New site www.bataviachurch.org part 2 [Archive]

ckvkkeek

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 10:12 am

I am in the process of launching a new site. It is now live, but far from complete. However this is better than nothing at all. :-)

http://www.bataviachurch.org

Status:
Beta. It is good enough to launch but from from complete. More pictures of the people will be included along with staff blogs, a dynamic calendar, and podcasting just to name a few. This church has attempted to get a website for many years. I finally made it happen.

Read my list of website design tips:
6. Don't use strongly patterned page backgrounds (e.g., tiled backgrounds).
I have a tiled background, but I think it adds to the site instead of taking away from it. I just didn't want a great expanse of white space.

Don't fill your home page with ads for ministries or church events (and especially, don't allow ads for secular products).
Can't say I fully understand what you are getting at, but if I am right... I don't agree with this tip. I think this is part of what a Great Church Website will do.

Add a "what to expect" page to your website.
In due time. Its a beta site.

Include both an HTML submission form on your website and email addresses for individual staff and ministry leaders.
We've had this talk before. I'll never, ever, ever post an email on a website. It will all be form driven. Now the email part of this is currently limited but that fits with the site.

Tell us about your general proficiency with ...
If its web based, I can do it. I'm a geek. I have used Visual Studio 2005 and ASP.NET 2.0/AJax 1.0 for this site's basic core.

- Clarence

generalhavok

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 12:39 pm

Clarence...here are few things you might think about:

1. If you're going to declare a DOCTYPE (the language and flavor of your code, in this case XHTML 1.0 Transitional), you might make sure that you're code-compliant. You're not in bad shape, overall...but the first one is a biggie:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bataviachurch.org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

2. Your title tag is overstuffed. I'd suggest a more conservative approach.

3. You might do a little reading on metatags. Your keyword metatag is way overstuffed, which will achieve the opposite of your goal: your ranking will often actually go down with this approach.

4. If you're at all concerned about search engine position, you might consider removing the javascript from your navigation. Search engines can't 'click through' a script, and so you're making those pages invisible. Same goes for Flash links. Search engines can only click through text links.

4b. If you're concerned about accessibility, you might consider removing the javascript from your navigation. Those who surf with javascript disabled (anywhere from 3% to 10%, depending on who you ask) are completely unable to click any of your navigation's links.

5. As a best practice, consider treating all scripts (like your menu) as you would your CSS. Put it in a remote file and link it rather than hard-code it. That way you can make changes to that single file rather than to every page on your site.

6. Being able to do something isn't the same as needing to do something. What does your viewstate accomplish for you? If you need it, keep it...it's the shortest viewstate I've ever seen. If you don't need it, consider removing it.

7. Your site is wider than 800px. I'm willing to bet that more than 25% of your church members have their screens set for 800x600 resolution. It's TOTALLY a minor issue, but you have to set width somewhere...so why not set it at a width that works for the majority of your visitors?

8. The alt text and title text for your images employ a sound principle, but you're overdoing it. Again, this could have the opposite effect from what you intend: search engines might consider this 'keyword stuffing' and rank you down for it. In a worst-case scenario, you could be blacklisted for it. If nothing else, spread it around...they all say the same thing, which is a "black hat" technique.

9. I'd recommend that you spend some time reading about CSS. You're using it, but you're also doing more work than necessary. Your code includes lots of things - multiple times - that could be covered once in your stylesheet. You're also using a table for your site's arrangement, which isn't the unforgiveable sin...but when people who use tables think about redoing their sites, they usually cringe. It's a lot of work to redo a site like that, but hardly any work at all to redo a site that makes full use of CSS. There's a learning curve, to be sure...but as a designer, you'll have much more control over the finished product than you do now.

To illustrate: I viewed your index pages' source code (undoubtedly less than what's actually in the file on the server, considering that you're using .NET). What rendered in my browser took 315 client-side lines. I edited your code to eliminate redundancy (stylesheet stuff) and tables...replacing that code with the equivalent code I'd use. The resulting file is a fairly trim and conservative 120 lines. That's a savings of 60%. Admittedly, it's only text...but it will load faster and is more easily edited. I also removed all of the transparent spacer gifs, since you wouldn't need them without tables.

The benefit? Beyond quicker download speeds for all and easier edits for you, it's simple: I could create a new stylesheet and graphics and completely redesign the site in a matter of hours...or minutes. Take a look at the CSS Zen Garden (http://csszengarden.com/) and see what I mean. Every page there is comprised of the same HTML and a different style sheet. That shows how future redesigns for your church's website could be done quickly and easily rather than painstakingly redoing it from scratch.

I hope that you don't mind me taking the time to completely rip apart your code. It's the first time I've actually spent considerable time doing it...most of the time I try to answer questions rather than provide a comprehensive critique. I don't mean to come across harshly, so please forgive me if I did. I only want to help, and figured that you could take it because you wrote the site with some fairly advanced techniques.

Have a great day!

ckvkkeek

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 12:51 pm

Threaded replies (and thanks for the detailed reply):

1. If you're going to declare a DOCTYPE (the language and flavor of your code, in this case XHTML 1.0 Transitional), you might make sure that you're code-compliant. You're not in bad shape, overall...but the first one is a biggie:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...Inline&group=0
I'll have to look at my menu creator to see if there is a flag I can set to fix this.

2. Your title tag is overstuffed. I'd suggest a more conservative approach.

3. You might do a little reading on metatags. Your keyword metatag is way overstuffed, which will achieve the opposite of your goal: your ranking will often actually go down with this approach.
I've heard this line many times, but real life examples have proven otherwise. While I'm sure if you have all meta tags and no content, this is true... my sites always have content.

4. If you're at all concerned about search engine position, you might consider removing the javascript from your navigation. Search engines can't 'click through' a script, and so you're making those pages invisible. Same goes for Flash links. Search engines can only click through text links.

4b. If you're concerned about accessibility, you might consider removing the javascript from your navigation. Those who surf with javascript disabled (anywhere from 3% to 10%, depending on who you ask) are completely unable to click any of your navigation's links.

When it's all said and done I'll have a site map to take care of much of this.

5. As a best practice, consider treating all scripts (like your menu) as you would your CSS. Put it in a remote file and link it rather than hard-code it. That way you can make changes to that single file rather than to every page on your site.
Well thanks to .NET 2.0 and Master pages, the ONLY thing I have to update from page to page is the content section. Everything else is contained in the master page.

6. Being able to do something isn't the same as needing to do something. What does your viewstate accomplish for you? If you need it, keep it...it's the shortest viewstate I've ever seen. If you don't need it, consider removing it.
.NET stuff... nothing from me.

7. Your site is wider than 800px. I'm willing to bet that more than 25% of your church members have their screens set for 800x600 resolution. It's TOTALLY a minor issue, but you have to set width somewhere...so why not set it at a width that works for the majority of your visitors?
An entire 4 pixels is going to make a huge difference??? It is only to wide due to the scroll bar. The 4 pixels won't make that big of a difference... but I'll probably fix it in due time.

8. The alt text and title text for your images employ a sound principle, but you're overdoing it. Again, this could have the opposite effect from what you intend: search engines might consider this 'keyword stuffing' and rank you down for it. In a worst-case scenario, you could be blacklisted for it. If nothing else, spread it around...they all say the same thing, which is a "black hat" technique.
Beta site :-), my built in validator from Visual Studio 2005 tells me I need it so I did stuff it.

9..... deleted your text.

I do need to learn about CSS a bit, however going from one style to another is VERY easy with master pages and .net 2.0

generalhavok

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 1:26 pm

...thanks for the detailed reply
Happy to help. I hope you feel the same about this message. :)

I'll have to look at my menu creator to see if there is a flag I can set to fix this.
While Visual Studio 2005 is pretty good, stuff like this is why I hand-write all of my own code. No software program that I'm aware of, including CMS and CMS-like WordPress etc. writes good code. Rather than undo what my software does, I prefer to make it right the first time. I realize that not everyone can do this, but it might be a worthy goal.

I've heard this line many times, but real life examples have proven otherwise. While I'm sure if you have all meta tags and no content, this is true... my sites always have content.
First, it's not a line. Every engine has limitations on meta content, and limitations on which meta content they use. It pays to know what those limitations are.

Second, Google generally doesn't even use keywords in pagerank because people have a tendency to do what you've done. Engines like FindWhat follow Google's lead in most cases, and others like Turbo10 simply don't have the technology built to allow them to use it appropriately...so they don't use them at all. If your content is good enough, you won't need any keyword metatags at all, as my own sites have shown for many years. In many cases, keyword metatags that conflict with a page's content will indeed be used as a negative factor in pagerank. You won't find sites done by Bruce Clay (as one example of a world-class optimizer) with anything like what you've created.

The SEO techniques you're using are both ill-advised and outdated. I'm not being critical, to be honest...only pointing to what you may not know.

When it's all said and done I'll have a site map to take care of much of this.
That's great for search engines, but won't help any of those folks who surf your site without javascript.

Well thanks to .NET 2.0 and Master pages, the ONLY thing I have to update from page to page is the content section. Everything else is contained in the master page.
Yup. Master pages are great...but I don't understand your reasoning. If you're not going to use inline CSS (presumably from a best-practice point of view) why not use the same logic for everything on your site? Why make visitors download extraneous code on every page?

.NET stuff... nothing from me.
I know it's .NET stuff...but you're the webmaster. You should be making the decisions about your site, rather than let Microsoft do it.

An entire 4 pixels is going to make a huge difference??? It is only to wide due to the scroll bar. The 4 pixels won't make that big of a difference... but I'll probably fix it in due time.
It may be 4 pixels in your browser, but each browser is different. 796px doesn't fit when you have 20px+ of window chrome, does it? The generally-accepted width for 800x600 resolutions is a maximum of 780px. Am I being nitpicky? Yeah, I am...but as I pointed out: you have to fix a width anyway, so why not pick one that really works great instead of "good enough for government work"?

I suppose that's the difference between "making websites" and being a web designer. No offense...everybody's at a different point in the process.

I do need to learn about CSS a bit, however going from one style to another is VERY easy with master pages and .net 2.0
.NET will output what you tell it to...so you're in control of the site in the end. Yes, master pages make it easy to redesign the site...but what about the next designer? If you use proprietary code to make the site, you're forcing them to either buy the software to manage it or to completely recode the site to make it manageable. Why not leverage the technology to create something that works across the board for everyone?

I appreciate your responses, as they tell me that you've put some thought into the process. My point isn't to show that you're wrong, but to give you a few things to consider as you move forward. I hope you're having a great day, and that my disagreement doesn't get in the way.

ckvkkeek

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 1:47 pm

Rather than undo what my software does, I prefer to make it right the first time. I realize that not everyone can do this, but it might be a worthy goal.

This isn't a matter of right or wrong, but preference. Now please keep in mind that the menu is written by a third party app unrelated to M$. I don't care about the viewstate being listed in my .net application.

Rather than undo what my software does, I prefer to make it right the first time. I realize that not everyone can do this, but it might be a worthy goal.

You don't know what those limitations are, nobody does. Now I didn't say there weren't limitations, I said that generally it doesn't affect the site in SEO. If its REALLY bad, I'm sure it does... but not for what I have.

Second, Google generally doesn't even use keywords in pagerank because people have a tendency to do what you've done.

I have specifically seen this proven incorrect. In my previous site we added ONE word to our description and keywords and saw us go from unlisted to listed number one.

That's great for search engines, but won't help any of those folks who surf your site without javascript.

All one percent of them.

It may be 4 pixels in your browser, but each browser is different. 796px doesn't fit when you have 20px+ of window chrome, does it? The generally-accepted width for 800x600 resolutions is a maximum of 780px. Am I being nitpicky? Yeah, I am...but as I pointed out: you have to fix a width anyway, so why not pick one that really works great instead of "good enough for government work"?

Did you bother to look at my table width? It is 789... just fyi.

I suppose that's the difference between "making websites" and being a web designer. No offense

Offense taken. You really need to work on your delivery.

you're forcing them to either buy the software

It's free.

My point isn't to show that you're wrong

I'm not wrong. I have a different preference then you and in some cases, I know you're wrong because in real life sites I've seen it proven wrong.

David Gillaspey

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 2:02 pm

Clarence,

<< Offense taken. You really need to work on your delivery. >>

Tony's delivery was fine and has my complete approval.

I want this section of the forum (public reviews) to be a place where people give and receive tough, detailed criticism. If you can't handle the advice, don't ask for it.

ckvkkeek

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 2:21 pm

I don't care if it has the approval of Jesus, I took offense to it.

There is a difference between offering some input and saying, you suck so bad you're not a REAL web designer.

ckvkkeek

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 2:47 pm

David Gillaspey

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 3:16 pm

Clarence,

When you reach the point where your sites are so good that no one can find anything to suggest for improvement, whether in the design (see http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/forums/showthread.php?t=651) or the coding, THEN you can take offense.

Tony graciously took time to provide detailed suggestions about your site, which is exactly what I want for this area of the forum.

I want members to feel free to provide suggestions, advice, and criticism of church websites without fear of offending the recipient. The opposite of that is members giving "safe" advice that doesn't really help anyone.

ckvkkeek

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 3:23 pm

My comment of taking offense was purely at one line of his post.

Please read my prior post and let me know what you think of that individual statement, which is what my reply was to when I said I do take offense.

David Gillaspey

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 4:14 pm

<<6. Don't use strongly patterned page backgrounds (e.g., tiled backgrounds) >>Subtle background patterns have made a comeback over the past few years, a point I make in my list.

The question is, is your background "subtle"? It's kind of in the middle, on this issue. I would say it calls attention to itself just a bit too much. However, I certainly can see why you feel it's ok.

But, one thing to consider is, the visitor to the site might think there's some meaning to the puzzle pieces. In fact, there might be! — though it eludes me what that might be. If the puzzle pieces have no particular meaning or relevance to your site, then perhaps a different background pattern would be better.

<< Don't fill your home page with ads for ministries or church events (and especially, don't allow ads for secular products). >>

Can't say I fully understand what you are getting at ...Good point. I need to make that say, "Don't fill your home page with graphical ads for ministries."

You might still disagree with that, but at least you'll understand my point.

ckvkkeek

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 4:33 pm

I will define the puzzle theme at some point in the future, but in short the church pushes a 'connect' theme to their ministry.

They use the puzzle stuff a lot in their graphics for flyers and such, ie get connected.

It will be come clearer over time.

generalhavok

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 5:08 pm

You don't know what those limitations are, nobody does.
That you don't know them isn't an indication that it's a secret. Having worked in the search industry, I can tell you that metatag usage isn't difficult to understand. Each engine will weight each metatag differently, and it's the weighting that's secret...not the knowledge of who uses them and to what extent. Very few people know as much about search as Danny Sullivan does...here's what Danny said about the keywords metatag last March:

The meta keywords tag allows you to provide additional text for crawler-based search engines to index along with your body copy. How does this help you? Well, for most major crawlers, it doesn't. That's because most crawlers now ignore the tag.

The meta keywords tag is sometimes useful as a way to reinforce the terms you think a page is important for ON THE FEW CRAWLERS THAT SUPPORT IT. For instance, if you had a page about stamp collecting -- AND you say the words stamp collecting at various places in your body copy -- then mentioning the words "stamp collecting" in the meta keywords tag MIGHT help boost your page a bit higher for those words.

I have specifically seen this proven incorrect. In my previous site we added ONE word to our description and keywords and saw us go from unlisted to listed number one.
With all due respect, that couldn't be true. Crawlers don't work that way. If you'd been crawled, you'd have been in the index...adding a single word to your metatags wouldn't have made the difference between not being listed and being #1. It's more likely that you'd never been indexed, and when the robot got around to it you deserved your #1 spot.

All one percent of them.
If that number comes from your web stats, then your javascript isn't an issue at the moment. If that number doesn't come from your web stats, it's entirely incorrect. Conservative estimates place browsers with javascript off at around 6%. If you can make a good business case for excluding that many people from your church's website, then go for it. As a general rule, church and ministry sites should be as accessible as possible to take advantage of as many ministry opportunities as possible.

flutem3

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 5:26 pm

And just so you don't have to read:
I suppose that's the difference between "making websites" and being a web designer. No offense...everybody's at a different point in the process.See, that is a direct cheap shot. Everything else was directed at improving the site. If you don't see that... let me know, really.

Hi, Clarence,

I have been following this conversation very closely. I have determined a couple of things:

1. Critique is critique. You are free to take it or leave it. You need not change a thing. But you were the person who asked for a critique in the first place. Otherwise, nobody would have said anything.

2. If you expect people to agree with you all the time, this is not the place to have your website critiqued. I have not had our website critiqued because I know it can be torn to shreds, but it is the best I can do right now. But I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that no matter what changes I make, someone else will think I am right or wrong...or just flat out ill-advised. I knew nothing at all to begin with. Now, I know a bit more. It would seem that we all, no matter how skilled we are, still have a lot we can learn from one another. That is why I keep coming here despite my not being at the skill level of others. This is a wonderful place to learn. It is not the place to have everyone agree with you.

3. I do not hear or read a "cheap-shot" in the comment which was made. We are indeed at different points in this journey. That is the truth. And there is a difference between "making a website" and "being a designer." I would love to think that I am a designer, but I am not. I don't have the knowledge or skills. I do the best I can with the talents and knowledge I have. I "make a website". And there is nothing wrong with that. How am I going to learn design if I do not make websites and work on them?

4. Why did you ask for a critique if you were going to be so defensive about the answers to the critique. If I were in your shoes, and I am not, I would be really grateful that someone took the time and interest in what I was doing to look at my work so thoroughly.

What the General might have included, that he did not think he needed to include, were the good things you did on the website. We tend to neglect to do that when critiquing things. I know that one thing David likes about our website is that I have the church name, address, contact info, and worship times so they cannot be missed. He does not need to tell me that. I know it already. But we do, in general, dwell on the negative and neglect the positive...not just on websites.

We are very quick to criticize people and very slow to compliment. I have a yearly new years resolution to compliment people when there is something to compliment. I still don't do it nearly so frequently as is deserved...and I am trying to pay attention to it! :D

Clarence, please do not be so quick to take offense. None was meant. That is not how the people on here are. They will be direct when you ask for a critique, but I have never seen it done with a mean spirit. I have been on here a long time. And I get all of the posts on all of the topics. People on here are bright, generous people. Give them a break; and, Clarence, please don't be so defensive. There is no need to be.

Bless you in your ministry,

Carol

ckvkkeek

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 5:33 pm

OK, Tony I'm a liar and I don't know what I sat and saw happened. I guess you were here in Milford when I did it.

Carol,
I am far from being quick to be offended. Far from it. Not only did I value his critiques, but I am implementing fixes for them right now. I even thanked him for what he provided.

But the cheap shot was what it was. There is a HUGE difference between the two. I see people like this in my field of expertise all the time.. if you don't code their way all the time, you're an idiot. No if ands or buts about it. I could go on, but I'm done with this part of this thread. If anybody has something to add about the site (critical or not), I'm 100% ok with it.

ckvkkeek

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 5:52 pm

man we play this but it aint nearly as clean as this, super bowl over/under (http://superbowl2012oddslasvegas76b.info), 8-PPP, super bowl 46 coin toss (http://superbowl46oddshmfj.info), 731709,

flutem3

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 5:57 pm

"But the cheap shot was what it was. There is a HUGE difference between the two. I see people like this in my field of expertise all the time.. if you don't code their way all the time, you're an idiot. No if ans or buts about it. I could go on, but I'm done with this part of this thread. If anybody has something to add about the site (critical or not), I'm 100% ok with it."

Hi, Clarence,

From what I can tell from my limited perch, I have yet to "hear" any two people sound as if they code the same. And then there are those of us who think "code" is something used in the military. :D We don't code at all.

We are the dreadful WYSIWYGers who drive those who can code well right up a tree. Everything we do is "bloated" because that is the nature of the beast. But at least we are able to make, not necessarily well-design, a website for our church.

I know without a shadow of a doubt that there are many people who think that a poor website is worse than no website at all. I am not a good judge of websites, perhaps, but I have seen some church websites which are dreadful...just awful. But the people in the church are thankful that someone made a website. It may not reflect well on the church in some people's eyes.

But when I see a website that I think is just dreadful, I remind myself that it might be someone like I was just three years ago who didn't know a thing about making a website.

I will never know a lot of code...not enough to build a website. And that is okay. I have a limited amount of energy to use. I decided not to use it trying to learn to code because we still would not have a website. I decided it was a better use of my time to learn as I went, and some of the people on here can tell you there is a great difference in our church site in three years.

Does it validate? No. It doesn't do a lot of things. But it does do a lot, and it does it well. Can it be better? You bet it can. As soon as I learn enough new stuff from all of you I will redesign it. :)

I don't think you are a liar. It sounded more like a misunderstanding to me.

Carol

generalhavok

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 6:10 pm

I suppose that's the difference between "making websites" and being a web designer. No offense...everybody's at a different point in the process.
See, that is a direct cheap shot. Everything else was directed at improving the site. If you don't see that... let me know, really.
Clarence:

First, let me say this: I did not intend to insult you.
Second, let me say this: there are two sides to an insult, and you're responsible for your part as well. Instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt after spending considerable time giving you what you asked for, you immediately thought the worst. If you ask for feedback, you should be ready for feedback in whatever form it comes.

Let me explain my initial comment further.
I've been making websites since 1999. I've worked as a full-time freelancer from home for going on three years. When it comes to search, I've consulted with companies like Orbitz and Travelocity and Road and Track (among hundreds of others) on their web marketing, search presence, and website functionality. In other words, this is something I have some knowledge of.

However: I read the blogs and articles written by the world's best web people...folks like Danny Sullivan and Mike Davidson and Simon Collison and Andy Budd and the like. Compared to them, I'm a hack.

In other words, I'm in process...just like you are.

The words "web design" imply a thoughtful and planned process of making a website. When you talk to the best designers in the world, you realize that virtually every single decision they make is for a reason. When you talk to the average website maker, they don't generally understand that there should be reasons...let alone what they are.

In some ways, I still make websites...but I'm learning to design them. I'm still learning about things like mathematically-structured layouts and grid-based line pacing. Typography is, for me, a matter of making sure my font sizes are proportional...I have a long way to go.

You can choose whether to be offended by what I wrote. I didn't intend for it to be an insult, but I was definitely trying to make a point. Let me quote myself on a related topic. Some designers were discussing the feasibility of foregoing all IE6-related hackery when designing new sites...the idea was that making ugly sites would push people to upgrade their browsers:

I’m enough of a purist to WANT to ignore IE6…but enough of a realist to point out the stupidity inherent in these discussions. If you want your personal site to look like garbage, that’s your business. As a web professional, I have to say the obvious:

If you don’t know how to code for IE6, you don’t know how to code.

Yes, that’s right. I said it. If you’re unable to create a website that works properly in IE6 and IE7 and FF1 and FF2 and Camino and Safari, you have no business calling yourself a designer. Pretending that IE6 doesn’t exist is like flipping a coin and assuming that it will always come up tails. Nobody in their right mind is willing to bet their business (or their job income, or their freelance income) on such a ridiculous idea.

Get over the self-righteous indignation and look at your web stats. When the percentage of IE6 users is low enough for you to ignore, then ignore them. Until then, make the best websites you can make. Challenge yourself to make a great site for IE and an amazing site for everyone else. Instead of whining about the difficulty, try OVERCOMING it.

Maybe now you can see where I'm coming from. Anyone can make a website, but not as many know what websites are for, how to make them effective, what sorts of things comprise 'best practices' and so on. We're all somewhere on that continuum...and your comment about '4 pixels of width' showed me where you stand, on that issue, on the continuum. A seasoned web designer knows what width to make each website, and a website maker doesn't think much about it. When it comes to .NET stuff, maybe you're a website designer. When it comes to display width, maybe you're a website maker.

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

David Gillaspey

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 6:26 pm

The words "web design" imply a thoughtful and planned process of making a website. When you talk to the best designers in the world, you realize that virtually every single decision they make is for a reason. When you talk to the average website maker, they don't generally understand that there should be reasons...let alone what they are.Hi Tony,

It's interesting that this is exactly what I'm learning in the Information Design course I'm taking online right now from The Art Institute Online. I've posted a PowerPoint file that represents my progress on the final project to date; it includes four of the five steps of the process mentioned in the thread. See

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/forums/showthread.php?t=688

(see post #3)

Some might find this interesting to read.

In real life, going through the five steps, you are more likely to develop a Word doc, but for my course, we're asked to make a PowerPoint presentation. A poor format for the purpose, I think, but it's what is required.

generalhavok

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 10:06 pm

It's interesting that this is exactly what I'm learning in the Information Design course I'm taking online right now from The Art Institute Online. I've posted a PowerPoint file that represents my progress on the final project to date; it includes four of the five steps of the process mentioned in the thread. See

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/forums/showthread.php?t=688

(see post #3)

Some might find this interesting to read.
I know I did. I've read the beginning stuff you have online (I subscribe to the feed) and it's good. I'm looking forward to reading more, as I'm self-taught.

generalhavok

Tue., Aug. 7, 2007, 10:13 pm

Clarence:

Please feel free to critique any of my websites. I've asked several online webmaster communities for help on improving, and have never gotten anywhere with it. I know it's not because there's no room for criticism...I'm not sure why, but when I asked the following question, nobody had anything to say (on two websites) except "learn a new programming language to stretch yourself":

"What do you do to increase your skills as a web designer? Do you read books? Blogs? Have you become a better artist? Once you know how to write valid and semantic code, and to write well and optimize for search, what then? How can I improve?"

Any information you might have would certainly be appreciated. I mean it. If you have some constructive to add, I'd be in your debt. If you need to find some of the websites I've built, you can simply go to my website and see what's launched recently.

Have a great day!

David Gillaspey

Wed., Aug. 8, 2007, 12:28 pm

Folks,

Four posts that were formerly located about here in this thread, but were not related to the subject of the review of Clarence's website, are now here (http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/forums/showthread.php?t=692).

David Gillaspey

Wed., Aug. 8, 2007, 2:16 pm

Hi Clarence,

Here's my review of your website.

1. First, I'll commend you for including the church address and other contact information on the home page. It's surprising — and dismaying — that so few church websites put this vital information right on the home page, where it's easy to find.

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/batavia1.jpg

2. (Above) The titles marked above are images. Use text instead.

To your credit, you did include ALT text attributes for these in your source code, e.g., alt = "Service times for The Batavia Church of Christ." If you choose to stick with images for links, I would submit that "Service times" (for this example) is sufficient. Yes, the additional verbiage might increase your visibility with search engines, but remember, ALT tags are for the benefit of blind people, who browse websites with screen readers. Why make them hear that extra verbiage?

If you feel you must use images instead of text, I would then suggest making the outline around the letters much thinner. The thick outline present now is not attractive.

3. As of this writing, the background (a pattern of puzzle pieces) is extremely light. I originally thought you had removed the pattern. While I'm not keen on the use of a puzzle pattern for the background, if you feel that's important, you'll want to be somewhere between where it was and where it is now, in terms of how dark the image is.

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/batavia2.jpg

4. (Above) The puzzle motif (images cut into pieces of a puzzle) is unlikely to be understood by anyone from outside the church. There may very well be a program in the church or a vision statement that this reflects, but visitors to the site won't know that. To them, it will just look silly.

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/batavia3.jpg

5. (Above) Wouldn't you want to have fields for names in your contact form? Don't count on people remembering to include their name in the text of the message.

Consider also including fields for location, e.g., city and region (not "state," because people from Canada and from around the world may see the site). You wouldn't want a staff member spending a lot of time corresponding with a visitor only to discover he or she lives in Romania and is unlikely to be able to visit church next Sunday.

Also, consider adding a phone number field.

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/batavia4.jpg

6. (Above) I think a little wider of a gutter of white space between the column on the left and the text on the right (on all pages) would be more attractive. Try about 9 to 12 points of white space.

Regarding the text, consider making it little larger point size, and breaking it up into two paragraphs. Both will help to make the text a little more readable.

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/batavia5.jpg

7a. (Above) "Worship & The Word," "Ministry & Equipping," "Community & Character," and "Life & Love" on this page are set in blue type with underlines. Both blue type and underlining by convention indicate links on the web — only these aren't links. (Not yet, anyway. Perhaps your plan is to link these subtitles to other pages in the future).

Therefore, I would suggest using another color besides blue and not underlining the headings.

7b. (Above) On the positive side, the little dashes on either side of the Scripture citations are a nice touch.

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/batavia6.jpg

8. (Above) There are ways to make the map show right on the page. Do that instead of putting a link there.

Those are my comments.

ckvkkeek

Wed., Aug. 8, 2007, 6:41 pm

2. (Above) The titles marked above are images. Use text instead.

To your credit, you did include ALT text attributes for these in your source code, e.g., alt = "Service times for The Batavia Church of Christ." If you choose to stick with images for links, I would submit that "Service times" (for this example) is sufficient. Yes, the additional verbiage might increase your visibility with search engines, but remember, ALT tags are for the benefit of blind people, who browse websites with screen readers. Why make them hear that extra verbiage?

If you feel you must use images instead of text, I would then suggest making the outline around the letters much thinner. The thick outline present now is not attractive.

This will be the first website where I have used image buttons instead of text. It is a trade off, because you just can't make HTML font look as creative as buttons. And for the unimportant things (like a generic column header) I've made the decision to go with style over substance. Let me think about the alt tag suggestion If this were an established domain name I'd be all for it, but I need to get the fact that, that site equals the Batavia Church of Christ I put that in the verbiage.

3. As of this writing, the background (a pattern of puzzle pieces) is extremely light. I originally thought you had removed the pattern. While I'm not keen on the use of a puzzle pattern for the background, if you feel that's important, you'll want to be somewhere between where it was and where it is now, in terms of how dark the image is.

Well in general I'm with you again on the dislike for a background image. But as you have noted, these are coming back in the fold a bit. So I met in the middle... very light so it is still there and adds to the design of the site, but not there so much that it steals the focus.

4. (Above) The puzzle motif (images cut into pieces of a puzzle) is unlikely to be understood by anyone from outside the church. There may very well be a program in the church or a vision statement that this reflects, but visitors to the site won't know that. To them, it will just look silly.

Well I've shared this with a lot of people and the high majority of them liked the designs look, which will be the main focus of a visitor. Not so much the theme, unless its so bad its distracting. I don't think I crossed that line. Then the second thing about a website is that its NOT only for visitors. I feel that a members or regular attender (who will understand the theme) will understand it and it will reinforce the theme of the church. The sad truth is that members will visit this site substantially more than non-members. So while in time I hope to clarify "why the puzzle pieces" for this version of the site, I don't see a huge problem with it. Would love more input on this suggestion from others... to see if I'm just being stubborn.

5. (Above) Wouldn't you want to have fields for names in your contact form? Don't count on people remembering to include their name in the text of the message.

Its a beta site, they will soon have a lot of options from our contact form.

You wouldn't want a staff member spending a lot of time corresponding with a visitor only to discover he or she lives in Romania and is unlikely to be able to visit church next Sunday.

Well if this person is really searching for Christ and our site helps that process, I'd love nothing more than our staff members to help this person out. But I still understand the need for this information... just being difficult.

6. (Above) I think a little wider of a gutter of white space between the column on the left and the text on the right (on all pages) would be more attractive. Try about 9 to 12 points of white space.

Just haven't taken the time to tweak it to a level I like.

Regarding the text, consider making it little larger point size, and breaking it up into two paragraphs. Both will help to make the text a little more readable.

I expect that text to be entirely replaced. This was just some hold over text from a previous attempt this church made at the site. I really don't like most of the text that was provided for the site, it was not web friendly.

7a. (Above) "Worship & The Word," "Ministry & Equipping," "Community & Character," and "Life & Love" on this page are set in blue type with underlines. Both blue type and underlining by convention indicate links on the web — only these aren't links. (Not yet, anyway. Perhaps your plan is to link these subtitles to other pages in the future).

Therefore, I would suggest using another color besides blue and not underlining the headings.

7b. (Above) On the positive side, the little dashes on either side of the Scripture citations are a nice touch.

Well I expect this page to be changed a few more times until it stabalizes. This again was something stolen from the previous attempt... so I tried my best to make a quick dose of lemonade out of the lemons.

8. (Above) There are ways to make the map show right on the page. Do that instead of putting a link there.

Have I mentioned this is a beta site? :-) This is another one of those pages I expect to change drastically. From point to point friendly directions that a map software isn't as good at, to the map included on the page.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'll be revisiting this post when I get back to tweaking it again.

flutem3

Wed., Aug. 8, 2007, 6:57 pm

"The sad truth is that members will visit this site substantially more than non-members."

Hi, Clarence,

How do you know that? On our website we have substantially more visitors from non-members than members. In fact, I have a terrible time with that issue. I discovered after I began that we are not a particularly computer literate congregation. As Curtis said one time, "Your church does not have a 'culture of technology.' " And that is the absolute truth. I was not so much different from them five years ago.

People think it is "nice" that I do the website since I am semi-homebound. No, it is not nice. I do it for the glory of God no matter what shape it is in. God knows I am doing the best I know how. I heard a person one time say that it was not glorifying God to have a terrible, ugly, awful-looking website...that you are only glorifying God if the website is "well-done." I took exception to that as you might guess.

Over time, let me know who frequents this website the most. I am fascinated.

Carol

ckvkkeek

Wed., Aug. 8, 2007, 7:02 pm

Well I said that comment over previous expierence. I just tend to design sites that are driven to get members there as well as visitors. Because if they are at the site throughout the week they will talk about their church throughout the week :-).

I would assume it also has to do with the technical ability of the church in question, my area is pretty computer suave.

generalhavok

Wed., Aug. 8, 2007, 7:04 pm

We too have many more non-church website visitors than members...to the tune of about 5 to 1. As soon as a church website is launched, it is immediately an international ministry...whether the church knows it or not. Someone should be ready for it!

When it comes to using graphics instead of text, there's a helpful trick that will allow you to have your images and eat your search engine cake, too!

<h1><a href="/">Link Text for Screen Readers</a></h1>

This is a typical text link. Now...style it up:

h1 {
width: 100%;
height: 100px;
background: url(/image.jpg) no-repeat left top; }

h1 a {
display: block;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
text-indent: -9999px; }

That's it. You give the block element height and width and a background, and negatively-indent the text until it's way off-screen. The link takes up the entire space that's filled with your background image. Screen readers (for the blind, including search engines) get the text, and sighted readers get the yummy graphic goodness. This is done without adding any additional markup to your page...in fact, it's usually less!

ckvkkeek

Wed., Aug. 8, 2007, 7:38 pm

Well I was pretty much discounting non-local traffic. If you count that kind of stuff then yes the visitors to your site will far outnumber your members.

I probably look at 50 churches a month (at minimum).

And again, part of my comment was related to having a very technical church.

JackWolfgang

Wed., Aug. 8, 2007, 7:47 pm

5. (Above) Wouldn't you want to have fields for names in your contact form? Don't count on people remembering to include their name in the text of the message.

Consider also including fields for location, e.g., city and region (not "state," because people from Canada and from around the world may see the site). You wouldn't want a staff member spending a lot of time corresponding with a visitor only to discover he or she lives in Romania and is unlikely to be able to visit church next Sunday.

Also, consider adding a phone number field.

I think that's an excellent suggestion, and I am going to implement it soon.

David Gillaspey

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 2:26 pm

This will be the first website where I have used image buttons instead of text. It is a trade off, because you just can't make HTML font look as creative as buttons. And for the unimportant things (like a generic column header) I've made the decision to go with style over substance. As you know, graphics: 1) take longer to download then text; 2) require ALT text for screen readers; and 3) require a person with a graphics program to update if, say, a high-paying job in the future takes you to the other side of the country and you're now longer available to do it.

But if you must use graphics, then making only the headers into graphics would seem to be an acceptable compromise. They are unlikely to need to be updated.

Let me think about the alt tag suggestion If this were an established domain name I'd be all for it, but I need to get the fact that, that site equals the Batavia Church of Christ I put that in the verbiage.<< If this were an established domain name I'd be all for it >>

Mmmm ... I'm not exactly sure what you mean this. However, I'll assume you're referring to visibility to search engines, because the alt text isn't seen by sighted people and would make no difference to them.

Probably few blind people will be visiting your site right away, so if you have to make a choice between two competing priorities, leaving the extra verbiage for now perhaps is an appropriate choice for you to make.

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/batavia7.jpg

... background image. ... So I met in the middle... very light so it is still there and adds to the design of the site, but not there so much that it steals the focus.But I don't see it all, as demonstrated by the screen shot above.

Well I've shared this [the puzzle design] with a lot of people and the high majority of them liked the design's look, which will be the main focus of a visitor. The people you asked for an opinion were professional website designers and graphic artists? Or people in the church?

Who do you think has a better idea of what constitutes good design?

Allow me to go on record as saying the puzzle motif is a bad idea.

Just haven't taken the time to tweak it to a level I like. ... I expect that text to be entirely replaced. ... Well I expect this page to be changed a few more times until it stabalizes. ...This is another one of those pages I expect to change drastically.

Well, no doubt you had a lot of things to work on regarding the website, and needed a critique sooner rather than later.

However, for the next round, if you feel the need for one, please ensure that you fix or tweak everything you know needs to be fixed. (This goes for everyone reading this post and considering asking for forum members to critique their website.) But I'm sure you already planned to do that.

generalhavok

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 2:37 pm

Allow me to go on record as saying the puzzle motif is a bad idea.
With all due respect, I have to agree with David. Here's why:

Branding and messaging experts teach that if your image doesn't enhance your messaging, it limits your messaging.

Your choice of images for the motif might be considered puzzling. :)

What does a puzzle piece say about this church? About the people there? Images communicate, and it's not clear what the puzzle pieces communicate. I like the one in the header best, which looks like the last piece might be going into place...that's good imagery for a church, if you ask me. The problem is that continuing that imagery for the mission, activities, and ministries of the church might be communicating that the church is somehow not 'put together'.

ckvkkeek

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 2:37 pm

require a person with a graphics program to update if, say, a high-paying job in the future takes you to the other side of the country and you're now longer available to do it.

This is a valid concern if I were the only technical guy that could do it. But the dynamics of this church would have to change greatly for this to be a real issue. Plus... I always have email :-)

I'll assume you're referring to visibility to search engines,

That is correct. I want the search engines to know that this is the website for the Batavia Church of Christ. I've been submitting this site to list after list after list, so it will become known :-).

But I don't see it all, as demonstrated by the screen shot above.

Just for you I'll darken it :-). But even with your screen grab I see it :-). Couldn't imagine you having a poor monitor??

The people you asked for an opinion were professional website designers and graphic artists? Or people in the church?

All the above.

Who do you think has a better idea of what constitutes good design?

All the above. And I give more weight to the users over the 'experts'. If the users don't like it then why have it? You've been the only one, and after I post this I'll reread this thread, to note a dislike for it.

Allow me to go on record as saying the puzzle motif is a bad idea.

In YOUR opinion. The reason for the puzzle theme should become more understood as the site develops along.

However, for the next round, if you feel the need for one, please ensure that you fix or tweak everything you know needs to be fixed. (This goes for everyone reading this post and considering asking for forum members to critique their website.) But I'm sure you already planned to do that.

Not only do I plan on doing it, I already have started doing it. Many of the suggestions in this thread have been implemented already.

ckvkkeek

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 2:46 pm

Churches have themes in their multimedia, the puzzle theme is what this church uses. When you come to church and hear them talk it makes great sense. In due time I think the puzzle them will make sense to people visiting the site as well.

generalhavok

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 2:51 pm

With all due respect, I have to agree with David.
No surprise there.
There's no reason to snipe, is there? You're free to accept or reject my input...why would you also seek to make me either look, or feel, bad? You might disagree with my conclusions, but I've done nothing beyond trying to help. I can see that you're entirely unappreciative, so I'll stop. Maybe it will make your life easier to only read comments from those who think like you think.

ckvkkeek

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 2:58 pm

Was not meant to be a snipe. I apologize if it was taken that way.

Will delete from my post.

ckvkkeek

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 3:05 pm

Tony,
I have taken your input and implemented many of them. I took offense to a comment you made in your third post and I replied to it. In hind site I should have just been offended and bit my lip. But I replied and it set the tone to this thread and spiraled down with it.

In double hind site, I'll move on from GCW's. This is David's site and you and him seem to agree a lot, and I don't want feel like I'm having to constantly disagree with the owner of a site. If I disagreed strongly enough I could create my own site, but I don't. However I'll move on to not take away from Davids ministry.

David,
Feel free to wipe this thread away if you want to, as after reading through it there is more bickering than adding to the quality of your site.

- Made a few edits at 4:07PM ET -

David Gillaspey

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 3:49 pm

Feel free to wipe this thread away if you want to, as after reading through it there is more bickering than adding to the quality of your site.This thread has added greatly to the quality of the forum. The comments offered, other than the, as you say, "bickering," have great value to the 100s of visitors who browse this forum on a daily basis (but choose not to join and participate; they are known as "lurkers"). It will have much educational value to members and lurkers alike for months to come.

None of the comments I ever make on this forum are solely intended for the recipient. I alway have in mind that each post — mine and others — builds up the value of this forum.

I am, in fact, quite proud of this forum. (Not pride for myself, but for the forum.) On so many other forums, the threads are filled with one line replies, the result of members not really investing much of their time in their replies. Things are different on this forum, and as a result, I believe there is as much content of value in this forum as there are on other forums with several times the number of threads and many more members.

With regard to the bickering, the only question is, can we get past the offenses or supposed offenses and move on? Anyone browsing this thread from the first post to here will see that has happened already. I think that speaks highly of us as Christians. Now, can we do it again?

With regard to your site, you may very well want to get second opinions from others in the business. Try asking for a review from these two other forums:

http://www.christian-web-masters.com/
http://www.churchmedia.net/CMN/#forums

In addition, once the site is complete, you'll want to submit it to the following:

http://churchbeauty.com/suggest/
http://www.hotornotchurchsite.com/

FYI, all day on Thursday I was corresponding offline with a pastor who asked for a private review (by me) of his church website. I asked him to submit the site for public review here on this forum instead. After reading this thread, he declined. (He sided with you, by the way, on the matter of offenses.)

The difference between you and him is that you had the courage to submit your site for public review and take a few personal lumps in the process. He wasn't.

Even if you don't adopt all the suggestions offered here, your website will be immensely better than it would have been otherwise. Regarding those suggestions you chose or choose not to follow – at least in your mind you have a reason for doing so.

The pastor, on the other hand, will never know where there might be problems with his church website. This is his loss.

(Herb, if you're reading this, my invitation is still open.)

flutem3

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 4:30 pm

"In double hind site, I'll move on from GCW's. This is David's site and you and him seem to agree a lot, and I don't want feel like I'm having to constantly disagree with the owner of a site. If I disagreed strongly enough I could create my own site, but I don't. However I'll move on to not take away from Davids ministry."

Hi, Clarence,

Why are you moving on? I don't know about other people, but I have learned a lot from this thread. And I don't agree with anyone some of the time, but that is what makes this place valuable. We just have not to bicker.

One time on UMConnect someone said something to another person which I thought was dreadful. You notice I said I. I jumped on there and had my say in my own inimitable, well, you know, style.

Then an entire gob of people jumped on me for having done precisely what I was upset about that the other person had done...and I had. Well, I was not too pleased with myself. What I said was fine. How I said it was not...not at all. Therefore, I have tried to remember that writing and talking to someone in person are two very different things.

But, Clarence, don't run off. What does it really matter if anyone agrees with you. The idea is to learn. I find that I learn best from my mistakes, from things that are very different from my ordinary thinking, and from people who disagree with me. In fact, the pastor and I from whom I have learned the most recently disagreed on all kinds of things. She just called today to see how I am doing.

Clarence, this can be a really positive experience for all of us. You said you were not going to beat a dead horse or let a dead horse lie or whatever it was about a horse. I agree. Let's keep learning.

I like your comments. I would not like to see you leave. David is the administrator of this forum, and that is true. But he is open to all kinds of comments on here.

Part of the problem I see is that all of us want to be "right". However, there is no definitive "right" when it comes to making/designing websites. There are guidelines. It is the same in painting. I like to watercolor. I am not very good, but that doesn't matter at all. But there are some general guidelines which I follow...but not always. There are times when I throw perspective off because it looks neat to me. We are fortunate. There really are not any rules. Any list is a list of guidelines...some good for one thing, some for another.

I know you know this. But for the lurker who may think there is only one way to make a website this is for you to consider...and anyone else who wants to. :D

The horse is dead. Long Live the Forum!!!

Carol

PS You are not ruining David's ministry, in my opinion.

David Gillaspey

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 4:34 pm

Churches have themes in their multimedia, the puzzle theme is what this church uses. When you come to church and hear them talk it makes great sense. Hi Clarence,

You are correct in understanding it is important to continue the church's "branding" (so to speak) on the website through the incorporation of the puzzle motif.

However, I note that you yourself felt it was important to make the background of puzzle pieces light so as not to call attention to itself. Perhaps the same logic applies to the use of the puzzle pieces in other ways.

Consider, for example, only cutting photos into puzzles in the banner. It's common for banners to include several photos that are composited (combined) in some manner. This might be an appropriate place for a puzzle motif, therefore.

Then, use regular square shapes for other photos.

Then, find other ways to introduce or maintain the puzzle motif. For example, many magazines signify the end of an article by adding a little "dingbat" — a small black square or even the logo — to the end of the article. On your site, then, consider adding a small black (or white) puzzle piece to the end of articles.

Or use a small puzzle piece as a dingbat separating chunks of text.

Or find other equally subtle ways to use the puzzle motif.

In this way, you continue the puzzle motif without its ever calling attention to itself. Church members who are "in the know" will look at the site and think, "Clarence made our site match the church's puzzle theme" because they will, of course, spot even those small, subtle usages. By contrast, visitors who are not "in the know" will hardly even notice the puzzle motif. Everyone wins.

Do you think there might be some wisdom in this?

flutem3

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 4:55 pm

Hi, Everyone,

I don't understand why everyone seems to be "hung-up" on the puzzle pieces. Clarence has said that they fit something in the church.

I like them. Life is a puzzle. Being a Christian can be a puzzle at times. The Bible is puzzling at times, at least it is for me. Our entire universe is a puzzle. What better place to put the pieces together than at church. That is what they are getting at in my opinion...not anything else. And, of course, I could be 100% wrong about that. :)

And if Clarence has talked to the people in his church, and they like the puzzle design who are we to keep bringing it up. It is their design. Now, the question is how to make the best use of it. I have the feeling that using the puzzle was well-thought out way before Clarence decided to go with it. And I base that on viewing the design with the curve.

I think it is high time to assist Clarence with the chosen design if he needs assistance. It is okay not to like the design and the use of the puzzle pieces...not everyone will. There is not a website alive that everyone likes...impossible, I think. If anyone has found it, let me know. I would like to see it. I guarantee I will find something I don't like in order to make my statement true. :D No, I won't. I was just kidding. But you know what I mean.

Remember old Abe Lincoln:

"You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

And that certainly applies to websites!

Carol

flutem3

Sat., Aug. 11, 2007, 5:00 pm

Hi, David,

I like your thoughts on the puzzle pieces. I wonder if I can use a similar approach with something when I redesign sometime. I like the approach.

Thanks for the thought!

Carol

PS I should have read this message before I sent mine. Sorry!

Faithhb_lutheran

Sun., Aug. 12, 2007, 1:30 am

David Gillaspey

Sun., Aug. 12, 2007, 2:30 am

what marketing experts are you listening to? First of all branding has nothing to do with messaging, ... Kyle, Tony:

I can see already it would be good to ask the two of you to "define your terms." Let's make sure that both of you mean the same thing when you use the terms "branding" and "messaging."

Whatever problems there may or may not be with puzzle motif, Clarence is telling us he's merely reflecting the church's choice of motif. So ... the motif is hardly his fault. (I say this in his defense, for once.)

I've suggested to Clarence a route that scales back the obvious-ness of the puzzle motif on the site, but ultimately he must please the church, the stakeholder in the case.

flutem3

Sun., Aug. 12, 2007, 6:31 am

Hi,

Would all of you please define messaging and branding for me? I am confused.

Thanks!

Carol

JackWolfgang

Sun., Aug. 12, 2007, 9:15 pm

JackWolfgang

Sun., Aug. 12, 2007, 9:34 pm

If this were an established domain name I'd be all for it, but I need to get the fact that, that site equals the Batavia Church of Christ I put that in the verbiage.

The title text and the h1 tag on the page should handle the identification of the page as a Batavia Church of Christ page. Hammering your users with the phrase over and over would be annoying.

Then the second thing about a website is that its NOT only for visitors.

Which is why you must consider all your audiences. If your church was using a slogan like "Helping the pieces of life's puzzle fit through relationship with Christ", then the puzzle pieces might make sense.

The sad truth is that members will visit this site substantially more than non-members.

You need to think outside of the box. After all, the God we serve "is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine" (Ephesians 3:20, New International Version)

... just being difficult.

Why? You asked for a review, and now you want to treat people taking their valuable time to help this way?

Regarding the text, consider making it little larger point size, and breaking it up into two paragraphs. Both will help to make the text a little more readable.

I expect that text to be entirely replaced. This was just some hold over text from a previous attempt this church made at the site. I really don't like most of the text that was provided for the site, it was not web friendly.

That doesn't mean you couldn't tweak the CSS or Master Page now. Font size is not predicated by content.

Have I mentioned this is a beta site? :-) This is another one of those pages I expect to change drastically. From point to point friendly directions that a map software isn't as good at, to the map included on the page.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'll be revisiting this post when I get back to tweaking it again.

Yes, you mentioned that, but the question becomes, do you want honest evaluations or a bunch of yes-men and yes-women? Because I am not inclined to be a yes-man except for Christ.

David Gillaspey

Mon., Aug. 13, 2007, 1:13 am

The title text and the h1 tag on the page should handle the identification of the page as a Batavia Church of Christ page. Hammering your users with the phrase over and over would be annoying.Hi Jack,

In this case, the phrases I was originally talking about were the ALT text descriptions, which are hidden from sighted viewers. The only people who would be "hammered" by this would be blind people browsing the site with a screen reader.

Of course, blind people browsing the site shouldn't be hammered in this way, but I was conceding to Clarence that the priority right now for him likely is to get search engine visibility through the use of the extra verbiage, if that in fact would be the case.

If your church was using a slogan like "Helping the pieces of life's puzzle fit through relationship with Christ", then the puzzle pieces might make sense.Perhaps Clarence should add a page to the site to explain to visitors the significance of the puzzle motif.

David Gillaspey

Mon., Aug. 13, 2007, 1:17 am

OK, everyone ... let's refrain from bashing Clarence (personally) from this point forward. :)

He's taken enough knocks already from forum members, including myself.

generalhavok

Mon., Aug. 13, 2007, 9:43 am

Tony,
I have taken your input and implemented many of them.
I'm happy to have helped, even a little bit.

I'll move on from GCW's. This is David's site and you and him seem to agree a lot, and I don't want feel like I'm having to constantly disagree with the owner of a site.
That's your call, of course. I'd suggest that you rethink it. Having been the primary moderator of a forum for many years, I can tell you without hesitation that it's not the agreement that makes community sites valuable...it's the disagreement. If we all patted each other on the back, nobody would grow. The problems don't begin with the disagreement. They begin with the conflict that often results.

As far as David and I agreeing, you may have come to the wrong conclusion. I haven't created a directory of reviewed websites, but I do look at several hundred new websites each month with an eye toward both design and code. I read, as I mentioned earlier, the blogs and articles written by the best web designers in the world...and I'm sure that David keeps up with many of the same folks. Our agreement may be rooted in that simple practice alone, and not in any sort of good ol' boys' club or anything.

David and I haven't disagreed much over the years, but that's probably because I haven't posted all that much over the years. I can't speak for him, but I'm pretty sure he appreciates you posting your honest thoughts, as long as you don't purposefully create conflict.

I'd rather you stayed. If you want to leave, that's okay...as long you don't feel that anyone is running you off. From where I stand, you've only enhanced the community by taking part. I don't like the conflict, but we've both given people insight into the decision-making process...something that most webmasters need.