Dean Peters has a nice post up on the Weblogs.Com fiasco.. Also worthwhile: His take on the website of Our Lady of the Parking Lot….

Dean Peters has a nice post up on the Weblogs.Com fiasco.. Also worthwhile: His take on the website of Our Lady of the Parking Lot….

I also notice the use of the Papyrus font for the page header, which I like; however, it is by no means websafe. We also need to get actual page titles in the head tag. The map on the location page is a 63kb jpg B&W line drawing, which would be best saved as a gif, at probably 15k.

But like you said, Dean, probably the best route is a information/presentation rethinking. At least they have the info people would be looking for, if not the feel.

Random scary page: http://cbt.churchserve.com/Revival.htm

For instance, I think the reason most people put a picture of the church on their site is that it provides a sense of place. For instance if you’re key audience is the membership of the church, and immediately upon entering the site they see the building, it provides a sense of place, a connection to the real world.

That is of course no reason to post a massive jpeg of the church on the site without cropping or even resizing in a paint program.

It’s probably better practice to include some people in the photo though, like Redland Baptists Header or similar.

Riddle me this. I’ll bet if you visited any class at that church where kids are taught, and asked them “what is the church”?, they’d know — it’s the people.

Yet you put camera in the hands of a web-servant, and tell them to “get a picture of the church”, and they come back with a shot of the “stack ‘o bricks” where the church happens to meet.

Why is that?

And this is no slam against Collinsville Baptist – a quick browse through the local church websites shows the same thing – in epidemic proportions.

Is it because the building doesn’t act shy…or get worried about privacy…or what it’s hair looks like?

Or does this speak to a deeper issue of pride?