This sounds like something we'd be very interested in having for the Rosary Army website if wanted to hit that audience of folks, as well. So might I suggest an images would be of the knotted-twine variety? We could provide tons of high quality images :)
Good idea. I'm no programmer, but I use the Linux version of Google Chrome Browser (dev channel) so I'd be willing to help out with testing, if needed. Really liking some of the HTML5 examples I've seen; YouTube w/HTML5 enabled is way better than w/Flash. And while not an Apple user, I suppose being Flash-free could allow Catholic iPod/iPad users to use the application.
To be honest..some of the cheap/free DIY stuff I've seen out there can be a bit misleading at times. By that, I mean that they often promise how great it'll look and how easy it is to maintain. The reality is...you get what you pay for - most of the time. In the end, they look pretty bad and people complain how it doesn't do what they want it to.
Nowadays, with the proliferation of Drupal, WordPress, Joomla (and others)...you should be able to hire someone to build a decent site for under $2,000. Obviously, complexity increases cost...but overall, costs have come down significantly in the past few years.
If you do a bit of digging, you can probably find a local web developer or freelancer that'll be a good fit and deliver the goods.
Here's how I'd go about it...
Go to your Diocesan website. They probably have a listing of all the parishes, hopefully with links to their websites. Browse through a dozen (or more) and you should find some decent sites. More often than not, there'll be a site credit at the bottom of the site and voila...you got a lead. It might be a good idea to contact the parish and ask how the experience went for them and if they'd recommend them for your project.
You might be surprised to find some good local talent!
Some of the easiest options would be setting up a quick site (for free!) on www.drupalgardens.com or www.wordpress.com, then expanding from there to a self-hosted website running on Drupal, Wordpress, or Joomla.
So far, in my life, I have never found a for-pay content management system that can do half the things I can do in one day with a Drupal site :)
For instance, archstl.org, this website, and whitehouse.gov are all running on Drupal, using a different mix of modules and custom themes (actually, this site uses 'Airy Blue,' an open source Drupal theme).
While it would be ideal for the parishes to have content management systems and strategies, all the content management systems I've seen cost $10K-20K to setup, never mind maintenance and updating. Are there grants available to pay for such development? Or maybe you know a few free AND Easy options for DIY'ers? Please.. :)
PS. I hereby admit to being a new reader. Please don't shoot me for not visiting and reading every page on yoru site before responding to your posting. I
I think a group, with good privacy settings, would be better for youth. Also, remember that it is not illegal to post pictures with youth in them—sometimes it's inadvisable, but I know, for instance, that St. Louis' Catholic newspaper is able to publish names of children along with their photographs, since it's a journalistic publication...
There's been some discussion in regard to which is "safer" for a youth group... A Facebook page, group, or regular profile? We had a page that I thought was fine, but then one of the admins decided to switch it to a profile instead because we have pictures on it. I see pictures on the Diocesan FB pages above, though. Thoughts?
While this is true, from an end-user's (or developer's) perspective, nobody uses Opera, and IE/Flash compatibility are essential to traction with HTML5 video. Everything the other browsers can do to alleviate the stress involved in video workflows is invaluable.
clicking on the link it says it's a private blog now, and to contact the owner to get acess...
It seems is new blog is http://allencch.wordpress.com/projects/
ffmpeg is your friend. I wouldn't expect users to have to produce flv's let alone anything else. Let them upload content and transcode it so it can be embedded.
While this is true, from an end-user's (or developer's) perspective, nobody uses Opera, and IE/Flash compatibility are essential to traction with HTML5 video. Everything the other browsers can do to alleviate the stress involved in video workflows is invaluable.
At the very least, FireFox should be able to fall back to flash if it doesn't like the M4V file.
;-)
You're onto us.
影视，灯光，音响工程
No. These steps are useless.
It's all about the titles. Make titles like "5 Steps to Get a Million Monthly Visitors". That's all you need.
Jeff -
This sounds like something we'd be very interested in having for the Rosary Army website if wanted to hit that audience of folks, as well. So might I suggest an images would be of the knotted-twine variety? We could provide tons of high quality images :)
I'll keep posting back here on and off...
Hey Jeff... Send me a msg sometime, or I'll try and hop onto irc more frequently... but I'd be interested to help out.
I'd like this just for the fact that I could use it on my iPad :D
Good idea. I'm no programmer, but I use the Linux version of Google Chrome Browser (dev channel) so I'd be willing to help out with testing, if needed. Really liking some of the HTML5 examples I've seen; YouTube w/HTML5 enabled is way better than w/Flash. And while not an Apple user, I suppose being Flash-free could allow Catholic iPod/iPad users to use the application.
Also consider adding this page, 5 Steps to Get a Million Monthly Visitors.
We are a Catholic web design company based in Philadelphia and if you haven't found anyone as of yet shoot us an email. Pax et bonum.
@Jocelyn
To be honest..some of the cheap/free DIY stuff I've seen out there can be a bit misleading at times. By that, I mean that they often promise how great it'll look and how easy it is to maintain. The reality is...you get what you pay for - most of the time. In the end, they look pretty bad and people complain how it doesn't do what they want it to.
Nowadays, with the proliferation of Drupal, WordPress, Joomla (and others)...you should be able to hire someone to build a decent site for under $2,000. Obviously, complexity increases cost...but overall, costs have come down significantly in the past few years.
If you do a bit of digging, you can probably find a local web developer or freelancer that'll be a good fit and deliver the goods.
Here's how I'd go about it...
Go to your Diocesan website. They probably have a listing of all the parishes, hopefully with links to their websites. Browse through a dozen (or more) and you should find some decent sites. More often than not, there'll be a site credit at the bottom of the site and voila...you got a lead. It might be a good idea to contact the parish and ask how the experience went for them and if they'd recommend them for your project.
You might be surprised to find some good local talent!
Some of the easiest options would be setting up a quick site (for free!) on www.drupalgardens.com or www.wordpress.com, then expanding from there to a self-hosted website running on Drupal, Wordpress, or Joomla.
So far, in my life, I have never found a for-pay content management system that can do half the things I can do in one day with a Drupal site :)
For instance, archstl.org, this website, and whitehouse.gov are all running on Drupal, using a different mix of modules and custom themes (actually, this site uses 'Airy Blue,' an open source Drupal theme).
While it would be ideal for the parishes to have content management systems and strategies, all the content management systems I've seen cost $10K-20K to setup, never mind maintenance and updating. Are there grants available to pay for such development? Or maybe you know a few free AND Easy options for DIY'ers? Please.. :)
PS. I hereby admit to being a new reader. Please don't shoot me for not visiting and reading every page on yoru site before responding to your posting. I
Bout time! Nice to see the Vatican put its money where its mouth is.
No doubt about it! I hope they can organize it quite a bit better.
I think a group, with good privacy settings, would be better for youth. Also, remember that it is not illegal to post pictures with youth in them—sometimes it's inadvisable, but I know, for instance, that St. Louis' Catholic newspaper is able to publish names of children along with their photographs, since it's a journalistic publication...
There's been some discussion in regard to which is "safer" for a youth group... A Facebook page, group, or regular profile? We had a page that I thought was fine, but then one of the admins decided to switch it to a profile instead because we have pictures on it. I see pictures on the Diocesan FB pages above, though. Thoughts?
Interesting stuff...
It's a great site once you get down into it. It goes very very deep. But the layout and design needs a load of work.
Thus I would really like it if FireFox/Mozilla were to allow MP4/H.264... :(
While this is true, from an end-user's (or developer's) perspective, nobody uses Opera, and IE/Flash compatibility are essential to traction with HTML5 video. Everything the other browsers can do to alleviate the stress involved in video workflows is invaluable.
hmm...
clicking on the link it says it's a private blog now, and to contact the owner to get acess...
It seems is new blog is http://allencch.wordpress.com/projects/
Also its also now in sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/prayerclock
^_^
Unfortunately, ffmpeg is my friend on my dedicated server, but not on the plethora of sites I maintain on shared hosting :(
ffmpeg is your friend. I wouldn't expect users to have to produce flv's let alone anything else. Let them upload content and transcode it so it can be embedded.
Thanks for sharing! This is just what I needed. :)
While this is true, from an end-user's (or developer's) perspective, nobody uses Opera, and IE/Flash compatibility are essential to traction with HTML5 video. Everything the other browsers can do to alleviate the stress involved in video workflows is invaluable.
At the very least, FireFox should be able to fall back to flash if it doesn't like the M4V file.