[website] Church

Well, it seems I’m still working on this. It seems after nearly a month and half of no PC, lots of laziness, learning new skills, reading books on design, web coding and just all around making things and scrapping them I’m still working on it.

However I’m very close to being done, and before I do that I need some final critiqueing on this.


After reviewing much of this with some friends and the pastor it was decided we needed to add “people” to the page.

So after communicating with another member of the church, a professional photographer named Laszlo Bencze (http://www.lbencze.com/) it was arranged that he would spend a few sundays taking photos. This guys work is incredible and I’m honored to be able to work with it.

I had a meeting with him about using the photos and he basically laid down a few stipulations (all artistic in nature which is understandable), the images shouldn’t be covered up, faded, heavily cropped or changed much. And very little flash work. I’m hoping that what’s on there now is OK, though it’s still under construction.

My problem now though is how to use the photos elsewhere on the website (not the front page). The only place that makes any sense and doesn’t absolutely destroy the design heirarchy seems more like a kludge than a real solution. (see current page for kludged position)

The only places I can think of using them are item headers. Since the images have a lot of contrast and visual “noise” they tend to gravitate user’s eyes. In turn this can serve as a negative distraction (visual cruft if you will) which makes the page harder to read. It makes it much more difficult for someone to discover the page hierarchy. Likewise if they’re used as an element to support the hierarchy, like placing them in headers and the like they can serve a much less malignant purpose. However doing so requries that I heavily crop the image and cover it up with text, as well as fade it out a bit. Which I might not be able to do.

Is there anything I can do to make this look any better, without making the images so large that dial-up users can’t view the site, or without going against the photographers wishs?

Am I being too hard on myself, or does it really suck that bad? I’ve been working on this thing for so long that I’m just plain tired of it. Hopefully in the next 2-3 weeks it will be done and I can put it behind me.

I’ll take any critiques on the design as well.

I made a website for my church as well. But it sucks so I am not going to post it. But at least it is better than what they had. Yours looks quite nice IMO. Nice and clean.

Firefox 1.0.7 - the menus go behind the large animated section, and thus are unusable.

Looks nice though.


Which version of flash and what OS are you using? I can’t seem to get it happen here, it did a while back but after I added an attribute it seemed to fix it in IE/FF/Opera under windows. And of course I can’t try it in linux since macromedia has yet to create any 64bit plugins.

I’ve added another attribute so go ahead and reload for me, and try it again. :slight_smile:


No problem over here with the menus. Firefox 1.07 on windows XP with Flash 7,0,19,0.

In my opinion the images are quite well used and it’s preferable over cropping and adjusting them or using them as item headers.

Last note: the site doesn’t validate as xhtml 1.0 strict.

My template and associated code validates, the problem is actually Drupal’s (the CMS).

I’ll likely remove the “valid xhtml” stuff before we launch anyway. I will run through most of the pages and see if I can’t get them validate if it is indeed my problem.

overall nice site

using firefox 1.5 / linux / can confirm menu issue as ajc158 noted

tried it without flash / menus ok

perhaps its just me but the words “Building people…” seem out of place ?

suggestion: Reaching out to our community for Christ

just my 2 cents


Yeah, “building people” does sound a tad bit strange. I’ll what I can do, but unfortunetly it’s the tag line so it pretty much has to stay.

The flash might be fixed now, so if you can guys can kindly try it again. I’ve done some searching and it seems ‘wmode=“opaque”’ doesn’t work in firefox, but ‘wmode=“transparent”’ might.

Thanks :slight_smile:

sorry, menu issue still remains

linux / firefox 1.07 & 1.5

Yep, still remains, Firefox 1.0.7 on Linux 64bit

(flash and firefox binaries running as 32bit - work fine with everything else, and lilo has the same issue, so I don’t think this is the problem as the 32bit run natively thanks to AMD).

You should be able to get a 32bit binary for Firefox to use with flash. I don’t know about other distros, but Gentoo has a seperate firefox-bin package for this purpose.

EDIT: about:plugins gives: Shockwave Flash 7.0 r25


Hmm, after getting ia32-libs, linux32 and firefox 1.5rc3 i686 and then installing the flash plugin I can confirm that this is really only a linux problem. I’ve used safari on 10.4.2, I’ve used Opera, IE and Firefox on Windows with Flash 8 and all of which work great.

What makes the flash sit underneath everything else is the “wmode” attribute. This basically tells flash how to paint itself on screen. The default is “window” where it sits above all else on the page. The other two, opaque/transparent cause it to sit like any other element.

My problem is that wmode only seems to work on Windows and OS X, under any linux browser that supports the flash plugin it simply doesn’t work.

I’ll get a hold of Macromedia today and find out what’s going on.

Thanks guys!

it is… so beautiful.

as far as i am concerned, it is perfect. that xhtml strict really does it for me

(the design is nice too)


(what soft are you using?)

Thanks. I guess spending months banging on it really does work.

HTMLPad and a little Bluefish for source editing. Photoshop and little Illustrator for graphics.

Firefox, IE, Opera and a little Safari for testing.


Just a thought, but have you considered not using flash on the sight? Is the only place flash used on the images?

If so, you can probably get the same effect with jscript/dhtml and avoid requiring people to use flash…

Maybe i am out of touch, but possibly more people would have jscript turned on than have downloaded flash and installed it?

This would fix the cross-platform rendering problem (but opens a whole new can of worms on the jscript implementation front).

otherwise the design looks nice! Very usable and nice interface overall.