Journal

Mediocrity Abounds

17 October 2005 › 34 comments

The Bad Guys

I’m not sure what it is about “Christian” web design agencies that seems to attract the dregs of advertisers, coders, and designers. Typically, unless people are getting ripped off or exploited, I don’t really get upset. However, when I’m constantly bombarded with just plain bad web design and layout methods, I feel I must speak up. Normally, my spam just gets trashed without a second thought. But in this case, the trashiness could potentially affect the Church, and that I will not stand for. So, let’s fight fire with fire.

Every time I check my Hotmail address, I find a pile of junk emails from steve@myflock.com. Supposedly, this is because I signed up for their services, which I never did. I don’t know why I would have, because for me designing the site is half the fun. I’ve emailed the cancellations@myflock.com service before, to no avail. Hopefully, a little public shaming will help things.

The email links you see there are unprotected, meaning that when spam-bots surf my site, it will see that poor ol’ Steve has email addresses, and will add him to all sorts of junk-mail signups. I figure, if he wants to continue to waste my time with his emails, I will waste his. While I’m at it, you should watch out for the website services they offer under the guise ExtremeYouth.com.

I checked out both of these sites, and neither one bothers to have a DOCTYPE defined. They do both use plenty of <font> tags, pointless inline CSS, and lots and lots nested <table> layout. Whoever set up this site must be a schizophrenic, because there’s no rhyme or reason to their code. In the end, this achieves their desired effect of an incredibly bland and in all other ways unappealing website. Rounding it out are obligatory stock photos of happy people, and testimonials from clients they’ve duped into using their service.

The Good Guys

Not wanting to appear entirely negative, I’ll recommend a few sites that I do think are doing things right. If you read my site regularly, you will remember the interview last week with the founder of BetaChurch, whose goal is to help the Church progress into the age of web-standards, and get away from junk like MyFlock.com.

Another good one is Church Marketing Sucks, which has a similar vision – “Frustrate Educate Motivate,” helping the Church improve past clip-art and Microsoft Publisher. It’s got a few little things that could be fixed in the code, but since they’re a marketing blog and not a website service, it’s not a big deal. On their website, there is a full listing of resources encouraging you to “Don’t Suck” as a church.

After looking at their Web Site Solutions listing, I was disappointed to find that most of the sites listed actually do suck. Most of them don’t define a DOCTYPE, and when it is defined the sites typically use HTML 4.01 <font> and <table> for layout. Let’s be clear here people: That age has passed, time to catch up.

Out of all of them, the only one that I could actually recommend in good conscience is ImmerseMe Inc. I was impressed to find that they are using XHTML 1.0 Strict. This is not a very common thing for Christian websites, who tend to be a step behind. In this case, I would say that ImmerseMe is on the forefront of what God is doing through the web. I didn’t even find a single instance of inline CSS, meaning that they’re knit-picky about code, just like me. It’s refreshing to see a commitment to quality in web design and development that matches the respect the Gospel deserves.

Summary

Okay, what started as a rant turned into more of an overview. To recap, here’s the run-down (categorically, then alphabetically) of what I consider to be good, middle ground, and outright bad Christian resource sites. This list is by no means comprehensive, just the ones I’m aware of. If you have one you want me to critique, let me know.

Highly Recommended:

Pretty, but Obsolete Code:

Don’t Even Bother:

Note: The purpose of this article is not to drum up business for myself. I’ve currently got a few side projects occupying my time. If you want to hire a good web developer, check out the list of people on my resources page.

Discussion + Dissension

#1 Ryan Heneise

Don’t be too hard on “Christian” web design agencies. If you take a cross-section of the 60 billion or so websites in general circulation, I would be willing to bet that Christian sites are about average in terms of the proportion of quality sites to crud sites. This is a beef that I have with Church Marketing Sucks ; Rather than accuse the church of putting out bad marketing (and websites), I would argue that Plain old Marketing Sucks in general, and that the church ought to rise above the mediocrity and turn out some decent stuff. But you see some churches doing that, and it’s because they choose to do things the right way and not accept mediocrity as a standard.
#2 Nathan Smith

You’re right Ryan, I think the web in general just needs to shape up. I was afraid I might come across as too harsh. I’d just never received “Christian” web design spam before, and was frustrated to see that it’s going on. Thanks for those church links, by the way, I’d not seen them before. I’m of the opinion that since we have a timeless message to convey, we should make sure it stays relevant in every day and age. I know I can be a bit adamant in my stance, but I’ll take the label of “code snob” if that means we see eventual improvement. :)
#3 Ryan Heneise

heh… I was just looking through those “Don’t Even Bother” sites. Ouch!
#4 Yannick

Ryan those were some pretty good sites you mentioned. Thanks for sharing those links. Now those are the kind of sites I would say are “Highly Recommended” as examples of doing things right :) .
#5 Nathan Smith

That gives me an idea, something for BetaChurch. We should feature a listing of well designed and coded church sites. So many of the church website galleries I’ve seen just feature any church that has a website. Either that, or they’re full of the “headliner” churches, ones with lots of money and prestige. That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t mean their websites are top-notch.
#6 Robert

Nathan, we must think much alike. I had been thinking also about doing a CSS Style of Churches type of Gallery site. Showcasing the best looking and styled Church websites.
#7 Yannick

CSS Garden of Eden minus the snakes (the bad examples). :P
#8 Nathan Smith

Robert: You should definitely get in touch with Dave Merwin from BetaChurch about some of these ideas. I think that’d be something he would go for.

Yannick: Nice play on the (Zen) Garden theme. :)
#9 Ryan Heneise

I like the CSS Zen Garden of Eden! I also like where this discussion is going.
#10 Nathan Smith

I think the idea is a good one, but I think we should be careful about borrowing names too closely, especially considering that CSS Zen Garden is a published book now. Perhaps CSS Tabernacle or CSS Temple? I dunno, I’m bad with naming things.
#11 Yannick

hehe well I was just joking around initially.

The idea is definitely a good one. If/When this idea comes to life, I’m sure the right name will be chosen.
#12 Robert

Ok, this is eerie.

1. I thought about setting up a site where it showcases Church websites. They would have to be standards compliant and have a nice design.

2. I thought about doing something like CSS Zen Garden for Churches. I was going to contact Dave Shea and see if this would be problem. This would have to take a different approach, at least in philosophy and cannot mirror the code in anyway on Zen Garden. I think I will contact Dave and see if he would approve or not.

These types of projects might be smart to do as precursor to something bigger. One, gets a name out there and two sees how much of a need Churches have. We see a need, but that doesn’t mean the Churches see a need.
#13 Nathan Smith

Robert: The only way I could see it being a problem is if it had the same name as CSS Zen Garden. I would stress that it shouldn’t, because Christians already rip off so many things out there. In my eyes, it would instantly lose credibility if it was a play on words, or had a similar name. Refer here for some examples…

http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/archives/2005/07/the_christian_i.html
http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/archives/2005/09/christians_aren.html

^ Let’s not be cheezy Christians or religious rip-off artists.
#14 Paughnee

Robert/Nathan—are you familiar with Great Church Websites?
http://www.greatchurchwebsites.org/

It’s a database of church websites that have been reviewed and critiqued. There are also some resources and articles. The database is subscription only, so it would be great to have a free resource available.
#15 Mike Montgomery

Great idea for a showcase of good christian sites. Also, I think it should include not just church sites, but be open to sites for ministries.

Nathan’s right that CSS Zen Garden almost seems like a trademark, so the name to be chosen shouldn’t be similar. (By the way, including “Zen” in the name might be confusing for people.)

The proposed concept is totally different though: The Zen Garden site requires identical markup for all submissions, as opposed to a list of good sites.

Some more possible names for such a showcase site:
* Christian Web Standards
* Church Web 2.0
* Christian Web Awards
* The Digital Word
* ...and It Was Good
#16 Robert

Thanks for the links Nathan and Paughnee! I sent an email off to Dave asking if he would be upset about the prospect of this idea coming to fruitation. I explained that its goal wasn’t to be his competition or anyting, but a way to help develop and encourage Christian designers and Churches to adhere to web standards and better the design/layout.

I agree that a play on words with CSS Zen Garden would be quite inappropriate. I do think that we could do a play on words with something Biblical that reflects design and coding standards.
#17 Robert

oooo!! I like the …and it was Good. That is a good one Mike!
#18 Nathan Smith

Yes, I’ve heard of Great Church Websites. In my opinion, their needs some serious work. Personally, I wouldn’t pay to see the opinions of the people that designed and/or maintain this shoddy website. There are just so many things wrong with the site itself…

It calls a JavaScript before it’s DOCTYPE, is still using HTML 4.01, has 5 tables for a rudiemtary design, inline CSS, uses JavaScript for things as simple as image roll-overs. Not to mention it’s got deprecated HTML tags all over the place: align, valign, background, bgcolor, etc. Full error listing here.

It looks like someone who knows very little about HTML / CSS / JS just used an old version of Dreamweaver to make the site. It’s clearly not the “very best of church website design.” It’s a perfect example of blind leading blind.

Also, check out its Search Engine Optimization. Judging by all the meta keywords, it looks like they desperately want Google to find them. Basically, they’re a joke. It’s funny they actually make money in spite of themselves.

I think that if we were to start some sort of Church CSS showcase site, it would need to be the exact opposite of that in most every way. Perhaps we could even disqualify sites that are already in the GCW directory. :)
#19 Paughnee

Interesting perspective on Great Church Websites. I’m not a programmer (I can barely spell HTML), so I’m mostly clueless to the behind-the-scenes stuff. I just know that at one time, my church’s site had almost everything on the Don’t list. That gave me something concrete to take to my Pastor and ask (beg) for a site makeover. (It’s getting better, slowly.) So, I guess a lot depends on where you’re coming from. In any case, it would definitely be good to expose good coding/ programming/ design.
#20 Nathan Smith

Paughnee: You touched on a very good point: Showing off the code. Sure, anyone with Dreamweaver and Photoshop can whip up a nice looking site, but that doesn’t necessarily make it accessible or future-proof. I’m really encouraged that so many of the rest of y’all are excited about a CSS Church showcase!
#21 Robert

Well, lets put this together then! Let’s start with doing a Christian Standards Design Gallery where you must adhere to standards of coding, XHMTL (strict or trans), CSS (for design/layout), and Javascript for functionality.

Paughnee, I am also new to CSS. I have only been working with it for a few months. I really have dived in it though trying to soak it up. I have a background in system programming in C/C++/Java, Assembly, etc. I haven’t worked with those languages in quite sometime, but I understand the logical aspect.

I need to pick up another hosting account, as mine only allows 5 domain names to run out of 1 account. So, I am going to go with Dreamhost for the unlimited domain names in 1 account. So, I can host the site and work on the code/design.

So, what is necessary to be included within such a site? Obviously, standards are madatory and the design has to be clean and beautiful. I prefer simplicity, but am always open to something different.

Who will be apart of judging the prospective sites? What standards beyond coding need to be met in order to be accepted?

When I hear back from Dave Shea, I will make a post about it on my blog.
#22 Nathan Smith

I know that you’re fired up to start this thing, but I would suggest consolodation in this case. Use the resources and manpower that Dave Merwin and Stephen Hallgren of BetaChurch bring to the table. I’m not sure if you’re aware of it or not, but Stephen did these sites…

http://www.noahinstitute.org/
http://www.colourmod.com/

And Dave’s job is the Creative Director of this site…

http://www.agiprofessional.com/

I bring that up to make a point – We’ve already got an infrastructure in place to do this CSS Church awards idea with BetaChurch. I would plead with you to consider doing it that way, rather than trying to create a whole new niche.

We’re all concerned about the same thing, so rather than pull in different directions, we could all be contributing to the same cause. Take Stylegala for instance. It’s run by more than one designer, because it takes a team of like-minded people. If we all cooperate, rather than worrying about re-inventing the wheel, something really great could come of this. :)
#23 Robert

You do have a point. I emailed Dave at Beta Church.
#24 Yannick

Robert: I’ll have to agree with Nathan on this. It’s a wonderful idea and truly is encouraging, but we have to realise it will take a lot of work. Gather the ideas and speak with Dave and see what can be done. The more help the better and that way it won’t be too much of a burden on one or even a few people.

Apart from the fact that it will be Christian Websites being showcased, is there anything else that can set it apart from the rest? This article by Keith Robinson speaks a bit about being unique instead of just adding another site/application to the list of many others out there.

http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/archives05/2005/10/first-or-best

Hope this helps in some way.

Oh and most importantly, Pray about it.
#25 Andy

OK, first…do not go look at my site as an example as it was a template. I am eagerly (with Yannick’s help) trying to get it over to a cleaner look.

Bur I do have to agree with the statements about what some of the Christian Designers turn out. My church’s new site falls into that catagory. There was a committe who were supposed to be involved in the selection and design of this site but it was suddenly disbanned with no reason given. This was back in January of this year.

So here we are in October and “Our new church website is up and running”, We want to express special thanks to Rick with Created 4 Him for the great job he did in developing the site.” With the addition of this state-of-the art website” We finally have a web site.

Just do not use Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla, Opera or Netscape to view it. It renders incorrectly in everything but IE Explorer.

But what really bothers me is that we paid for a service and I can’t view it in my browser of choice but have to revert back to IE. I guess I need to show the Pastor “† For your eternal security, Internet Explorer should be abandoned. Get Firefox.” Sorry Nathan, I could not resist that one.
#26 Andy

Sorry for a double post but I forgot to post a url of our state-of-the art website. It can be found here Edgewood Baptist Church.

My current struggles can be found here My Struggles so you will at least know that I am trying to use and learn good code.
#27 Mike Montgomery

Likewise, my site is so far based on a modified Wordpress template, but I am doing a CSS Reboot.

As far as the “BetaChurch umberella” idea, it’s seems like a great idea, and I would enjoy helping or writing reviews or submissions, etc.

How do we move forward with this? Are the leaders of BetaChurch amenable to this idea, and are they open to our help/participation?
#28 Nathan Smith

I’ve been talking with Dave Merwin, and he’s up for the idea. I’m thinking about setting up a forum system so that we can discuss the ideas further. I’m also going to ask some of the 9rules guys who have set up gallery sites (Unmatched Style, CSS Vault) to give us some pointers on running this thing.
#29 Yannick

Awesome sounds good guys.
#30 Teevio

Hey guys, as Art Director for The Noah Institute, I’m loving these ideas that you are putting out here. We are currently in the process of overhauling BetaChurch (redesign, restructure, reshape) and would love to incorporate this idea into the new site (of course, pending final approval from the guys who make the decisions).

In the meantime subscribe to the BetaChurch RSS feed to stay up-to-date on what we are doing.
#31 Robert

Alright, sounds like things are looking good for this idea to come to fruitation. I would definately love to be apart of this.
#32 Nathan Smith

Robert: Whatever form it takes, you’ll be included – that much is for sure. I’m not sure if we want to do yet another showcase site, but I do think it would be cool to do case-studies on churches that have sort of broken the mold, and teach others how they used CSS, AJAX, etc. This way, it’s less of an awards site, and more of a low-pressure learning environment.
#33 adam

you’re right. you did come across too harshly.

probably not a good way to promote your business, no matter how right you are.
#34 Nathan Smith

Adam: I’m sorry you feel that way, but in my opinion, most of these companies are not examples of the firstfruits (Ex 23:16) of what Christian web design has to offer. This is not unlike how Able brought a sacrifice of the very best he had to offer, and Cain brought the left-overs (Gen 4:3-4).

Fact is, this is where the web is heading: standards, validation, and semantic markup. These mediocre types will be left behind eventually anyway. I’m just trying to get churches thinking and focusing on the future of the web, rather than lingering in the past. The same old tired excuses of creating obsolete websites are like the 40 years of wandering grumblings the Israelites perpetuated in the wilderness.

These companies are wasting both the time and money of churches that could be better spending them elsewhere, with more competent agencies or individuals. I’d really like to discuss things further with you, but seeing you didn’t leave a real email address, I guess you’ll have to get in touch with me.

Comments closed after 2 weeks.

Journal

Mediocrity Abounds

The Bad Guys

The Good Guys

Summary

Discussion + Dissension

FYI

Advertisement

Fight Cancer

Latest Posts: All - RSS