Comments
On October 26, 2007 1:21 PM Squawk said:I love the visual look of the homepage, but it doesn't seem to 'fit'. I though that this is some web2.0 service, not a church. It reminds me a little bit of Mint
Also I would have incorporated hover effects for the menu... Clicking every main-item seems a little tedious.
However, congrats, the homepage validates and enlarges very nicely when the text-size is increased.
I assume that the site is updated with a cms: there seems to be an error somewhere in a template. All pages give me the same 9 warnings when they are validated.
On October 27, 2007 10:45 AM frebro said:Also the graphics look funky in Safari 2.
On October 27, 2007 3:36 PM trendsettr said:I too would like a hover option for the menu. Cool website for a church though.
On October 29, 2007 11:00 AM Trevor said:I love the nav, i agree about it needing a hover though, otherwise looks great!
On October 29, 2007 11:02 AM Billee D. said:This may be the oddest church/religious web site I have ever seen. Way too "Web 2.0" for a church. And I agree with Squawk: it looks like Mint. That logo looks oddly familiar too... :-/
On October 31, 2007 1:17 PM Shane said:Why do you continue to award sites that don't work in all browsers? Things are off in Safari.
On November 4, 2007 1:20 AM Jon Thomas said:Why is it that if a website is for a church that it's surprising if it has 2.0 features? The people that attend churches are the same people that use web sites for other businesses. They're in this century as well and desire easy-to-access information all the same. Being a webmaster at a church, I think this website is done very well and I think it makes a good effort at providing the information a church fellowship wants to be able to access.
On November 6, 2007 4:44 PM Derek Nelson said:I think this website demonstrates the pitfalls of the Web 2.0 era. It's beautifully designed, and it's effectively coded. It is, generally speaking, standards compliant.
But its homogenized. It feels like a design portfolio or a cell phone reseller or something. It doesn't feel like a church. Say what you want about church consumers being as modern as any others, because it's true, but a church site should feel like a church site, in much the same way that an actual church should feel like a church, not a baseball stadium.
On November 14, 2007 8:42 PM W. Walseth said:Love the design, perfect for a web based software as a service (SaaS) product, but maybe not for a church.
Perhaps a new logo would re-connect it with it's target market, and make it look less like a cellular (Cingular?) phone service. Last time I checked, Christianity had all sorts of, er, icons...
On December 4, 2007 7:38 AM Liz said:It is a nice site. Really sweet for a church. I like the flickr images at the bottom. Shows it is a church full of life.
It doesn't view in firefox on a linux machine well at all. And the orange logo is reminding me of Cingular.I like the forwardness of the site. I like that it doesn't show a bunch of dull Christians ready to sing hymns
On December 20, 2007 2:40 PM Jamie said:Interesting contrast to http://www.marshillchurch.org/
On March 4, 2008 7:19 AM c loudermilk said:I think mars hill is reaching out beyond traditional "church" mentality of us against them. This site shows that it should be us FOR them, and what better way to do that than losing this stifled "traditional" identity. An identity that is circa 1800's not 1st century, which would be truly authentic...but then no css, or electricity for that matter!
On May 8, 2008 12:43 PM NEO said:Like the color scheme but thats about it
Post a comment
Note: The author reserves the right to delete inappropriate comments.
- Foul and offensive language will be edited or deleted.
- Personal attacks will be deleted.
- Advertising or spam will not be tolerated.
Formatting: Linebreaks will be converted automatically. Basic HTML tags allowed: a href, strong, em, ol, ul, li, blockquote, code, acronym title, abbr title.
Gravatars are enabled.