of people in between, is a graphic. (The text you see started out as text, but is now part of a image.) The graphic is actually about twice the size you see on the home page. That means the file size is two to four times bigger than it really needs to be. Small file sizes are important because you want webpages to download quickly. (This remains true even for people with broadband connections.) You want to economize every way you can.

Also, here's where the "alt" text attribute in the underlying code is important. I mentioned this in my post early in this thread. Because the words are now part of a graphic, a blind person browsing this website would never now the graphic or image is there. (Well, actually, they would, but their screen reader couldn't tell them what was being announced or advertised.) By adding something like alt = "Thinking about visiting? Here's what to expect." in the right place in the underlying HTML code, then screen readers will read aloud to blind people what the graphic says. This is part of making a website accessible — to the blind, in this case, but in other cases, to motion-impaired people and hard of hearing people. A fully web standards-compliant website, a subject raised by Jack earlier in the thread, would generally be very accessible. One more good reason to strive toward making one's website standards-compliant.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[JackWolfgang]

Hey, I didn't mean that you all by yourself have scared people off. It is just that over the years it is easy to watch as people back away...sometimes for good reasons and sometimes not.

I didn't think you meant me specifically, but I thought you meant jumping in with a highly technical review might.

You are a good man, Jack. I enjoy reading your posts. And I understand why you think validation is important. It is the way you think for one thing. And it is important. I am not saying that it isn't. And I hope I am making that clear.

Thank you, but I am only good because Christ has made me that way. However, don't mistake my goodness for His perfection.

Bless you and your work, Jack.

Thanks, Carol.....I needed that.

Hey, by the way, you all, I just set up podcasting for our Christ Alive! service and the Mid-morning Service. And, yes, I had help with the files!! And I am grateful. Otherwise, we would have no podcasts!!!

Congratulations!!!

[JackWolfgang]

Well, you didn't actually hurt anyone's feelings anyway.

Thanks, David.....I was just trying to make sure that if I did that it wasn't meant to be intentional.

Jack, you were one of the earliest members of this forum and have been a faithful contributor ever since, along with Carol and a handful of others. Allow me to use this opportunity to express my heartfelt appreciation for your contributions to this forum. (And many thanks to you, also, Carol.)

You're welcome, but we should thank you for setting the forum up.

As Carol points out, members have come and gone, but that's really just the nature of forums. For a forum to succeed over time, however, there must be members such as yourself and Carol and others who steadfastly and unselfishly continue to take time from their busy schedules to post in the forum and respond to other's posts.

We try. I am in a lull on web work right now, and I am hoping and praying that others will take the ball and run with what has been started.

[JackWolfgang]

Hi Brian

I love the 'You Belong Here' tagline and the site looks very nice. I would really love to see your service times and address highlighted more - it took me a while to see that your services started at 10.30 - we've had people specifically attend our church because our website was the only local church that had our services times displayed prominently.

I also like your 'What to expect' section - especially the 'is the service going to be boring?' question and response. I also noticed on this page that the font changes near the bottom. There are a couple of other things I would personally iron out but that would make me hypocritical (because your site is better than mine!).

mrbelfry

Asking for opinions here. Belfry states we would have preferred that the service times be more prominent on the Greenwood site saying that his church got a number of visitors from that information on http://www.lighthousecc.co.uk/.

On our church's site (http://fcctlh.org), the information is not on the front page, but on a link (When & Where) from the front page.

David states on his newly revised list of 12 things to do to include the weekend service times on the front page.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[JackWolfgang]

How about a review section of the site? Possibly as a sub-forum of The Roundtable?

Perhaps we could also have a private forum like Share and Care for sites that are in beta and not ready for the public.

[mrbelfry]

David states on his newly revised list of 12 things to do to include the weekend service times on the front page.

Thoughts? Opinions?

I obviously am going to agree being the wise old soul that I am ;-~ - what do people feel about some kind of welcome message on the home page. We currently have a welcome message from our pastor which I think was carved into the same rock that moses used. I'm currently overhauling the site (using wordpress and going to a blog like structure - inspired by jack!) and was thinking about binning the welcome message altogether and going straight into the blog posts? Any thoughts? Good idea or bad?

Thanks

mrbelfry

ps. incidently mrbelfry is all one word. My surname isn't belfry. It's not a big deal but just thought I'd mention it

[StubbyD]

Perhaps we could also have a private forum like Share and Care for sites that are in beta and not ready for the public.

I like this idea ..... we'd need to ensure any off topic conversation gets split off back to the roundtable section though.

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Jack,

David states on his newly revised list of 12 things to do to include the weekend service times on the front page. Thoughts? Opinions?Here are my thoughts on the matter:

My assumption in making that statement (on my Top 12 design tips page) is that a church wants or hopes that visitors to its website will come to a worship service. If that's not the case, then of course, there's no need to put the service times on the home page. But I think it is the hope for most churches.

That being the case, is there anything more important than the service times? Service times are like movie or theater times (that is, the times when movies start playing). It's OK to be a little early to a movie or a church service, but you don't want to be late. So you need to know when the movie you are going to see starts playing. In the same way, visitors need to know when your service or services start.

(Now it's different in the Philippines, where my wife is from. There, if you arrive halfway through a movie, you can stay and catch the next showing. But in America, they'll kick you out when the show is over.)

I've reviewed 1000s of church websites. The problem I've observed is that there is no single uniform place on the inside of church websites to find services times. Some churches put them on the "Services" page, logically enough, but other churches put their service times on a different page. This might be the "How to Find Us" page, or the "Worship ministry" page, or somewhere else. If all churches would get together and mutually agree that services times would always be on a page titled Services times (or whatever was agreed upon), then this issue would be resolved. But until then, I think churches should put service times on their home page, if possible, to make it easy for visitors to find the schedule.

I said "if possible" because I realize that some churches have so many services on weekends or throughout the week, that they can't fit the schedule of services on their home page. In such cases, the church has no choice but to put their service times on an inside page. But if that's the case, they should make sure the schedule is easy to find.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey
President
Great Church Websites

[David Gillaspey]

How about a review section of the site? Hi Jack,

Thanks for suggesting this. I've added this now.

Sincerely,

David Gillaspey

[flutem3]

Hey, Mr. Belfry,

I thought your name was Sir Belfry to be honest about it. :D I thought the Queen had knighted you for your outstanding work on websites...without peer. :cool:

In response to the question of having the address on the home page of a website let me ask a question.

If any of you had a business would you have stationery with the address of the company at the bottom on the backside of the page? That makes no more sense to do than to leave an address off the home page.

We do not capture people's attention for very long. In no way should we expect that a person will go farther than that index page. Think about how you surf the web. How many websites do you land on that you go beyond the index page? Or to put it another way, what is the ratio between the websites on which you look only at the index page and the websites on which you go one page deeper into the website?

Therefore, it seems to me that the pertinent information needs to be front and center, literally, on that home (index) page. I have been on church websites that even the map did not indicate what state the church was in. In my opinion, the most "welcoming" thing we can do is to provide that important information immediately...and not down at the bottom of the page either.

That might wreak havoc with some people's idea of design, but form must follow function...especially on a website. (Personal opinion) :)

Carol
www.wabashfirstumc.org (http://www.wabashfirstumc.org)

[mrbelfry]

I thought your name was Sir Belfry to be honest about it. :D I thought the Queen had knighted you for your outstanding work on websites...without peer. :cool:


lol - I doubt that would ever happen (things seem to be moving much faster than I can keep up with these days) and even if I was offered I'm not sure i'd accept. Sir makes everyone seem older somehow

Happy Birthday for Sunday

mrbelfry

[flutem3]

Thank you for the birthday wish, kind sir. There is one thing about being called Sir. It will get you a good seat in most restaurants. :D

The people in the Philippines with whom I correspond call me Ma'am Carol because I am older than they are. I argued a bit, but I realized they were paying respect so I shut my mouth. I did finally get the pastor to whom I write frequently to call me Carol, and I call him Alex.

They are having a terrible time in the Philippines. Inflation is rampant, terrorists running all over the place, treachery is everywhere it seems. But the Christian community continues with its work. I admire them greatly. And I try to help when I can. Sometimes I am able to do so a bit, and it makes me happy. And I am helping with a church website. It won't pass any kind of scrutiny since it is being done with ForMinistry. But it turned out to be the only thing I could get the other person to understand. She has lots of computer experience but not with websites. I am discovering that it is almost easier to work with someone with little computer experience with expectations which are not so unreasonable as to work with someone with lots of computer experience who expects to be able to build a website in a snap!!

It just ain't gonna be perfect.

Take care,

Ma'am Carol