This site is tagged as photography and clean. It’s neither. The photography on this site is NOT very good and it makes the site muddy, not clean at all.
ac on May 23, 2009
I agree with ‘mediacovenant’, I don’t know why this church would be on a website that features well designed websites, it’s tacky.
Kevin on May 24, 2009
I also agree with “mediacovenant” and “ac” this site is very poorly designed.
This site’s layout is too wide. No site design should be more than 1024 pixels in width (960px is pretty standard). The width restriction is necessary to accommodate those that still use 17 inch monitors and smaller laptops with lower screen resolutions. It was not long ago that we were designing sites under 800px in width when 15” monitors were common. With netbooks increasing in popularity, I think the 1024px limitation will continue to hold true even as 19-24 inch LCD monitors become commonplace.
This website looks like something an ad agency created. Emphasis is on demographic marketing and establishing an aesthetic, but the layout reveals an ignorance of current web standards and best practices. But then again, since the church appears to be marketing to an affluent, young, and hip demographic, maybe they intend for their site to be viewed only on large LCD monitors.
konvurt on February 1, 2010
I think the site is different. As it should be. While everyone doesn’t adhere to “STANDARD WEB PRACTICES” it’s refreshing to see someone step out of the norm and try something new. Whether we think it’s the right design or if it’s properly categorized is irrelevant. The most important thing is that the people who interact with it enjoy it. Most likely, they are not the least bit interested in the tech side of it. Just some thoughts…
Comments
mediacovenant on May 22, 2009
This site is tagged as photography and clean. It’s neither. The photography on this site is NOT very good and it makes the site muddy, not clean at all.
ac on May 23, 2009
I agree with ‘mediacovenant’, I don’t know why this church would be on a website that features well designed websites, it’s tacky.
Kevin on May 24, 2009
I also agree with “mediacovenant” and “ac” this site is very poorly designed.
JLoft on May 27, 2009
This site’s layout is too wide. No site design should be more than 1024 pixels in width (960px is pretty standard). The width restriction is necessary to accommodate those that still use 17 inch monitors and smaller laptops with lower screen resolutions. It was not long ago that we were designing sites under 800px in width when 15” monitors were common. With netbooks increasing in popularity, I think the 1024px limitation will continue to hold true even as 19-24 inch LCD monitors become commonplace.
This website looks like something an ad agency created. Emphasis is on demographic marketing and establishing an aesthetic, but the layout reveals an ignorance of current web standards and best practices. But then again, since the church appears to be marketing to an affluent, young, and hip demographic, maybe they intend for their site to be viewed only on large LCD monitors.
konvurt on February 1, 2010
I think the site is different. As it should be. While everyone doesn’t adhere to “STANDARD WEB PRACTICES” it’s refreshing to see someone step out of the norm and try something new. Whether we think it’s the right design or if it’s properly categorized is irrelevant. The most important thing is that the people who interact with it enjoy it. Most likely, they are not the least bit interested in the tech side of it. Just some thoughts…