I just received a job as a web developer for Elevation Church. My only goal is, I have to make their site look good. I'm excited, seeing as I'm 18 and have no degree at all. I feel it's a very open-ended opprotunity.

Any web developers here wanna drop in any hints for the job or the website design are welcome to throw them out here.

I'm not a web developer, but I recommend to get rid off the flash - not only it prevents smooth surfing but you also can't copy any text from the website (e.g. telephone number), which is extremely annoying.

Definitely lose the flash.

Drop the Flash, make it more colorful (but keep it consistent) and add more pictures to break up the monotony.

Advice well taken. I'm not a big fan of flash either, unless it's done extremely well. That's rare.

Still, we still need a media player which will play movies and mp3s. Would you all suggest using flash for that? I don't know if I can talk my boss out of using flash for at least that, but if anyone a better alternative, I'd at least try to

[edit]
Oh! Suggestions for a good JavaScript editor?

There are many free, open source FLV players out there, and for once, this is actually appropriate use of Flash. The same goes for MP3 players. Just -- and this is important -- don't put the MP3 player on every single page (on one page only), and most certainly don't make it autoplay wherever you put it.

But flash is the ultimate web experience!

Every client wants that awesome flash!

Who ever made that site needs to be punished somehow, with something as evil as using flash for a whole site

I second what X-G said, flash is only valid for things like playing streaming media, unless the whole point is that it is a FLASH game/app/cartoon.

Make good use of CSS. It's amazing to see how many do things like

<font color='RED' name='verdana'>Something that occurs several times in the site</font>

You are in great pain if your boss tells you he wants that text to be blue instead. Happy search and replacing in several files.
Instead, link in a css file and change in one place = done

Also, avoid tables for non-tabular data. But that's, like, Web Design 101 and you already know that.

Certainly will. It's one of my favorite languages

Use divs instead?

I would avoid Flash for real reasons: it's hard to navigate (bookmark), it's hard for search engines to index it, it's hard to update, etc. Of course using Flash for plug-ins to play media is acceptable.

Regarding tables vs divs, etc ... Yes, it's better to make good use of CSS, but don't beat yourself up over it. CSS has many shortcomings when it comes to creating a layout. If you have time to properly make use of HTML and CSS, then go for it. But don't let it get in the way of more important things. While there are real benefits to properly dividing your data from presentation, most web users don't even know or care about the difference.

funny, that site and logo is designed like some corporate e commerce business, not the kind of thing you would expect for a church.

I particularly enjoyed this little snippit:
{"name":"592318","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/1\/e1f98b1bcff83e6b6b27f67782d11ace.jpg","w":453,"h":159,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/1\/e1f98b1bcff83e6b6b27f67782d11ace"}

The Flash is very well developed and looks quite nice. Granted copy/paste, better bookmarking support, and better indexing could be useful, but I haven't worked enough with Flash to know that it's impossible with Flash. I seem to recall being able to select text in my movies, for example...

There's no point deleting the Flash movie and starting from scratch with other Web technologies. You could provide an HTML alternative site or something for those uber-n00bs that can't handle Flash, but that doesn't justify removing the Flash.

Flash is practically multi-platform, multi-browser (assuming those Linux glitches have been fixed in the plug-in) which is nice compared to trying to make things work in IE. If you're an experienced Web developer that might not be an issue though.

Good to see that the guideline "Do the exact opposite of what bamccaig says" is still valid.

Thanks, ML. I take your advice most seriously, seeing as you've developed something this great.

They're the most diffrent church I've ever been too. Everything's very modern and sleek.

Yes, that's possible.

True, but there's not a ton of content to their current site either. So starting from scratch (which isn't always a bad idea when you weren't the original coder) wouldn't be overwhelming.

Most of the drawbacks have been mentioned, but some deserve emphasis.

Yes, it's very pretty, but at the cost of:
1) Search engine indexing (afaik, most search engines will simply ignore flash). This is a big problem. Especially in commercial projects.

2) Accessibility. As far as people with visual disabilities (people using audio-browsers or people who can't read the text without magnification) are pretty much screwed when it comes to this site.

3) Slow for returning visitors. It takes something like 3-4 seconds before the first page shows - after it has loaded, because of the fancy animations. The sub-pages are faster, but there is still a delay (which bugs me).

4) Can't open links in a new page/tab. This is not liked by power-users (at least i dislike it).

5) Lack of bookmarks, proper links (can't send a certain page to a friend for example) and copy/paste.

I realize that I'm just repeating what people already said, but i like to hear my own voice.

It's also bad for those who are still in the 20th century, using dialup.

Actually, the page is pretty nice in that way - only 51kb

EDIT: actually, never mind. According to firebug, the total downloaded amount was 500kb, without entering any sub-pages.

Are they a young church? I'm not going to start up religion talk, but more of an observation of the state of church and where it's going. From personal experience, I've watched the area around me grow into more of a city and many more non-denominational churches popping up. I have a feeling this is probably happening around the world, as free-thinking youth take the reigns of new churches.

Also, churches are incorporating technology. I can't say to what degree, as I've seen small, old fashion churches that don't have anything tech-wise, I've seen big churches use very little. However, there's absolutely no reason for churches not to incorporate technology into their services. In order for them to keep up with today's world, I think they'll have to!

I went from strictly Nazarene (although too young to know the differences) to Non-denominational. I loved the new church and the pastor was one of the best speakers I've ever seen, whether he's preaching or not. He was young and tried to "keep it hip" by showing video clips and merging them with the service. My mom threw a fit when he had a video that involved a curse word. My dad just laughed.

[edit]
Oh, and btw, congrats on the job! Are you getting a flat fee for it, or are you paid by the hour?

Elevation Church. I know what you mean about inner content not being indexed properly, but IMO either Adobe or the search engines should find a way around that (assuming they haven't already).

The hard fact is that people with accessibility issues are pretty much screwed on computers in general, and especially on the Web. Everything came about too rapidly and is changing too rapidly to catch up and provide good accessibility. They're also considered by many to be a relatively small user base in a lot of cases and so accessibility is less of a priority.

Speaking of which, yesterday a coworker was testing some stuff I did and realized that for some reason a dynamic table was breaking in IE7... We eventually traced it to the browser's accessibility Text-Size setting being non-standard (higher or lower than normal/medium). It caused a header row to become disassociated with the table making headers disappear and/or not line up, and some labels inside the rows appear in front or behind the table, not scrolling with it. In IE6 the page worked beautifully and as soon as the IE7 Text Size setting was set to Medium it was fixed again.

"Browsers", or if you prefer, some browsers, aren't much, if any, better for accessibility. In fact, if you wanted to you could code accessibility into your Flash application easy enough. There are also zoom features in Flash which would allow you to manually zoom...

I prefer a single wait of a few seconds to constant waits every time you make a move (which if you make enough moves will outweigh the initial wait).

Listen to you... "power-users"... I think the need for tabbed browsing is a flaw in Web design. Instead of getting to and from the information you're looking for you often need to make a number of random guesses until you find what you're looking for, and sometimes getting back is more difficult than it should be. Well designed Flash applications usually have logical menu structures that work effectively and allow seamless navigation.

Granted, tabbed browsing is useful, but IMO it's less desirable in Flash applications.

Except that they really don't matter anyway... Besides, a few years ago when I was stuck with dial-up (approx. 50 Kbps connection) I still preferred Flash Web sites. It took like 3-5 minutes to load the site, but if it was a well designed and worthwhile site then it was usually worth it. It often meant that after loading the first time (where I was doing other things and not actually waiting) I didn't have to wait any longer for the site.

You've got to stop saying certain groups don't matter. And, when it comes to a church, most times, everyone matters. Second, I can't imagine a user waiting on dial-up for a flash site to load if they don't know anything about what will be the final result. Many dial-up users will skip past flash sites, regardless of what you prefer.

I used to be a user that waited on dial-up so your imagination must be broken. Generally you do have an idea because an intro/loading screen loads quickly and you get an idea of the quality of Flash you're looking at. You probably also have an idea of what kind of information the site has or you wouldn't be going to it at all.

I'm not saying that Flash is the best in all cases or that it should replace other Web technologies. However, it's a great tool for making flashy, interactive Web sites.

I just don't particularly like how everybody is dissing it.

This is stupid as all hell. Anyone who knows jack shit about web design will tell you that most people who visit your site don't know what it really has to offer, and that you only have a few seconds to grab their attention or they will leave.

Really, follow our advice: Do the exact opposite of what this guy is saying here and you'll be fine.

nnnggh...

Obviously if they already know the name of the church, they wont really need to search for it. If, on the other hand, they need to find a church in a certain location or with certain services or whatnot, this page has no keywords what so ever to help them. And as for indexing a flash file... yeah, good luck with that. It's a LOT harder to get a decent view of visible, non-spam, keywords in a flash-file (it would probably have to be rendered and then OCRed).

You should never, EVER, exclude a group of people. This is even more true when it comes to a church (i guess). And there are good tools for those that need them, the problem is that people tend to ignore the very simple guidelines (follow the XHTML1.0/1 standard, use EM's instead of pixels for example) in favor of flashier graphics etc.

Maybe i worded myself poorly, but i was not refering to the downloading of the flash-page, but rather the extravagant animations people tend to put in them (as in this case).

In a perfect world, tabbed browsing would still be welcome. You may see two or more links that you want to visit from the main page for example.
Also, yes, power-users. The ones that are aware that IE6 is a pathetic excuse for a browser and knows not to push the "press here to disinfect your computer!" pop-ups

Oh, if YOU think so, then everyone else must think so as well. Good to know...

You can find any website on google by googling its domain name.

And, this isn't an appropriate use of Flash, so there's nothing for Adobe or the search engines to fix.

That's not true at all.

That's why you use relative sizing and positioning, not absolute.

I'd almost call that accessibility.

On my connection, most pages load instantly, front page included. Flash adds some lag to this process, which I don't like.

It's not about guessing, its about wanting to look at multiple things without having to keep going back to them.

It must be something about Sony fanboys that like the most illogical way to tackle a problem

Oh, and i almost forgot; there is no "back" function in flash (i use the side-button on my mouse for that normally), i can't use mouse gestures... and the list goes on.

I'm tempted to use that block user script on bamccaig...

They're totally unconcerned with denominations. Non-denominational is a denomination IMO All they care about is if you're saved or not. [/religion]

Thanks! Looks like flat fee, because I'll be working at home. There'll really be no way for him to judge how many hours I've worked.

Sss... Yeah, gotta jump on the popular view train here, and go with, "you're wrong."

Oh I know! Most annoying thing about it is when I forget flash doesn't have that, then have to let the page reload and find where I was last

IIRC, I did use relative sizing and positioning. It scrolls properly in IE6 regardless of the Text-Size. I'll confirm that tomorrow.

It doesn't matter how many of you are anti-Flash. Not everybody is. If you don't want to hear opposing arguments then what's the point of using a Web forum? Fitting in?

Opposing arguments are fine, but relentless arguing on every conceivable topic is pure trolling.

Very few of us are anti-flash. I'm not anti-flash, and yet I say flash is horrible for this job. It is not the proper tool.

You can't use a screwdriver with a nail very well. Same kind of idea.

Kill someone else's topic plz, kthnx.

I notice style.display="none"; and style.display="block"; don't work correctly in IE. Anyone got a work around? Trying to create a collapseable content menu for the media player, so I'm not even sure if this is the appropriate method.

I don't argue on every conceivable topic. I give my opinion when I have one and always appreciate at least some of the feedback I get for it. If that's trolling then so be it, but I was under the impression that trolling has negative intentions.

How much do you even know about "this job" because as far as I know the only thing we've been told is that he's developing and/or maintaining the Web site for Elevation Church... Flash is a great tool for the job. I'm not sure what Elevation Church is, but apparently the site Ceagon linked to isn't the only "Elevation Church" Web site developed in Flash which might suggest that whoever they are they like Flash.

You asked for people to "drop any hints" (which might not be the best choice of words now that I think of it) and mine (::)) is to not dismiss Flash.

I've never had a problem with it not working... What do you mean by not working correctly?

No matter what your opinion is, Flash is not a great tool for the job. That's web design fact 101.

Does Flash look pretty? Yes, it can be very nice. But web sites are not programs. Web sites are pages with content that can be indexed, bookmarked, and browsed. Flash should be considered on the same grounds as an embedded image or movie. It's multimedia. Okay? Get that through your head.

Creating an entire website in Flash is like creating an entire website with images. It's just insane. The only time it's acceptable is if your website is nothing but a commercial. But then you don't really have a website. You just have a commercial on the internet.

Well, I guess it could be alot of things now that I think of it. getElementsByName or things like that. I'll look into it.

That's debatable. The very term "Web application" suggests that the Web is moving from once static documents into dynamic content and ever closer to applications/programs.

I admit that there are disadvantages to Flash (and advantages as well). There are also disadvantages to today's Web languages and browsers. Hopefully Adobe figures out an efficient and effective way to index the 'movies'. Personally I find it frustrating to get warnings that a certain page has expired or whatever and you need to resend POST data, for example. I'm not really a fan of forward/back browsing. I usually open pages in tabs and close them when I'm done, returning to the parent tab to continue browsing. Either that or I'll use the Web site's navigation to get around.

There's no reason to get upset.

</quote>
Being the best available design doesn't make it the best design.

I apologize, Ceagon, I have nothing on topic to contribute.

Bamccaig, there is no point arguing against you with reasonable points or even following any guidelines of sensible argument in general; you, plain and simple, are far too dense for any of that sensible nonsense to get through.

I thought I'd try calling you an idiot, the odds were as good as anything else in curbing your inane viewpoint.

I had typed extensively here, but I think this little bit of text sums it up quite well: In a battle of you against the world, the odds are that you are wrong, not the world. Stop trolling your inane opinions; they are wrong, you are wrong, you may claim whatever you like, but you will still be wrong. If someone starts a thread about FinalFantasy, feel free to contribute--no such thread would be complete without a fanboy's input--but otherwise, do a little research before you post and try thinking outside the realms of your own likes and dislikes.

You're arguing that Flash does not belong on a Web site for anything more than multimedia, when in reality there are a ton of successful, professionally built Flash Web sites. You're arguing in favor of your likes and dislikes. I understand that some people don't like Flash Web sites, but I also acknowledge that some people do like Flash Web sites. Even Microsoft has developed full Web sites in Flash (and possible other similar technologies).

Recently I've seen a couple of major Microsoft campaigns where the Web site was a Flash application. Whether or not you like Microsoft you can't deny that they know a thing or two about user-friendliness and marketing.

I often see major automotive companies (American, European, and Asian) using Flash to provide rich environments to explore their product line. The kinds of things companies do with Flash to both grab your attention and present information would be very difficult without Flash.

You're arguing that Flash shouldn't be used to develop an entire Web site or system, rather should be used as a multimedia projector for smaller roles. I'm arguing that Flash can be used to develop a rich Web site that's user-friendly and effective at getting the information across, often even more attention grabbing than a non-Flash site. Why don't you do some research?

Here's an interesting site: Best Flash Sites Vote - Best Flash Animation Site.com V2.2

No Flash-only site is user-frriendly to modem users. There should always be a non-flash option.

As a disclaimer, let it be known that I would not be attempting to force this dead horse to drink if not for the need to take my mind off the heat of this room.

Because it is common sense that if you see everyone else jumping off a bridge, there must be a treasure chest at the bottom of the lake. You seem to be basing much of your argument off the fact that a few large corporations use flash websites now and again. I fail to see how these can be deemed by you successful. Of course people go to them, they don't know of any other option.

Of course I am, but look at the rest of the thread and the writings of accomplished web designers in it. I am arguing in favor of what the majority wants. You are arguing in favor of what you, and apparently you alone (and a few other idiots here and there) think is better.

You have stated this numerous times, no one cares, you are still a troll. We are all well aware that a few people with graphics fetishes like you exist, but they are an extreme minority who can be satiated without killing the majority via flash, so why bother screwing them for your sake?

To the best of my recollection, every site that Microsoft has developed fully in Flash have been nothing short of commercials, which, as has already been stated, Flash is well suited towards. There is no real content to any of these sites and, if there is, it could be replaced by something with one fifth the loading time. Flash can, and frequently does, look better, but that does not mean it is better. Yes, I know that you have been brought up your whole life to believe that the price tag is a direct measure of quality, but it isn't, plain and simple.

See above.

This seems to remind me of something... oh yes, see above.

Give me a few links, I would be glad to tell you why these "rich environments" are crap wrapped in tin foil. Flash cannot provide a better environment than HTML or some variant. It can provide a better looking environment, but appearances are worthless when seeking content.

Grabbing attention seems like something suited to a commercial. Using Flash is basically making a website that makes some loud noise when you open it--it grabs your attention, but then fails to do anything useful with it. I am going to assume that you aren't trying to argue that Flash is better at presenting meaningful content than HTML, density of that level would truly frighten me.

Good job, aren't you observant.

The problems with fully Flash websites have already been stated, I see no need to reiterate them. Alright, I am lying. I know you have eyes that are quite picky about what you read. I am too lazy to reiterate how Flash can never be as, and especially not more, user friendly than DHTML. You are wrong, it is just that simple.

My very existence outside of the Internet has frequently been brought into question--I can cite examples of this if you like--I think I know what I am talking about.

A site holding votes for the best web sites written in Flash. Pray tell, how exactly is that supposed to be any argument that Flash is better than HTML?

I'm done now, but it is still too hot in this room.

[edit]Wrote more.

I can't view Flash at work. The firewall prevents them.

I love it. "Best Flash Sites Vote - Best Flash Animation Site.com V2.2" all look like this:

here's an example.

with that much data anybody could make a good looking website.

It was still loading after 45s, so I closed it. And that's NOT on dial-up, and nor am I currently throttled.

That's usally why I don't see many flash sites. Waiting 45s for a page to load is pretty extreme for me. I usually close pages that haven't loaded in 15-20s.

That site looks pretty good, and is bound to keep ADD american's attention.

But you're absolutely right about that.

Responding to the OP:

Don't use Flash, do what ML, relpateht and everyone else except bamccaig said.

You are designing a website for a church. That means, your users will be modem users, visually impaired, retirees, idiots, ...
You need to make sure even the most stupid, nearly-blind type of user can actually read what's on your website. That also includes Internet Explorer users. You don't need fluid animations and flashy stuff. Chances are that at least a part of your users doesn't even have the Flash plugin installed.
Use big fonts, CSS and a really simple layout.
This, for example is not properly readable:
http://www.allegro.cc/files/attachment/592328

And among all other things, make sure you get paid for the job. Today's world is full of fucking idiots who want a website they don't need, and they think they don't need to pay for it (based on my experiences). Keep track of your working hours and charge for them.

Some consider me an idiot. I have DSL and it is slow as dirt. By the way, did I say my eyesight is failing.

Can you understand logic? That's all it takes for me to like you.

Apparently I'm getting $2,500 for 8 weeks worth of work... $312 a week. And seeing as I don't go to school or work two jobs and that I live with my parents, that should be about 3 weeks. Plus, my boss took me out to eat today and he paid. Nicest guy.

Not the best, but I can't complain. I have no degree, (18 years of age,) and this is my first real job.

I agree that parts of that Web site are poorly designed, however, Flash is capable of being completely readable and clear. And getting the Flash plug-in is simple and relatively fast even on dial-up. If you use Internet Explorer or Firefox then you shouldn't have any trouble (which IIRC are the two most popular browsers by a long shot; especially for those computer illiterate).

There are some churches that target youths using modern gimmicks to capture their attention. My impression of Elevation Church is that it fits the profile. Those that are computer illiterate are less likely to use the Web site regardless of how simple you make it. You might as well make it Flashy.

IMO, that Elevation Church Web site is more or less an advertisement. In any case, I'd love to see it when the OP is done with it.

bamccaig, just stop okay.

Not really their aim. They're modern, but they don't really try to trick you into coming, or promise you things like pizza, entertainment, etc They pretty much just offer the truth, and if you wanna come, go for it.

I would think accessability is far more important for a church and other kinds of charitable institution.

I'm there.

I also agree that they should drop the Flash - for reasons mentioned previously in the thread. For older computers, Flash may grind them to a halt. Also, I find that if I have toomany tabs open with Flash, it contributes significantly to my computer slowing down. For this reason, some people have installed the Flashblock extension that prevents flash from loading. If they use whitelists instead of blacklists, they will not see a flash-only site at all.

Once upon a time, the way to access the World Wide Wonderweb was using a VT100 terminal that could display 80x24 characters. While not as exciting as a graphical browser, if you designed your website to be accessible from Lynx (a text-based webbrowser), it could be rendered on any type of browser. The best way to do that would be to focus solely on the logical layout of the information. As well as text-based and graphical browsers, it was also possible to sonically render a webpage - that is, get it to be spoken so that blind people (or anyone who wants to listen instead of read) could access the information as well.

The point is that because HTML's logical layout is standardised, if you follow the rules, your website can be accessible on any medium. Just pipe the HTML to the rendering engine. With flash, it's not that straightforward. How would you convert that snazzy graphical effect into sound, and if that can't be done, will it lose any information? Flash does have it's uses, but if it can be done with HTML, use HTML. As a general rule, I test my websites out using Lynx to see if all the information is accessible. I then add CSS and extra media to spice it up for those who can support it.

AE.

There's about 20,000 other churches that suit your... 'needs.'