What do you think about Calvary's website?

[mikeeco]

I am the webmaster of Calvary Bible Church in Boulder and Erie, Colorado. Our site is www.calvarybible.com (http://www.calvarybible.com). I built this site about a year and a half ago and am getting ready for a major redesign. Our site has had a lot of traffic and it is now time to build it around a Content Management System (Joomla).

What do you like about the current site?
What do you dislike about the current site?

All comments are welcome. We are trying to see what we need to keep and what needs to change for the new design.

Thanks for you input,
Mike
www.calvarybible.com (http://www.calvarybible.com)

[David Gillaspey]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for joining the forum, and posting.

Before asking for a review, please read this post

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/forums/showthread.php?t=665

and respond with answers to the four questions included in the post.

(The post [from me] is a "sticky" announcement at the top of this category in the forum, but you may have missed it.)

The reason I ask people to respond to these questions is to ensure that people invest a bit of their time in this process, too.

I often spend an hour or even two hours preparing reviews of sites, with screenshots to demonstrate my points — and other forum members also invest of their time. So that's why I ask members wishing to have their site reviewed to first take a few minutes and respond to the questions posed in the post referenced above.

Thanks in advance! I look forward to your responses.

[mikeeco]

1) Provide the status of the current website or website to be, and your involvement with it.

I have been Calvary Bible's Webmaster for about 3 years. About 1.5 years ago we launched a second campus that meets in a High School. Because of this we needed to update the site and we did a redesign from the ground up. This is the site we currently have. I have recently done a couple of sites using Joomla. I am thinking about redesigning Calvary's site using Joomla. This would allow more people to edit content without having the technical knowledge and will hopefully keep our content more pertinent.

2) Read my list of website design tips:

I have read the tips and we are doing pretty well with them. The major deviation from them would be the drop-down menus. I personally like the drop down menus as people can go straight to the content they want without having to go "through" several pages. We do have intro pages for most things so that a new visitor can still get an overview.

3) Tell us about your general proficiency with ...

I am good with HTML and have learned quite a bit about CSS. This site does not use CSS to its full potential. A CMS redesigned site would be much better in this regard. I am also learning some PHP.




4) What kind of software tools do you have with which to work, if any?

I use primarily Dreamweaver and Fireworks. I also use some of the developer tools available in FireFox, InDesgin, Illustrator, Photoshop and Flash.

[David Gillaspey]

Thanks, Mike.

Given that this is the Labor Day Weekend, it may be a few days before you get responses. Speaking for myself, I likely will post my review on Sunday night, very late.

[JackWolfgang]

Validate your XHTML (http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calvarybible.com%2F). Valid XHTML is a huge first step towards an accessible web site.
This is another personal pet peeve of mine: Prompts for missing plugins on the front page. To me, it's very unprofessional, and a sign that you can't use the tool that requires the plugin.
I expected the "worship | learn | serve" in the header image to be links at first glance, but they are not.
It is very good that your root menus point to actual pages. Your menu requires JavaScript to do the flyouts, and I recommend against this. However, because the roots of the menus point to pages, people without JavaScript can navigate your site. Good job.
Lose the optimized for Internet Explorer statement from the footer. The browser monoculture from the 1990s is dead. Be prepared to support many browsers on many platforms on several types of devices (regular computers, PDAs, smart phones). Supporting only one browser is going to upset part of your desired audience. IE hasn't been updated on the Mac since 2000, and it's not going to be (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/internetexplorer/internetexplorer.aspx?pid=internetexplorer). Adherence to web standards will help you achieve cross-browser compatibility without writing several versions of your site.
Move the search box to the top of the page. It's a major tool for users to navigate your site.

[flutem3]

Jack,

How do you set-up your websites for PDA's and smart phones? I know that many people are using smaller and smaller screens on their hand-held devices, but I have no idea how to make our website so it can be seen well on them.

Thanks!

Carol

[JackWolfgang]

How do you set-up your websites for PDA's and smart phones? I know that many people are using smaller and smaller screens on their hand-held devices, but I have no idea how to make our website so it can be seen well on them.

Carol--

You do one of three things:


You write valid markup and then write a small-screen stylesheet to make it look appropriate on the small screen. (Best Practice)
You write valid markup and depend on the fact that most small screen devices don't render stylesheets well and will display in a semi-appropriate manner.
You completely re-write your markup for the small screen, do browser detection to figure out when to send the small screen markup or when to send the regular markup.

[mikeeco]

Jack,

Thanks for the review. Some of your comments will be addressed in the redesign to a CMS. Certainly compliance to standards should improve.

The dropdown menus are a little problematic and may be changing in the redesign. If we chose to continue using dropdowns we will not be using the same script.

In regards to the comment "optimized for IE". I think that it is fine to put. I am not preventing people with other browsers from using the site. It just looks best in IE (the most common browser by a long shot according to our stats). It just reminds people that have a choice of browsers that it looks better in IE. I know it should look the same in all browsers, but frankly one must design a fairly bland site to have 100% compliance. Again, switching to Joomla should help matters significantly as the site will be CSS based where it is not now.

I guess I am stumped what to do with the Flash plugin issue. From all I read Flash is one of the most widely used plugins. For people lacking Flash, I guess I can put in some code to display a static image is flash is not present. I guess personally I like getting a message if I am missing some piece of a site due to some plugin missing on my side.

Thanks again for taking time to check out our site and comment on it.

Mike

[David Gillaspey]

The major deviation from them would be the drop-down menus. I personally like the drop down menus as people can go straight to the content they want without having to go "through" several pages. Hi Mike,

Sorry for the long delay in responding.

I agree that dropdown menus allow users to "go straight to the content they want without having to go 'through' several pages." The problem, however, is that dropdown menus require the user to move the mouse to the navigation bar, wait for the dropdown submenu to appear, carefully position their mouse over the desired item (or activate a slideout sub-submenu from current dropdown submenu), click the desired item, etc., every (!) time he or she wants to go to a different place on the site.

That gets tiring after a while. And it's time-consuming. And some menu scripts are better (or should I say, worse) than others: Some dropdown menus that I've come across are difficult to use because the dropdown menu disappears before I can select an item. That's maddening.

I now advocate putting a second navigation bar under the main navigation bar (across the top) or adding a second column to the right of a lefthand navigation column. In these secondary menus areas, there is persistently displayed the submenus that would otherwise appear in the dropdown menu or slideout menu. By "persistently," I mean that when the user clicks on a main menu item, the appropriate submenu items appear in the submenu area (either horizontally or vertically, respectively), and does not go away when the user moves the mouse to some other part of the page.

This is so much faster and easier to use than dropdown or slideout menus.

But, what about third level items? Yes, they'll probably need to be handled with dropdown menus or slideout menus (from the persistently displayed submenu items), but you still save the user a lot of time and aggravation by putting the submenu items in the secondary bar or column.

My comments about your site:

First, the site is actually a pretty nice looking site already. Kudos.

Web calendar (based on WebCalendar) is nice.

Here are some things I noted, however. (Site was viewed in Firefox on the Mac.)

http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/calvary_bc1.jpg

1. (Above) One of the dropdown menus appears briefly at lower left as the home page loads.

Also, when I mouse over an item in the menu bar, the appropriate dropdown menu flashes for a second, then slides or scrolls out slowly. (And, from a submenu item, the appropriate slideout sub-submenu slides or scrolls out slowly.) This is cute the first time, but becomes a barrier after that. That's because it wastes the user's time to have to wait for a submenu or sub-submenu to appear.

The good news is, the dropdown menus are not finicky. They stay put til I select the submenu item I want.



http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/calvary_bc1b.jpg

2. (Above) I agree with Jack. It's not necessary or helpful to state that a site is optimized for Internet Explorer. Firefox users are not going to switch to I.E. just to view your site in its full glory.

3. (Also above) I really like your web feedback link, which takes the user to an HTML form where they can send comments to the webmaster (you). Most church websites don't include a link to the webmaster at all. Some at least include an email link on the home page or Contact page. This feature on your site shows you care about the user's experience.


http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/calvary_bc2.jpg

4. It's a little unusual to put the large photo(s) (they rotate) at bottom right. The focal point of a composition usually would be higher on the page or in the composition. But at least you have a focal point on your home page. On many church websites, there is no clear focal point (that is, an element that first draws the eye's attention).

Having said that, just know that the large photo area will draw the user's eye there first, away from the banner, church logo, menu bar, etc.

A webpage is typically scanned from top left to bottom right and on around in a clockwise spiral (in western cultures that read left to right, top to bottom, anyway). Just know that putting the focal point of the design at bottom right works against that a little.

However, the photo being positioned there gives the home page somewhat of an asymmetrical balance, which may very well be the reason you put the photo area in the bottom right.

And finally, I note that in many of the photos, the subject is looking to the right. That tends to lead the viewer's eyes out of the composition. Consider only using photos in which the subjects are looking to the left, up, or at least straight at the viewer.

Regarding the photo credit: use CSS to restyle the link text so it's the same size as the rest of the credit line.


http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/calvary_bc3.jpg

5a-g. (above)

a. The "Maps to Campuses" page doesn't actually show maps. It currently only provides text directions. If users want to see a map, they have to click another link once they arrive on the page to which this is linked. I would just go ahead and put the maps for both campuses right there on the "Maps to Campuses" page.

b. The Search page is so ugly, being only an inch or deep, that I would just omit it. Put the search box at the bottom (currently) or top (per Jack) of the site, and let it show on all pages.

The Search page is repeated under the Resources menu. Doesn't seem like that would be necessary.

c. The Services page is also short, so also is ugly, and repeats information that's on the home page. (I commend you for putting service times on the home page.)

Either omit this page, or add some description or photos to make this page worth visiting.

d. On the staff page, consider adding photos. Also, consider giving the user the option to sort the directory by first name. On the job, in church, and elsewhere — we tend to know and remember people by first names, not last names.

I see your senior pastor graduated from Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon, where I live. That's a good school. I have taken some classes there myself.

e. Design wise, the Statement of Faith page is pretty unappealing. Consider adding bullets or other dingbats, or using boldface lead-ins, to make the page more visually appealing.

f. The "This Week at Calvary" link is buried near the bottom of this dropdown menu. Seems like you would want to give it more prominence. The page itself is uninspiring. It seems me that the Calendar page would better handle this kind of information.

So, I suggest that you either add descriptions and graphical ads to the "This Week at Calvary" page, or omit it altogether.

g. The "What We Believe" link belongs next to the "Statement of Faith" link, since they're similar subjects.

The "What We Believe" page itself really needs some work. You need to explain to unchurched (and churched!) visitors what you mean by your Core Commitments and Shaping Values.


http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/calvary_bc4.jpg

6. (Above) You don't think this is too much?

I would suggest finding a better way to handle the information for the two campus. For example, have two different websites, that look alike but have content appropriate for each campus.

The color scheme used for the dropdown menus causes them to not stand out from the background.


(I'm trying to go through your whole site, but you should know that by now, I'm becoming extremely tired of waiting for the dropdown menus to slowly drop down or slide out. If I were a visitor to your site, and not a reviewer, I would give up right now and go to some other site where I can get the information I need without the barriers.)


http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/calvary_bc5.jpg

7. (Above) On the Ministries => Missions page, make the word "website" underlined throughout, without requiring the user to first mouse over a link, because underlining is the web standard for links (except in navigation bars). Do this even though the column header says "Website." I had to mouse over a link to see if it truly was a link. The lack of underlining, which defies convention, looks like a mistake to the user.

Better yet, use an icon that indicates a link.


http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/art/FORUM/calvary_bc6.jpg

8. I commend you for adding a "Preview" button and functionality to the Connect => Information Request page. I've never seen that on any other church website.

However, the first thing I observe on the Preview page is that the paragraphing in my Comments is removed and the several paragraphs in the original all run together. That's disconcerting to the user, and must make the comments a pain to read for the recipient of the message.

9. About Us => Staff and Connect => Staff Contacts are the same page. Of course, you know that, but users don't. It would best to list the link under just one menu item. Or at least use the same terminology.

OK, that's all I have time for at this point. Hope these comments are helpful to you.

[flutem3]

Personal Opinion: I don't like drop down or swing out menus of any kind. They confuse me usually. And I spend way too much time trying to find the name of something with needs to have a clear name...like Youth...instead of Explorers of the Devine Mystery or some such thing. I get confused. The best example I know of a website upon which I cannot find what I want is:

www.umc.org (http://www.umc.org)

And they have updated it too!

Carol

[mikeeco]

David thanks for your thoughful response.

It seems that like in general people are not very enthusiastic about drop down menus. We will most likely be changing to a main horizontal menu with vertical submenus that are topic dependent.

In regards to links in mutiple menus, is this considered bad practice? I thought I put some of the more popular pages in places where people might be looking for them, which often times is mutliple places.

I never thought about which way the subject of the photos are looking int the slideshow. I guess I can flip some of them so that the subject is looking toward the center of the page. The images were chosen as a group to convey a praticular message.

In regards to some of the whimpy content pages (i.e. services) I getting content from some of the people. I am hoping that moving to a CMS based site will help with this. In general it takes quite a bit of time trying to keep the site current and things get overlooked. The hope is people will have a little more buy in if we give them some different tools.

Thanks for your thoughtful critique. I have read it all and will be using all crtiques as I work on a redesign. It is useful to get others opinions on things. You can work on things for so long that you often times lose perspective on some things.

In general I am hoping to have the site more integrated with the redesign. We have a forum (hardly uses) and a calendar, but they are not as integrated into the content as I would like. I.e. events pertaining to men should feed an upcoming events on the men's pages. The last posts related to men's topics should also appear on these pages. We are trying to use the site to keep the one church with two campuses united.

We also need to better job with the content for the first time vistor. Perhaps we add a "New to Calvary?" section that addresses people looking for a church. Or the about section gets divided into different sections.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Mike