Do you have a link to the site with the 50 great designs?

Don't worry, Matt. Yours are probably 51 and 52. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Thanks for the link.

Thanks for the link. I took a look at them and would probably rearrange them just a little bit, but for the most part I agree with the ranks.

There are quite a few sites that don't look like they settled for 'good enough for a church site.'

I had looked at that list, too, because I have another page bookmarked on that site (http://vandelaydesign.com/blog/design/redesign-pro...). As I looked at the list and visited the web sites, I wondered what the criteria were to gain a position on that list. Design? Colors? Markup? Extensive use of flash? The author doesn't really state what makes these exemplary sites, so we only have to guess.

Half way through the list and only 3 sites have validated, so far. /bigeyedsmiley.png" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":bigeyed:" border="0" alt="bigeyedsmiley.png" />
http://www.saintgregorys.org/
http://www.memorialbaptistpa.org/
http://generationchurch.org/

If we were to apply the church site design evaluation, what results would we get?

Do these sites inspire? Absolutely!

Should they be used as benchmarks for other web sites (church sites, or otherwise)? I'm not so sure.

I'm interested in what criteria you applied to determine these sites are exemplary - what grabbed you and said 'This is a great site!'?

Matthachew didn't make the list, he just reported it...

what I was thinking as I looked it over is that almost all of these are probably coming from big churches with budgets big enough to cover the constant updating and maintenance of sites like this. i.e, staff.

The sites would quickly grow stale without weekly, or oftener, changes. One aspect of all that *boom* impact. Which, I agree, is inspiring. But most smaller churches just can't keep up with this level of website. Though of course they can incorporate some things.

It would be nice to see a "good church site" list that is filtered: no churches with memberships over 250. Not sure how this could be accomplished.... Or, "good church sites" designed and maintained solely by volunteers.

I am not saying that the list Matt provided can't be maintained only by volunteers, just that they aren't likely to be.

WeBBy - do you think smaller churches need the same sort of websites as the larger ones? Clearly the larger churches will have more people visiting the site and more things going on and will probably find it easier to disseminate information via the website whereas smaller churches would probably find it easier to mention things in the service or on the noticeboard.

It will depend, I think, upon the church, the people and the area, and the breadth of their programs and activities.

Smaller churches can also have weekly news to post, an exciting youth program, etc. However, I think it is more a matter of their resources ($) to put into a staff person who can keep the website going at a high level, skill, artistic/html etc.. Volunteers of course can do this, but if the website has a lot of changes every week, they are likely to burn out sooner.

I would expect smaller churches to often be in smaller areas, i.e., not big cities, and be more likely to have a congregation of members with older systems, who are less able technology-use-wise, and so forth. So flashy/complicated sites might not be so helpful to them. Of course, cities have small churches, too; I am just thinking of small towns, rural areas, suburbs.

We recently changed churches, and I know (since I did the site) that people accessed the home page, the sermons page and the youth permission slip way more often than anything else. Even with clear links, a good menu, they rarely used the site beyond their immediate needs. And I suspect that most of them didn't know how to bookmark the sermons page, but got there each time thru the link on the home page. This was in a small town, a church of about 450, with a higher than average % of retired types who would find some of the websites on the list above attractive and all, but harder for them to get used to and learn to use.

to be honest I felt like a lot of them looked like templates or something.. but what do I know.. I'm new hahaha. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

really love Generation Church's colors!

I know that and I am glad he did post the link - my question was not specifically to him, but to everyone in the forum, probably not worded well enough to convey that, though /huh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":huh:" border="0" alt="huh.gif" /> -

Style, color, layout, use of images/graphics can all be subjective attributes of a web site. Are there more objective criteria that can be used as guides for web masters?

To everyone: what criteria do you use (subjective or objective) when evaluating a web site? I would imagine this would be something like judging ice skating at the Olympics - technical merits and style.

for me, I love a very youthful look, something that is different, I'm sooo sick of seeing the same old same old on church websites.. and I'm sure the lost are thinking the same thing! I like to see teals and oranges and different colors, not just the normal church colors.. maroons, purples, I mean, those are great, and can be super effective but I just hate seeing it used the same way over and over and over again.

But I also really look for content too, in what they believe of course. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

What I like to see in a website that I visit is:

• Good content.
• Able to navigate the site easily.
• Avoid excessive use of things that detract from the site. ie all Flash sites or excessive use of java script: some sites I have to turn it off otherwise there are distractions.
• Ability to use the site in whatever web browser I choose to.
• Good design, but I don't think it has to be anything fancy. I would also include things like keeping the layout simple and straightforward and not doing things like having poor contrast, ie light text against a white background.
• Good content: that is what will bring me back, whatever the design is like.

Of the ones I looked at now I found the site for The Community Church to be one I liked.

For me, my first visit to a site needs to quickly communicate to me identity, audience and purpose and whatever the design, these elements need to be brought forward with pinpoint accuracy. This is true of any site, not just church sites.

First, I need to know who you are, where you are and get a sense of your personality, not as an entity or organization.
Secondly, I need to know your interest in me - am I part of the audience you appear to be reaching? Do you have something for me?
Finally, what is it you have to offer and what do you expect me to do next. All web visits are, in some part, transactional and the goal is conversion - moving the visitor to the next step.

If I am still on the site after 20 seconds and have been able to satisfactorily answered all the above, I start to dig a little deeper into the technical aspects of the site - page titles, markup validation, link titles, image alt attributes, page weight/speed.

Outstanding content, matched with my original purpose for visiting the site, can overcome many of the design challenges I encounter and keep me coming back. Within 5 minutes, I will know whether a site is 'bookmarkable' for my needs.

Obviously I'm not WeBBy, but I just wanted to weigh in on this...

Personally, I think every church site should be done with a CMS (content management system) - even sites for small churches. There are lots of good open source CMS's that either a volunteer can install and configure or a web design company can install and configure for you at a very reasonable cost. There are also lots of church CMS services available as well. With a little bitt of an up front investment (either in terms of money or a volunteer's time) even small churches can have a great looking website that is very easy to update on a weekly or even daily basis.

9 Reasons Your Church Website Should be a CMS
http://blog.ourchurch.com/2006/03/14/nine-...hould-be-a-cms/

Just my $0.02

- Paul

A CMS does not proved an interactive experience. That comes from a good mix of multimedia, static and interactive content. Having a CMS doesn't have to even ben in the equation.

Wow there's so much wrong with this "point" I'll keep it very brief. A CMS is not needed to keep the same "look and feel" on a website. Standards which are strictly followed are. A template can accomplish this without a CMS.

While it is true that a CMS doesn't offer functionality that cannot be provided by other web publishing, design and development methods, but I think it does provide something that most other methods do not - a lower barrier to entry for a high majority of people, especially for churches, non-profits and ministries.

Bringing this back to the original topic - what criteria would you apply to determine the 'Best Church Website Design' (CMS, or not)?

Probably the same general criteria I would apply to determine a good website:
1 - Relative content
2 - Ease of navigation thru the site
3 - Balanced/appropriate use of media

That's pretty much what I have on my list.

Next question - How do we share this with the broader audience of church web stewards?