I’m gonna have to vote “no” for the splash screen. The fact that these actually assist in navigation does not justify keeping them in place.

After you see it once or twice, it won’t be at all appealing. So, it must be designed for new users; who will most likely to find you with a search engine which won’t land there.

If you want 90% of your content within two cliks of the homepage, don’t use one to get your users to the starting point.

-NP

Im no designer but to me its just an extra click not needed. If there isn't a real purpose to having them, then ditch em all together.

I also tend to vote "no" on splash screens. But that's too easy of an answer....

I've had conversations recently about seeking to redefine the splash screen. Splash screens are nothing more than an image driven page, used to convey "vibe". In the past, they offer one or two links and the image part is static.

What if we redefined what a splash page was? Maybe that image is a dynamic image that's pulled from your coming events or current mission project nodes? Maybe there's not just one or two links to different parts of the site, but there's a reformatted, paired down navigation menu...And, maybe you go a step further and it's not just image and navigation, maybe you add a block of text below the image thats dynamic and relevant. All of these things don't make it "just an extra click"...they give the user an 'experience' directly related to the mission and vision of your organization. These types of homepages also direct the users focus to the things you deem most important on your site.

If you did all this, it could retain the vibe of a splash page, while in reality, simply being a dramatically re-formatted homepage. Personally I think this could definitely work.

As far as SEO, I think you'd have to hide an h1 tag somewhere in there that would never change, as well as making sure some of your page content (even if it's the main image with an alt attribute) is wrapped in an h2. If you handled it properly, SEO would not be affected by the design.

That's the kind of 'splash' page I could be on board with...

-Rob Feature
Geeks and God Co-Host
www.bobchristenson.com

Oh....Mountain Lake, please let us avoid the Starbuck's debate.... ;)

Anyway.... I think the examples sites provided examples of "good" use. What they seem to be doing is: Using an attractive, and VERY quick loading front door to help folks quickly locate info organized just for them. I don't like extra clicks, but I also think this audience division concept is good. Maybe a bit more could go up on that screen (as Rob suggested), but I definitely wouldn't want it to start seeming like a regular home page ... or people will have to hesitate in figuring out where they need to go.

That same differentiation is done in the real world at our church. With special areas set up for visitors to get to know us and special intro groups they can go to. This way they don't need to dive into regular jumble of dozens of member activities, familiar discussions, etc.

It also seems pretty valid to me from this standpoint....
The folks working on marketing the church to newcomers, want a web site and layout focused on introducing people to us. It is more important that they fuss over and polish our communications to these folks who are just getting to know us. The folks working on strengthening the membership experience want a site and layout focused on communicating with people readily, efficiently, making it easy for them to stay involved, and communicating in a "somewhat" more familiar manner.

For overlap, content can be created/posted once and appear and be styled differently within the different site areas.

A marketing brochure and a online magazine seem very different and I think trying to combine the two means you are not serving either purpose particularly well. Visitors are going to want to find a upcoming service intro and schedule, the location, and get a feel for the environment and beliefs they will encounter. That along with info and a getting to know us menu. Hopefully presented with elements giving it an that attractive vibe. Most anything else is going to seem like clutter. But "most" of that ends up being useless to established members.

I know there are no easy answers... just my reflections.
Mark

"That's the kind of 'splash' page I could be on board with..."

Hey Rob, how is what you are describing different than a well-designed homepage?

-NP

NP...
I would say for some people, it isn't. However to me, there's a few main differences from the most common homepages:

1. Image driven. I can see that this splash page would be MUCH more image driven than a traditional homepage. I see an image that's like 800X300, taking up most of the screen real estate, not in a traditional header, body, sidebar arrangement.

2. Focused. I see that this would have extremely focused an minimal content. Once "inside" the site, you menu would be much more robust...but on this page, you'd only give menu items for your most important things. Same with any text content...it would only be one or two main things. Usually a homepage will have pretty broad site access and information...this would be much less so.

Those are the differences from what I'd call a "good homepage" layout.

-Rob Feature
Geeks and God Co-Host
www.bobchristenson.com

Interesting thought, Rob...

I guess by definition, I'd rule out "splash screen" if the page has anything with more than the most rudimentary of usability. Maybe that's my error...

Imagine your browser hitting one of these pages. Then, rather than taking you to a (or several) traditional homepage(s) it links to every main content block of the site (four or five?) each of whom has a similar page of their own.

Now, we're not so much creating splash screens, rather we’re enabling image-driven navigation.

Hmmmm....there's real potential here...

-NP

I say yes to splash pages...

Just to be different and see if I'll get flamed on this supposed Christian forum (snicker)

I say no to most splash pages that I've come across, except Google's... Google remembers me (yes, I have to sign in, but stay with me). The links you provided do NOT remember that I was a visitor.

I LIKE that they ask and have separate content for Visitors and Members. I think this is a big problem for churches today, and not just on the web.

I would have been "on board" with either of these sites if they sent a cookie down when I clicked on the visitor choice and then never asked me again.

-B

That's an interesting idea. Have different content for visitors and members on the same site.

Matt Farina
Geeks and God Co-Host
www.mattfarina.com