Think its a different approach for a church. I think it will hit home with its target audience. Simple is better. They didn’t try to confuse it.
mrben on May 4, 2007
OK - I agree with the simple bit, but there are a number of issues here:
1. Flash - don’t base an entire site on flash. Just don’t.
2. The information pages try and cram all their text into that tiny box - the use of screen real-estate is poor, and thus requires a lot of scrolling.
3. The “Home” icon isn’t very obvious.
4. There is a lack of information on the homepage. On an ideal site you would have enough information on the front site to satisfy new visitors, without having to scroll or click on anything.
Steven on May 4, 2007
I think its a very interesting use of flash to create a simple site for college students. Its very different from most sites out there… and I agree with a few of the other comments here… but I love the “intrigue” the site has created. There is just something really refreshing and cool about it!
Ted Rastatter on May 8, 2007
I think Steven is right!
Tyler on May 17, 2007
I think with the technology today a pure flash website is fine. People with computer that can’t run the website really just need to upgrade. If we continue to design for the past we will stay in the past. However I do not like the small box(not good for forms). The Home button took me a good 1 to 2 minutes to find.
Overall it is a cool and creative website. Not very user friendly though.
mrben on June 1, 2007
It’s not about the computer that can run the website, it’s about the humans that want to read the site. Some of _them_ are not capable, and a 100% flash site breaks all the accessibility guidelines in the book. Additionally, you’re making it harder for search engines to find your site, because the content is not readable by a spider.
thall on June 5, 2007
mrben - I think Jerod hit the nail on the head. I think the point is this, the site was intentionally designed for a target audience. It’s about fulfilling a purpose. It’s about communicating to a select crowd. Designers use different tools for different purposes to reach certain people.
Consider this, back in the dark ages, when most people only had radios, as television was being born, was it wrong for people to produce content for television since people with radios couldn’t receive the message? In the early days did advertisers not buy commercial time on TV stations because they would reach fewer people?
Most design decisions are made after we carefully consider the requirements of the customer, the demographic characteristics of audience, the time table, the state of technologies and the tools at hand.
David Black on June 6, 2007
Great dialog on the site. I was surprised to find our site on a thing like church beauty. It was on here before our own people knew it was even in existance. Not sure how it was found.
I agree with most of the comments. The home button and nav is probably the weekest of everything.
I also thing thall has it right. When approaching this whole redesign thing (what we had before was horrible) we asked our designer for specific things that made some of these directional choices for us. Content was not our first goal.
Instead of useing the site to primarily convey info, we want to use it to convey a feel first. Our target audience is extremely narrow too.. college students. We simply wanted a site that could function as a point of first contact and maybe support some of our stuff. Our goal was that someone could glance at the site and then show up at our service and the two match up. We asked for flash only because our students responded to flash sites as better than html stuff regardless of functionality.
I agree that forms are sub par for content, but as for ease of editting on the move around the area from anywhere, it fit the bill for us.
steve. on July 25, 2007
"Content was not our first goal.”
Morgan Stone on December 31, 2007
Some important points that I would like to bring up is:
If there was one great example of why a website designed for youth/college students it would be the MTV website. In case you didn’t know, recently MTV had a complete flash website doubled with an HTML alternate in case the viewer didn’t have the technology. However after many complaints they switched to an all HTML website (or at least used flash more sparingly)
Flash is a great feature when used sparingly, however a complete flash solution is, in my opinion, not a characteristic of a website that will visited more than once.
I wonder if the site would have been more successful it had more direct interactivity with the user. Maybe in the form of an evite…