Rob Bell’s Mars Hill Church Website Gets a Simple, Unique Makeover

10 Responses to “Rob Bell’s Mars Hill Church Website Gets a Simple, Unique Makeover”

1. djchuang on February 21st, 2007 7:06 am

   Beautiful redesign, extremely clean, reminds me a bit of Crate & Barrel, and the navigation/ user interface a bit more Windows desktop-like. I think a driving philosophy in this design is being essentialist — present only what is the most essential and necessary for most website, e.g. tell ‘em what they need to know, get them on their way.

   And, I’m so glad they’ve gotten rid of the interstitial sign-up page to download teaching (sermon) audios.

2. Brenton Balvin on February 21st, 2007 7:06 am

   I totally agree. And the correlation between a church website and the church’s DNA is a good observation. That should be the reality of all church sites because they are an extension of the church and not simply a stand alone enterprise.

3. Ryan Imel on February 21st, 2007 8:02 am

   To be honest I don’t much like the site. I see where the team at Mars is going with it - simplicity - and where they’ve been going with it for some time. But I don’t believe they have really achieved what (it seems to me) they are after.

   The navigation is clunky, especially to first time visitors to the site. The way that the site is set up is very counter-intuitive.

   But I do see what you mean when you say that it fits their church. The colors and the attempt at simplicity is definitely there. I just don’t believe they are as good at communicating that way as they are at other things (like, say, Bell speaking :) ).

4. Cory Miller on February 21st, 2007 8:14 am

   I think the site is pretty … and I’m a fan of minimalistic (don’t look at this site though) … but I would have a seriously hard time keeping it fresh.

   DJ, I like your thoughts … from my experience, “church people” want a pretty site that is pleasing to the eyes (and there’s a thousand variations of what “pretty” is) … but they also want it to be functional.

   But on our site … the most comments I’ve heard internally are the “pretty” ones, which is sometimes disheartening.

   Re: Mars Hill … I’d venture to guess, the audience they’re looking to hit are young, tech-savvy types … just my guess.

   One of the best designed sites in my opinion is still KaleoHouston.com. Thoughts?

5. Rich Schmidt on February 21st, 2007 2:15 pm

   I love the look & style of it. And I’m even OK with the minimalist approach to navigation… but Ryan picked the right word when he called it “clunky.”

   For example, I was moving through their “directions” (their word for “values”). Click on one… and where did the rest go? You have to go back up to the Discover menu… and you’ve lost the groovy arrow icons PLUS there’s no link back to the main directions page. Horrible.

   I love Mars Hill, but I’ve never been a huge fan of their website. The new redesign looks great… but it still needs some work.

   (BTW, I’m glad to hear they got rid of the super-annoying interstitial page for downloading message audio. Fortunately, I switched to their podcast a while ago, so I wasn’t messing with it anyway.)

6. James Dalman on February 21st, 2007 6:36 pm

   I don’t think that it is very functional and agree with the comments about the navigation. I think viewers may get frustrated and leave for good.

   Overall I don’t want to be critical (lest I be judged) but I would grade it a “D-”.

7. Victor on February 21st, 2007 9:51 pm

   I liked the old one better. The new one is difficult to navigate.

8. Jeff on February 22nd, 2007 9:03 am

   It’s an interesting trade-off…I agree, the site is on target for representing them as a church, and the ‘uniqueness’ spans into all areas of it (navigation, etc). The downside as stated is some usability issues. People will learn how to use the site if they are intrigued enough by the content within it.

   The site works well for the audience it is intended to reach, and most likely, the person that gives up on navigating the site will fall within the category that is outside their target. (The question of whether your site should be targeted is perhaps another topic ;-) )

9. Greg Nilsen on February 22nd, 2007 2:30 pm

   I’m not a fan either. Too much glitz and not enough substance. What am I going to when I click on any given picture? It could be a testimony, sermon, or any other because the navigation just isn’t well done.

   In the end, I think it’s a mindset thing. I have a friend who was a media art major and makes some beautiful websites, but they’re practically useless because they don’t have the content or database power behind them to be useful. I, as a computer science major, tend to focus on the content and functionality, and then I end up with sites that aren’t the prettiest. We also rarely talk shop either, because we’re approaching things very differently.

   But, ideally, you can get a blend of the two. Maybe Mars Hill just needs to find itself a CS major. ;-)

10. Cory Miller on February 22nd, 2007 2:48 pm

    Wow … I think to date this post has generated more comments than any other. Interesting how that works!

    I think what we have to be careful of is … not knowing what their goals for the site is/was.

    That site would not work for my church. BUT … as Jeff said … it probably works for their audience.

    Also, if it looked anywhere close to another church, it wouldn’t be Mars Hill either! :-)

Leave a Reply