### Author:  [@metj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/metj)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/1 "2006-02-27T12:52:31Z")
I’ve been running and updating my church’s website for a while, and I’m finally happy with the way it’s looking.
The only thing I’m unhappy with is that the staff journals are not more often updated, but I can’t make them write stuff for anything.
What do you think, teeming millions? Would this be a church you would want to visit, if you were of the church going variety?
[Praise Fellowship AG](http://www.praisefellowshipag.com)
Oh, and the tech director is my wonderful hubby, so you all can see a picture of him on his page.
---
### Author:  [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/2 "2006-02-27T13:49:22Z")
It’s a good, clean, logical design that is also attractive and inviting. It makes you seem professional and courteous.
The one problem I’ve noticed is that none of the images have usable alt text. This makes the information contained in the images, and some of your images do convey information not in the text surrounding them, inaccessible to blind people. I suggest your husband replace some of the images with text and add alt text to the rest.
Aside from that, I can’t nitpick. Not without running the HTML through a validation service, anyway. 😉
---
### Author:  [@rkts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rkts)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/3 "2006-02-27T15:25:01Z")
The use of [this massively overcompressed JPEG](http://www.praisefellowshipag.com/storage/weather.jpg) looks very very bad and unprofessional. You might want to read a little bit about [generation loss](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss), or else switch to PNG for your images.
Also, unless “Assembies of God” is just a new denomination I haven’t heard of, I think a spell check would be a good idea.
Other than that, though, I like it.
---
### Author:  [@metj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/metj)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/4 "2006-02-27T16:08:37Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Also, unless “Assembies of God” is just a new denomination I haven’t heard of, I think a spell check would be a good idea
:smack: Fixed
I’m not sure what you mean about the generation loss thing - I took the pic directly from Photoshop. I used Save for Web - does that make a difference? Maybe it’s just the syle of the pic?
It wil come down soon since bad weather season is almost over, but I’ll try to make my photoshopping clearer in the future.
> [@](#):
>
> The one problem I’ve noticed is that none of the images have usable alt text. This makes the information contained in the images, and some of your images do convey information not in the text surrounding them, inaccessible to blind people. I suggest your husband replace some of the images with text and add alt text to the rest
Thanks for this tip - I’ll work on that this week.
---
### Author:  [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/5 "2006-02-27T16:49:05Z")
It does reasonably well on validation at [http://validator.w3.org/](http://validator.w3.org/) - quite a few unescaped ampersands (mainly in the Yahoo Maps URL) and one empty \ tag (line 462), but nothing seriously wrong.
One spelling error - Under “History” in the sidebar, “Category”, not “Catergory”.
I think a greater level of contrast between links, highlighted links, and plain text would be better - at the moment, they’re all just shades of grey, which makes it difficult to spot them other than by moving the mouse around. The green link in the main body of the text is a better way to go, I think.
I think that you should either make the title bar (with the photos of the team) rather larger, or the various announcement images smaller. The difference between the two unbalances the page a little at the moment.
Putting a hyperlink to the main AoG site on the front page, rather than just in the links page, might also be helpful.
Apart from that, it’s good. No frames, no sound, no unnecessary JavaScript, easy to navigate, relevant information clearly presented and readily available, nice clear text.
---
### Author:  [@rkts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rkts)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/6 "2006-02-27T17:27:20Z")
> [@metj](#):
>
> I’m not sure what you mean about the generation loss thing - I took the pic directly from Photoshop. I used Save for Web - does that make a difference? Maybe it’s just the syle of the pic?
The problem is that it’s just too compressed. JPEG was designed specifically for compressing photographs, so generally speaking, if you want to make an image containing text or any other harsh lines, it has to be either a much higher quality JPEG (quality 80-90, rather than 61 as you used) or a lossless format like PNG. I mentioned generation loss because I thought that may have contributed to the extremely bad appearance of the graphic.
---
### Author:  [@Ea\_calendula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ea_calendula)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/7 "2006-02-27T17:40:31Z")
It’s very nice and clean and looks inviting and easily accessible.
For text, you’ve used the same font-type, which is a good thing, but it appears to be in six different formats - different sizes and bold/not bold. Not a huge problem, but it would look better with max three to four. More differentiation between links, headlines and plain text would be nice.
The picture in the logo to the left in the top banner sort of disappear into the background because of the dark colour. My first impression was rather like this:
Pra se
Fe owship
Maybe giving that part of the picture a diffused grey background would help? It’s a bit difficult though as it’s made with white and a dark colour and the background needs to contrast with both of them.
/Ea
---
### Author:  [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/8 "2006-02-27T17:40:58Z")
I think it’s more that the background on the weather image is rather busy and dark, and the drop shadows are cheesy. Makes the text harder to read. I’d make the background much lighter, or drop it alrogether. And ditch the drop shadows. 🙂
Either lighten the red parts in the logo, or put it on a darker, lower contrast background. The little guy in the logo isn’t readable, and makes it look like “P ase Fe owship”
Nice side nav, and kudos for having the times and location and contact info on every page. You’ve got the space for it and it’s probably the #1 thing people will visit your site for.
---
### Author:  [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/9 "2006-02-27T18:30:52Z")
> [@Gaudere](#):
>
> I think it’s more that the background on the weather image is rather busy and dark, and the drop shadows are cheesy. Makes the text harder to read. I’d make the background much lighter, or drop it altogether. And ditch the drop shadows. 🙂
I don’t see any drop shadows…I think you’re just seeing the lossiness around the text due to the use of JPEG compression.
I agree that that weather logo has issues, but the problem is that it’s text on a photo background. That always causes issues in compression. GIFs are best for images with text and solid colors, JPEGs for photographs. In this case I’d reload it in Photoshop and avoid compressing it at all.
Moving on, I’m going to be a lot more critical than most of the posters here. Keep in mind that it’s my goal to be constructive, so hopefully it won’t come across as nitpicky or snarky.
Overall, I like the basic concept of the design. Decent color palette and doesn’t have any obnoxious images and information is presented efficiency.
[ol][li]The very first thing I noticed was that the Nav menu has all it’s text right-justified. This stood out as a problem to me right away. It’s especially apparent in the times and locations section where the line wrapping makes it very difficult to read. [/li]
[li]The top banner is not centered. I use a 19" monitor and this is very apparent. Either resize the banner so that it matches the combined table width of the left nav and the main body, or make the main body narrower.[/li]
[li]The “Praise Fellowship” logo within the top banner is too small. It should dominate that banner under all circumstances. In this case the faces dominate that banner and that can make it take a bit too long for the viewer to determine what this web page is selling.[/li]
[li]Inconsistent use of fonts. The Times and Locations section has a different font size than the rest of the Nav menu. This isn’t always a non-no, but in this case it looks accidental. Especially since the items in the list are larger than the section title.[/li]
[li][del]The dash next to the “Welcome” item in the nav menu is extraneous.[/del] Never mind, I see now that it’s how you’re indicating which section you’re in. Good concept, but I left that comment above with the strike through to show what my first impression was. Maybe it’s a little too subtle. [/li]
[li]Add alt-text to all the images. [/li]
[li]Links should be emphasized somehow. Perhaps a roll-over action or a font style with stands out from the standard text. [/li]
[li]The list in the main body of the welcome page needs to be changed. Either use a basic paragraph format or do something to better differentiate the list items. Bullets or a larger text spacing would be helpful. As it stands it appears to be a series of sentence fragments with totally random carriage returns. [/li]
[li]The banners at the bottom need even spacing. Not sure if this is a result of inconsistent table row sizing or alignment, but they should be evenly spaced. Also, they should be links to pages or pop-ups with offer more detail on the events they are promoting. Alternatively each banner could have a text section below it which details the specifics. From a conceptual standpoint, using large banners like this is out of fashion. Personally, I’d prefer a series of smaller images with text arranged in a 2X2 grid. That’s more a personal preference though. [/li]
[li]The column of images in the main body of the page are a little too small. Instinctively I would think each icon would either be a link to new material, or it would be a image relevant to the text along side of it. It looks like maybe this is what you’re trying to do with that list to it’s right, but they do not line up. I’d break each image into it’s individual component and place it inside of a table row along with it’s relevant list text. You want it clear which image is linked to which item you’re highlighting.[/li][/ol]
On the whole it’s a good start, but it needs some tweaking. I really like the work you did on the subsections. The lay out of the main body section for the staff, news and from the pastor etc. pages all look very nice. In a way it makes the welcome page look worse in comparison.
---
### Author:  [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/10 "2006-02-27T18:41:01Z")
> [@metj](#):
>
> I’ve been running and updating my church’s website for a while, and I’m finally happy with the way it’s looking.
>
> The only thing I’m unhappy with is that the staff journals are not more often updated, but I can’t make them write stuff for anything.
>
> What do you think, teeming millions? Would this be a church you would want to visit, if you were of the church going variety?
>
> [Praise Fellowship AG](http://www.praisefellowshipag.com)
> Oh, and the tech director is my wonderful hubby, so you all can see a picture of him on his page.
Not a bad site, but, if you can, try to reduce the filesize of your banners.
---
### Author:  [@metj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/metj)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/11 "2006-02-27T19:23:07Z")
Wow, thanks everyone for all the tips! I knew I could count on you all to pick this site to death! 😃
---
### Author:  [@jali](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jali)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/12 "2006-02-27T19:28:32Z")
Very nice, but I don’t think I would be excited to go if I were a Christian worshipper. - I don’t see any people like me or my friends in the photos.
---
### Author:  [@metj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/metj)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/13 "2006-02-27T19:32:58Z")
> [@jali](#):
>
> Very nice, but I don’t think I would be excited to go if I were a Christian worshipper. - I don’t see any people like me or my friends in the photos.
Can you expound on this? Our church has a pretty good demographic relating to our city.
We’re working on adding more pictures, but first we have to take them, y’know?
---
### Author:  [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/14 "2006-02-27T21:24:18Z")
The picture of the donuts almost wooed me away from my church. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/15 "2006-02-27T22:05:52Z")
There are definitely drop shadows. Very light, but there.
---
### Author:  [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/16 "2006-02-27T22:17:39Z")
Couple of typos:
This is a cut & paste with the two errors highlighted:
Times & Location
Saturday Celebration
5:30-6:30pm
Childrens Church, Nursery
Sunday Celebrations
First Service - 8:30-10:00am
Children’s Church, Nursery
Second Service - 10:15-12:00pm
Children’s Church, Nursery,
Jr. High Sunday School,
Sign Language Interpretation
Wednesday
Family & Friends
6:45-8:00pm
Kinetic Clay
Student Ministries
(ages 12-18)
Sonlight Club (ages 5-11) _(unless “sonlight” is something I don’t know about)_
Rainbows (ages 3-4)
Nursery
---
### Author:  [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/17 "2006-02-27T22:19:23Z")
Oh, and the picture of the girl praying to me (IMHO) is not-so-good. She looks more like she’s sneezing, or blowing her nose, than praying
---
### Author:  [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/18 "2006-02-27T22:37:43Z")
Just noticed your copyright Copyright © 1999-2005, Praise Fellowship. All rights reserved.
(maybe 1999-2006 is appropriate 🙂 )
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [February 27, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/19 "2006-02-27T23:27:09Z")
> [@light strand](#):
>
> Oh, and the picture of the girl praying to me (IMHO) is not-so-good.
I think she’s actually praying to God.
Bah-dah BOOM!
---
### Author:  [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)
#### Post date: [February 28, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302/20 "2006-02-28T03:36:04Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#):
>
> Just noticed your copyright Copyright © 1999-2005, Praise Fellowship. All rights reserved.
> (maybe 1999-2006 is appropriate 🙂 )
Legally, I can’t possibly see it making a difference. But you’re right, it makes the page look just that tiny bit dated.
Aside from that, the formula is correct, if not strictly needed in this country.
> [@light strand](#):
>
> Oh, and the picture of the girl praying to me (IMHO) is not-so-good. She looks more like she’s sneezing, or blowing her nose, than praying
I like that picture. Although you do have a point, just the same. It’s pretty and loogyriffic at the same time.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/critique-my-churchs-website-if-you-dont-mind/346302.md?page=2)