Category Archives for "Miscellaneous"

3 My First Video

I have at last produced my first video!  It is a part of my series of posts about website reviews and uses the same criteria to look at 5 websites.

The big difference is this video looks at 5 sites from 5 similar organisations.  My idea is that by comparing similar organisations we can begin to get a better idea about website good practice.

The title is “The 5 Worst Intermediate Body Websites” and there will be a second video with the 5 best.  The video explains what an Intermediate Body is but the point is their mistakes are all too common online.  Many organisations need to scrap their sites and start over because they have made poor decisions in the past.

This may seem harsh but the benefits of following basic standards of good practice are immense.

Next week I’ll write about how I planned and produced the video.  I still have some issues to resolve and so I’ll go into the problems I’ve met and how I’m addressing them.

One issue is the size of the video!  I’ve adjusted this so that it fits in the available space.  You may find it best to view it on full screen.

It is worth following on by summarising the main points.  Bad decisions about your content management system (cms) can create problems as you develop your site.  These sites have issues about their content too but there is no point in trying to add good content to sites that are not working.  A quick checklist from the video:

1. Make sure you have standards of functionality comparable to WordPress.  Some of the these cms are lacking basic functionality such as a blog.
2. Don’t publish on someone else’s url or use their logo.  It is your website and you need to control the content so that your site visitors can see at a glance what you’re about.
3. If you have a reasonable cms, make sure your content is good.  And do the basics such as proof-reading!  I spotted another spelling mistake on the Surrey site after I finished recording.  Did you?
4. There is no need to fear cascading style sheets.  Do fear sites structured by tables or framesets.
5. Your visitor does not want to know about the geographical boundaries of your organisation or the vacancies on your committee.
6. There are conventions and it pays to follow them.  Hiding the navigation is not clever or witty.  Put your energy into telling me stuff I didn’t know I wanted to know.

Do tell me what you think!  Also tell me if you have any problems viewing the video.  I’m not planning to use this system forever and hope to migrate to YouTube soon once I’ve sorted some technical issues.

0 Launching a New Page

2017: This is an old post about a long ago change to my website.  I leave it available but please note the links lead to old pages that are no longer current.

So, what have I been doing over the last fortnight?  Three Fridays ago  I suggested taking time off is a good idea.  I took some time out of course.

I also took the opportunity to review my website.  It launched in November and so has run for five to six months.  I always knew it would take time to get it to how I want it.

My approach with my clients is to show them how to set up a simple site and then to develop it at their own pace.  For many voluntary organisations, regular posting can be challenging.

Many people don’t understand how website development has changed in recent years.  They don’t appreciate how dynamic websites are or how easy it is to do things that were impossible, difficult or expensive a few years ago.  They don’t know what is possible and need help to figure out how they’re going to maintain and grow their website.

So, my plan is to report changes I make to the site, why I’ve made them and what I hope will happen as a result.

Over the break I made small changes to various pages.  I also added a new page about the web consultancy services I offer.  The reason I’ve added this is to help visitors understand my Community Web Consultancy offer.  (If the truth be told, it amazes me how slow I am working out my offer myself.)  This new page outlines the types of things I offer my clients.  I shall develop this further as I find out what customers value.

I’ll draw attention to the changes I make so that you can see what I’m doing and perhaps adapt them for your own site.  My aim is to help you figure out how to make your site work for your organisation.  The best way I can do this is by showing you how I’m doing it for my site.  In time and with their permission I may write about how I’ve worked with customers to help them optimise their sites.

Remember, this is not always about selling things.  For many organisations, their message is more important but there’s little point in having a message if it is not reaching its target audience.  So, marketing is important for your organisation, whatever it is you’re trying to do.

Anyway, do have a look at the page and let me know what you think.  What could I do to improve it?  Would you contact me for more information?  If not, why not?

1 On Taking a Break

There is a lot of pressure when you’re running any sort of on-line presence.  These days the key to success is dynamic websites, constantly updated with new material.  The best advice is to update your blog regularly.

I update mine every weekday but I take occasional breaks.  This next one is for the fortnight around Easter and so my next post will be on Monday 28 April.

This will allow me time to take a rest and make time to plan changes to my site and few more things that I have not so far found time to do.

Despite what the experts say, I’d recommend anyone to take a break from time to time.  So long as you flag up what you’re doing, there’s no problem.

0 Grant Funding is No Long Term Solution

I’ve been taking part in an online conversation: “If more funding were available for your community; how would you like to see it spent?”  I replied:

I think this question is the wrong way round. We had £50 million spent in my community in Sheffield UK, over 10 years, with a final evaluation in Jan 2012. At the start we had a community forum and a community trust. The New Deal funding had some good revenue results but when the money ran out the partnership dissolved. The capital spend fell foul of the recession and so we have no legacy funding. The Trust and Forum have both collapsed. Other neighbourhoods in Sheffield with similar demographics have Forums and Trusts. If I were offered money for my community I would send it back and ask it is spent where communities come up with viable projects. And yes several of the replies above this one are concerned the most disadvantaged don’t get access to funding. I think that concern illustrates the problem with making money available in this way, it goes to groups that have plans but actually substitutes for mainstream funding. The partners left because they had to chase the next pot of funds. Despite what I’ve written I am optimistic because I think with the recession we’re going to need to re-think our approach to community development. Small businesses, including but not restricted to social enterprise are the solution, not government initiatives.

You can read the story of Burngreave New Deal for Communities here (scroll down to the first, published on 11 November 2013).  I wrote this passage on the fly about 3 months ago and perhaps my point could be clearer.  I’ve seen the cycle many times over the years; a group has an idea, gets funding, has no incentive to build anything sustainable, usually provides a valued service, then the money runs out and the funding body goes away chasing the latest innovation, project collapses, the people involved move on to another project, usually in a different neighbourhood.

A direct reply from Ken:

Chris,

I have no solutions, just agree with you, and raise more questions.

My limited experience in the last couple of years leads me to agree wholeheartedly that grant funding is no long term solution to building the capacity of the community to determine its future. However it can prime the pump, and no doubt we’ll all keep trying.

Naive to think it but what about working firstly on the overlying problems in the UK of:

1. Achieving consensus about the level of government services versus the reliance on an unprepared and under resources community.  There’s so far too little recognition of the need to fund and build sustainable not for profit organisations which take on more responsibility at local level. (Though Locality is doing a wonderful job to raise profile of the problem and find more solutions), and
2. National leadership to act in the national interest and achieve stability for business and the community. Should we any longer accept a system that swings from left to right and back in a generation?

A good start might be the example of good leadership, and for the performance at Westminster at to be transformed into a serious play. Until our leaders in the UK set themselves a priority for stability, cooperation and a single vision, the future seems very bleak to me. (And I’ve always been and remain an optimist!).

Past generations emigrated when things looked better elsewhere, and I can only see that continuing.

Regards, Ken

To which I replied:

I agree there is a place for grants in terms of pump priming.  However, beware “pump priming” is a metaphor and we need to ask about the nature of the pump.  The problem in the UK is since the seventies community development has taken an anti-business road.  It is possible to be anti-capitalist without being anti-business but you wouldn’t know it.  Go back to the century from about 1850, and disadvantaged communities were highly creative through mutuals.  We’ve lost all that and the upshot is communities are forced to accept other people’s agendas through the grants industry.

We need to work out new ways to do business in the local economy.  If a local business has customers and can show it has a social purpose, then it might qualify for grants.  But what all small businesses need, whether or not they are mutuals is investments and they are much more valuable than grants.

We’ve experimented with working with local government as a part of the voluntary sector.  Local residents in a community group are not volunteers.  We need to change the mindsets of local activists to see local trade as one of things activists do.

Ken is right to say he has no solutions; no-one has solutions.  To find something new we need to understand the inadequacies of the old approach.  This blog aims to explore alternatives to grant-aided funding.  This is a desperately important debate, which never seems to get off the ground, presumably because so many projects experience grant dependency.

How effective are grants and what are the alternatives?

0 Website Review 4: Common Purpose

This is my fourth website review of some community development related websites.  If you haven’t read the others, check out these previous posts to catch up:

The image on the right is the site’s home page.  The reason it’s there is in case the site owners change the site!  I shall comment mainly on the home page for this reason!  Click on the image to open it and click again for full size.

Today’s website is the United Kingdom site for Common Purpose, an organisation I have been aware of for several years, providing innovative training in the sector.  They say, at the top of their “About” page, “Common Purpose runs courses which give people the skills, connections and inspiration to become better leaders both at work and in society.”  This is a disappointing site because it communicates little of their innovative approach to the casual visitor.  I cannot find anything about the content management system they are using.

Their domain authority of 50 reflects their position in the sector, with nearly 6000 back-links from 276 distinct domains.  This is a magnificent performance!  These links must drive a lot of traffic to the site.  However I suspect it does not do well at conversions.  It may deliver a reasonable number of responses from visitors because many visitors will be looking for Common Purpose and have a goal in mind when they visit.  Maybe this means they can afford to ignore conversions, or think they can.

Site Structure

Appearance

The home page starts with a whopping great slider.  I’ve written about these abominations before and so won’t take up more space re-treading old rope.  This one is a beauty though, on my monitor it covers the entire width of the window and little else appears ‘above the fold’.

The logo could do with a tagline.  There is one of sorts in the top right “The heart of leadership development for 25 years.”  I think I probably know what this means but many won’t even if they (a) spot it, and (b) can read it (diagonal in pale grey).

There is a lot of grey text and some visitors may have problems reading it.  Overall the site has a messy blocked approach to presenting content.  On most pages I don’t know what I’m supposed to look at.

Navigation

The primary navigation is clear and there are no drop-down menus.  If someone wants to find out about courses or apply for a course, they can see where to click.  The link to “Home” is not necessary because the logo leads to the home page.

There is secondary navigation and it appears below the primary navigation, when you click a page in the primary navigation.  It appears in an unassuming font and is easily missed.  The colour changes when you click on one of these links, so you know which page you are on.  More secondary links appear in a green box on the right hand side of the page.  I don’t know what distinguishes these two lists of secondary links.  It took me a while to notice the green box and I suspect some visitors never will.

I am at a loss to understand why there are two lots of secondary navigation.  They seem to link to different pages.  This site needs to review its structure and navigation.

Clutter

I’m completely bemused by the higgledy-piggledy approach of this site.  Various blocks of information are slung together on most pages without rhyme or reason.  There may be a reason in the eye of the designer(?) but I haven’t  a clue what it’s supposed to be.

The site abandons the visitor upon arrival and left to navigate the site to whatever it is they seek, that is assuming they know what to look for.

Site Content

Market

If you pause the slider you can work out the market appears to be people!  On their “About” page, they write:

Common Purpose is an independent, international leadership development organisation. We give people from the private, public and not-for-profit sectors the inspiration, skills and connections to become better leaders at work and in society. We develop their ability to work together, innovate and to thrive in different cultures – this helps people, organisations, cities and regions to succeed.

This should have more prominence.

Purpose

I hunted around the “About” page and eventually found a statement about the benefits leaders will gain from Common Purpose.  It’s in the second column and as such lacks prominence on the page.  This is what visitors need to know:

 Common Purpose helps leaders to:

• become better – and significantly faster – at breaking down silos and crossing cultures. We bring together an incredible diversity of leaders from different sectors, cultures and backgrounds.

• operate effectively outside their comfort zone. Our experiential work takes place in prisons, trading floors, schools, hospitals, production plants and more.

• deliver complex change. We take our inspiration from real-life leadership issues and insights.

I think these need more attention.  They’re good ideas but as a visitor who may be new to them, is breaking down silos (whatever they are) my first priority?  Once they’ve been approved they need much more prominence.  Replace the slider with these and people will have a good idea what the site is about and what they might want from it!

Call to Action

Take a look at the home page.  How long does it take to find the call to action?  There is one.  I found it after several scans of the page because I was looking for it.  It’s hidden in plain sight.  And it shouldn’t be.

When you find it, ask whether this is a good call to action.   I think it’s asking too much too soon for a visitor.  They need to be taken through a few steps before they encounter this call to action.  Is this the best call to action for the home page?  They don’t appear to have a list or a blog.  Perhaps they don’t need one.  Perhaps their brilliant reputation gets them the sales they need.  Perhaps …

Neglect

Apart from 2014 in the footer, which may automatically update, the only date I can see is in the second news item, 2015.  The practice of not dating items does not make the site look up-to-date.  It simply means that on any page I have no idea whether I’m dealing with something current.

Verdict:  I find this site disappointing.  It could do so much more to educate the visitor, draw them into the world of Common Purpose.  Common Purpose runs brilliant training courses and must have masses of brilliant insights it could pass on to visitors to its website.  Marketing today is training.  Common Purpose is training but not sharing its insights effectively.  If they shared more online, I’m sure more people would sign up for their courses.

0 Website Review 3: Faith Based Regeneration Network

This is my third website review, where I look at the sites of some community development related websites.  If you haven’t read the others, check out these previous posts to catch up:

The image on the right is the site’s home page.  The reason it’s there is in case the site owners change the site!  I shall comment mainly on the home page for this reason!  Click on the image to open it and click again for full size.

There is no information on the Faith based Regeneration Network‘s website about their platform or site designers.  If FbRN designed the site internally, the issues I wrote about when I reviewed the CLES website, about relationships with designers, may not apply.  One disadvantage of designing internally, is the lack of opportunity to bounce ideas off an independent online designer.  This site certainly has the feel of a site developed without professional advice.

The site has a domain authority of 14, which is poor.  It has no back-links and only 8 internal links.  This is a little odd as there has been at least one link from my site for several weeks, so it is possible Google is slow in picking up back-links.

Site Structure

Appearance

The site is overall well designed with few distractions.  The background is a solid green with the content on a pale grey background, subtle but not so dark as to make reading the site difficult.  Most blocks of text are in boxes with a white background, which further enhances readability.

The first item on the page is a slider.  I wrote about these abominations in my review of the CLES website.  This one is just the same, cycling too quickly and drawing attention from the purpose of the site.

The logo is a little dull and perhaps given the theme of the site something more in the header would be helpful.  However, it does the job as it is.

Navigation

It is largely straightforward.  There is an unnecessary link to the home page, given that the logo is also a link to the home page.  The “about us” link goes to the same destination as the first item in its submenu.

The menu would benefit from being a bit bigger.  The purple text turns green when you hover over it.  Usually the hover makes the text clearer but in this case it fades, which may be difficult for some users to read.  The active link is black and for some readers perhaps not distinct enough from the purple.  Some readers may have difficulty seeing what’s going on.

Clutter

The home page has nine boxes (it depends what you count) most of which contain several links and so lacks a focal point.  I really don’t know what I’m supposed to do on the site.  It may be OK if you know what you’re looking for but for the casual visitor there are a wealth of options.

The general advice is one message per page.  Whilst it does depend upon what the site owners want from their site, I would have thought this website would seek to interest its visitors in its topic.  Any new visitor will want to know what the site is about and how to start exploring it.  The home page is very unhelpful in this respect.

Site Content

Market

Presumably it is people who are interested in interfaith work and social action.  The tagline is “leading the way in faith-based social action”.  But it isn’t clear what this means or who might be interested in it.  Is the site for faith leaders, development workers, people who are interested in interfaith work or all of these?  The site shows no awareness of its potential audience or interest in their reason for visiting.

If you are aware of which group you want to sign up for your mailing list, you can adapt the site to inform that group it meets their interests.  There’s no need to worry about the home page being for new visitors.  The old hands will return because they have a particular interest and should be able to find the information they want.

Purpose

The h1 heading and home page title is “Find out about FbRN”.  So presumably this is the purpose of the home page.  Some copy explaining what the site offers and guiding the new visitor to pages that might be of interest, would be helpful.  Nothing on the home page offers the new visitor any help.  Presumably they’re supposed to follow whatever takes their fancy.

Call to Action

To the right of the menu bar on every page there is a purple button labelled “Join our mailing list”.  It took me ages to spot it.  If you follow the link there is a form and no copy.  I attempted to subscribe today and discovered I was already a subscriber!  I  vaguely recollected receiving emails and when I searched my inbox found newsletters, each containing a lot of links to detailed information.  This may be helpful to some subscribers but the subscriber is offered little help to work out what to follow-up.

The home page could contain copy about the work of FbRN leading to a brief sign-up form.  I don’t know what sort of response they’ve received but I suspect this would be more effective than the subscribe link on every page.  A short pdf guide to faith-based regeneration might be offered to those who sign up.

A more ambitious aim might be a short course about faith-based regeneration.  This might serve to introduce new visitors to the topic and could link to various resources on the site.  This could be delivered via an email sequence or perhaps video or audio files.

Neglect

The last blog post is 20 February, so the site seems to update occasionally.  I suspect volunteers run the site, who perhaps have no clear objectives.  A scheduled series of blog posts might help keep visitors up to date with developments or introduce them to key concepts and ideas.

Verdict: As a resource for members or subscribers, assuming they can find stuff, this site may be a valuable resource.  The site does not come across as campaigning or particularly  supportive of inquirers.  For example, how would a sixth former, writing an essay on interfaith social action relate to the site?

Tell me whether you think my verdict is a little harsh?  Perhaps I’m suggesting the site should do things FbRN has never intended.  I would love to see a site that took seriously education of the public about community development from a faiths perspective, sadly I don’t think this it.  FbRN has a lot of information and if they could find more accessible ways to present it, they might find they become a more popular site.

0 Website Review 2: Centre for Local Economic Strategies

So, here is another website review.  If you didn’t read the last one, check out these previous posts to catch up:

The image on the right is the site’s home page.  The reason it’s there is in case the site owners change the site!  I shall comment mainly on the home page for this reason!  If you click on the image to open it and click again for full size.

The Centre for Local Economic Studies (CLES) uses a web design company, who provide their own content management systems.  Their home page raises issues about the strategy of professional web designers.  My comments raise questions about how designers and clients made decisions whilst constructing this page.  It is important to distinguish between design and content.  Ultimately the designer has the content  their clients provide and what the client requests is not always the best solution.  The designer will discuss options but their wisdom does not always prevail.  As a reviewer I will raise some of the issues they may have discussed.

The site has a domain authority of 49 which is not bad and over 6000 back-links from 165 domains.  Many of these seem to be links to specific content and so it illustrates how good content is the best way to approach search engine optimisation.

Site Structure

Appearance

The home page is well-designed with one obvious big mistake!  (See under Purpose below.)  It has minimal distractions from pointless graphics.  The background is blue at the top and then abruptly turns grey about two-thirds of the way down my screen.  I’m not sure this is a good idea; the site feels a bit constrained.  It might be better with grey all the way down.  The left hand column below the header is a slider.  If you’re using the image you won’t see this, five images circulate and you can click on the tabs below to move to them.  I find I’m mostly clicking on the tabs to return to the last one as it cycles away before I can read its contents.

Sliders are very popular and in my experience almost always a bad idea.  To be effective a page should focus on one message.  Sliders by definition contain several messages.  It may be useful to know all this is going on but I don’t know from the slider how I’m expected to respond to the site.  Also, they’re usually at the top of the page and so push more helpful content below the fold.

Navigation

This site contains a massive amount of information.  I find it fairly difficult to navigate but perhaps that is because I’m not looking for anything in particular.  The primary navigation is fine, although they don’t need the “Home” link as the logo already fulfills that function.  As you go deeper into the site, the amount of content is overwhelming.  I should think use of the search box at the top right is essential.

The three boxes towards the bottom of the page duplicate the corresponding links in the primary navigation.  Beneath that the three smaller boxes lead to either the CLES log-in page or in one case to a page that does not appear to be in the primary navigation.

Pages usually have breadcrumbs, so it is not too difficult to work out where you are even if you are unclear how you got there.

Clutter

The main problem I have with the home page is masses of information and no clarity about what the site is about other than in the first frame on the slider.  This includes a link to the about page (if you can catch it before the slider cycles on) but that is about CLES and not a really a clear statement of what the site is for and what it offers the visitor.

Instead I’m confronted with loads of links hither, thither and yon, and little to tell me what to expect from the site.  A tour of the main resources would be helpful.  Experienced visitors will know where to go and so a home page friendlier to the first timer might be worth considering.

 Site Content

Market

The first frame of the slider (so not always visible) reads:

Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) is the UK’s leading independent charitable research and member organisation, with a focus on economic development, regeneration and place-making. We think and do – promoting action and implementing new progressive economic activities which create positive environmental, health and social outcomes.

After that you need to click on the link to read more.  I don’t get who the members are and I’m not clear from these few words whether there is anything here for me.  If I find my way to the “Join Us”, I get an idea of what CLES does but I have to infer from the site who it is for!  For example, if I am chair of a small community group, working in a partnership for regeneration, is this site for me?  I may be borderline, so how do I find out what is best for me or what sort of membership package would be best for me?  This information may be on the site but it is hard work finding it.

Purpose

I had to search on the “About us” page to find out what CLES stands for!  There really is nothing on the page that tells the visitor what the site is about.  Remember, you have 3 seconds at the outside to communicate your purpose or else your visitor will leave.  Maybe this site is for people who know about CLES but is it really an advantage to be so obscure?  How many people bounce away who might benefit from the site content but have no idea what it is?  As well as expanding the abbreviation , this site needs a tagline in the header that clearly states what the site offers its visitors.  This sort of willful obscurity is not clever, it makes the site irrelevant.

The overall purpose of the site appears to be consulting, training and research, going by the three boxes towards the bottom of the home page.  They could have more prominence and the home page could spell out the potential benefits of these three activities for visitors to the site.  I don’t doubt a motivated visitor could battle through the information on the site but there can’t be any harm in helping them work it out.  How many people who would benefit from the site, navigate away in frustration?

Call to Action

You can join CLES on the “Join Us” page but this does not appear to be the main call to action.  Every page apart from the home page has a couple of notices pinned to the upper left of the page, inviting visitors to “Join NewStart” (a magazine) and to subscribe to a “Newsletter”.  Both links seem to go off the site and are not explained anywhere.  These could be on the home page with a clear explanation of the various membership and subscription options.  Someone might pay for a subscription to NewStart without realising it is included in the membership fee for CLES.

Neglect

The most recent what’s new is 15 January (I’m writing this on 5 March) so it is very new.  The blog posts on the right are better, most recent 4 March.  Although this could be better it is clearly an active site.

Verdict:  A professional site that has some issues about usability.  I would come here to find specific information but would not browse and don’t see any reason to sign up for anything, even if I were a target visitor.

Do you agree?  Leave your comments about this site here.  Do you find these reviews helpful?  Do they help you look critically at your own site?

0 Asset-based Planning, Research and Negotiation

If you subscribe to this blog, you used to receive an email sequence about Real Community Development.  This Monday I referred to a model I use in the sequence, about three roles of community groups; representation, planning and delivery.  Mark Woodhead has responded to my email about planning (number 10 in the sequence).

You are quite right about different organisations having their own plans. However, they ought to be willing to take local residents’ plans seriously. I encourage local people to take approaches to developing their own plans that are participatory and empowering – approaches such as participatory appraisal/participatory learning and action, and Planning for Real. Yes, think about how you are going to present the plan, but also, at an earlier stage, think carefully about how you put the plan together, in a way that gives a voice to quiet/marginalised people and not just to people who are articulate or just plain loud. Tony Gibson, who invented Planning for Real, summed up such an approach in the words ‘eyes down, hands on, rubbing shoulders, a lot less big mouth’.

While there is some truth in saying ‘you won’t have a lot of money or assets compared with other partners’, it is nonetheless worth taking some time to think about or to discover what assets you do have in your neighbourhood, paying particular attention to such things as skills, local knowledge, experience, and networks. These are assets. Use them. Value them. See, for example, The Asset-based Community Development Institute.

Two Stages to Community Planning

There are always two stages to community planning. The local plan is a small part of it, although central to community development work.

1. Each potential partner (local authority, NHS, police, businesses, etc) prepares their own plans. This must include local residents if they are to play a meaningful role in community planning.  This is a research stage and for local planning as Mark says it should include participatory methods. This means voices not normally heard are able to make their contribution.  If the local plan shows who has contributed, it has more credibility.
2. In my email I dwell on the second negotiation stage. Here the various groups get together and work out an agreed community plan.

Take care you don’t confuse these stages.  Mark’s emphasis on stage one is important.  If it is under-resourced the chances are the local plan will lack credibility.  Other plans from the agencies are likely to cover a larger area, such as the local authority area. So they will not solely focus on the assets within the neighbourhood.  So, the plan can be promoted on the grounds that it has those assets.

But most people seem to use the word “assets” to mean buildings (which are often liabilities) and not the skills, experience,  knowledge and relationships of local residents.  So, you see a well researched local plan brings something of great value to the negotiations.

I would love to hear about your experiences developing this type of plan and especially if you used online resources to help with the research.  A major issue is exclusion of people who are not online.  How do you make sure this does not happen?

0 Website Review 1: Building Effective Community Ventures

You may need to check a few previous posts to catch up with what this is about:

The image on the right is the home page of the site I’m reviewing.  The reason it’s there is if the site owners find my comments they might change the site!  I shall mainly comment on the home page for this reason!  If you click on the image it will open up and click again to get to full size.

The Association of Bridge Building Churches owns the Building Effective Community Ventures  website.  I was marginally involved with this group a few years ago but have no ongoing involvement with it.  My interest is in the site as a learning opportunity and I hope my comments will be found to be constructive.

The site has a domain authority of 11, which is not brilliant.  It has a few backlinks and is recognised by Google.  This site resources owners of a manual and so it is perhaps not essential it is easy to find.  However, if they wish to sell the manual through the site, they may need to do more work to raise its profile.

Site Structure

Appearance

The site uses a free CSS template and a link can be found at the bottom of the page.  It is a basic site and this has a lot to recommend it.  The background is a single tone of blue and the central column is black text on a white background.  This enhances readability and reduces distractions.  The header has an attractive image although the text is perhaps not so easy to read.  There is a mysterious box on the left with the word “Contacts” in it.

Navigation

The navigation is easy to follow although I do find it irritating when the top item (capitalised) in the drop down menu is the same as the item in the main menu.  The visitor has to check that both target the same page.  The last item in the “Interest Areas” menu is incomplete and so it is not clear what it is.  If you click on it, you arrive on a page without a heading.  The page is not very helpful and I found more useful information on this theme elsewhere on the site.  This leads me to think the navigation perhaps needs to be checked by someone familiar with the site.  The header does not include a link to the home page.

Clutter

The site is not at all cluttered.  Each page seems to have one topic.  In this sense the site works very well.  Overall the content needs to be reviewed, as I think the site might benefit from losing a few pages.

Site Content

Market

The market seems to be people who purchase the manual, who can access to more material.  The second paragraph on the home page lists the people expected to take an interest.

Purpose

Similar to many (most?) church-related sites, the first heading reads “Welcome”.  It is a h2 heading and I’m not sure what has happened to the h1 heading.  The word “welcome” should be banned.  Why?

The first paragraph does not really include a benefit for the visitor.  If they are setting up a project they need to be told how this site will help them!

Overall the copy on the first page could focus on how the site will help the visitor.  The copy focuses on what the website offers, with links to pages.  It would be better to say “If you want to know x, then try page y.”

Call to Action

The biggest weakness of this site is that it is not very clear what it wants the visitor to do.  Is its main purpose to add value for owners of the manual, or to persuade visitors to purchase the manual?  I would have a clear means, perhaps in a sidebar, to register or sign up for the extras.

Then I would sell the manual from the home page.  As it stands if you click on the link below the heading “The Workbook” you go to a sales page which then links to an external site called Fast Print Publishing, which you have to search to find the manual.  I couldn’t remember the name of the manual and so I think many visitors would give up at this point.

I don’t have the space to analyse the sales pitch for the manual except to say it could be better.

Neglect

Finally, whilst there is nothing on the site to suggest it is not up-to-date, equally there is nothing on it to suggest it is!  Is this a current project or was it abandoned several years ago?  There is a 2014 date in the footer, which suggests it is still current.  However the comments page and blog (do they mean biogs?) are not dated.  If you’re not signed up, you can’t access the Forum and so it is hard to tell if it is active.

Verdict:  The site has some strengths but would benefit from a clearer purpose and some evidence of activity.  Like many sites in this sector, most of the issues are to do with content and not the site’s structure.

Do you agree?  Leave your comments about this site here.

5 How to Review a Website

Last Friday I asked why review websites?  Today I shall show you how to review websites.  It depends what you are looking for.  My question is does the site do its job?  This implies it is possible to work out what its job is supposed to be!

If the site is not doing its job, it is useless, however brilliant its graphics may be.  Spectacular graphics and splendid design can mask a failure to deliver the site’s purpose.

There are two things to look for.

So, here are the things I shall be looking for, starting with functional problems.