Sorry - I should also say - I know some of the pictures are horrible and grainy etc - still waiting for 'that volunteer' to sort some images out!

Eventually I'll just get round and do it myself but...

It's great that you are getting out there and trying to build a sweet site for your church. Feedback is one of the hardest things to take. I always think of that review time every year at work. The feedback can make me a little nervous.

What I like:
I like that the site is clean and there isn't an overwhelming amount of information. The architecture seems to work here.

What Needs Work:
The look of the site reminds me of something out of 2000 or older. The look matters. For some ideas check out:
http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/current-style.cfm
http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/web-2.0-design...

I would say, try and make a crack at it again and let some more reviews come in.

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

Thanks for those links... great information. I often read things like that and listen to things like your podcast and think of ideas and dream of great looking sites but they never quite end up that way...

I'll post my next effort when I've done it! The summer holidays are here in a week so I'll get plenty of time to play...

Thanks again.
A.

--
Andy Hoyland
andy@stjb.org.uk
http://www.stjb.org.uk

Way to go Andy. I think it's often forgotten how much volunteer hours get chewed up in these "little" projects.

I would second MF's comments about a Web 2.0 layout, but I would highly encourage you to develop a target audience. I think this would help best determine what alterations you need to make.

So the biggest criticism that I have is that the site looks like the beginning stages of a "be all, end all" site for your church to list all the various groups, ministries, boards, staff, etc etc etc... maybe that's helpful for your congregation, but I doubt it's helpful for your guests.

This is probably the greatest challenge facing church web sites today... how/do you design for both the guest and member, or have two sites, etc?

I hope you're not discouraged, my church's site stinks right now (it has the "be all, end all" mentality throughout).

-Brett

That be all mentality I think comes from a lack of understanding. A church doesn't try to do everything in worship. Worship isn't the place to feed the needy or a million other things.

Large projects don't have everything on one site. For drupal there is drupal.org, groups.drupal.org, cvs.drupal.org, etc. Different sites to feed the different needs.

The same thing should hold true for the church. One website at www.example.com really isn't the way to go. That is an old school mentality that has still stuck around. Providing a good information architecture can help a church build sites that 'feed the need' while being clean and not overwhelming.

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

A church doesn't try to do everything in worship.

I currently attend one that does the opposite. In my brief history, you are stating the exception more than the rule.

I ranted about this here: "Church" Is Broken

I totally agree that one domain for everything is too simple. Try one domain for each mailing campaign or even sermon series.

I don't think that worship service (I know the one you attend ;-)) tries to do everything. Not everything the church does. For instance, feeding the hungry doesn't happen there and in-depth bible studies don't happen there.

I can't think of a church that tries to do everything through worship. Though, many do try to do to much at worship. They try to worship, teach, inform, and do almost all of their communication through worship. Turning it from a worship into an all out overblown event.... hrm... I think I have a blog post coming on here.

Information architecture wise I think one domain for each sermon series or mailing campaign is more than a little overboard. It could easily turn into information architecture run amuck.

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