Site Redesign and Goals for the Future

[dawn_felagund]

Hi, everyone,

My comods and I have been talking for some time now about some big plans for the group. I hope that we can start working on them this summer, and we would greatly appreciate any input from our members that they care to give! :)

First and foremost, we hope to redesign the site this summer. Our current design, while functional, represents my very first foray into the wild and woolly world of CSS layouts. I can do much better these days. Besides, the current design is getting rather old and tired. By the time I cleaned up the current code, I might as well make a new design.

Before I explain in greater detail what our plans for the redesign are, I want to make a few points clear:

• Whatever redesign we undertake will continue to be motivated by the goals I had when making our current design: accessibility and ease-of-use for as many users as possible. That means that we will continue to keep graphics to a minimum, and all design will be done only with W3C-compliant XHTML and CSS. So no worries that you'll be waiting half of forever for multiple large images to download or that your browser will crash because of the weird scripts we're using. We will always choose functionality over flashiness.


• The current layout will continue to be available on the archive portion of the site for members who wish to use it.


• The redesign will not affect how the archive functions in any way. This is strictly an aesthetic undertaking.

We are hoping to redesign the site in conjunction with a new section to the site: a gallery for members to share and comment on Silmarillion-related artwork. We've always tried to welcome artists to our group, but they have been left in the cold much of the time, without a place to share their work on our website aside from participating in special projects. We hope that a gallery will begin to remedy this.

As part of the opening of the gallery, we will be featuring an Artist of the Quarter. The Artist of the Quarter will have their work featured as part of the banner on our website, where currently we have the group logo. This will be the single graphic on our main pages.

As my comods and I begin knuckling in for some serious discussion and planning for the redesign, we want very much to hear what you all want to see on the new site design. After all, you all are the ones who use the site regularly to post your work and enjoy the work of others. We want the site to be something most everyone finds easy and pleasant to use.

If there is anything about the appearance or organization of the current site that you love, please do share it, so that we know to keep it! If there is anything that you dislike or find difficult to use, we also want to hear from you. If you have preferences or peeves in general where websites are concerned, feel free to share them. Whether you visit the site once a month, once a year, or every day, we want to hear from you! We are a small community, so even a single voice has the power to sway the decisions we make.

Please comment here with feedback or suggestions or email us at moderator@silmarillionwritersguild.org.

Thank you and best regards,

Dawn

Comments

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

When it comes to graphics I strongly believe less is more. What is wrong and most annoying about most websites? Too much of everything. Too many columns, Typeface is too small, too many pictures, too much visual noise in general. Actually, I do not think it is even good for you. It is certainly not good for children. I don't know why it would be better tolerated by adults. Have you ever disliked a website because it was clean and simple? Seriously, it is not just a question of loading time.

But, hey, whatever, carry on! I don't believe for a minute I have any right to a vote, because I don't do the work and I don't pay for it. I know nobody wants to hear this also. One of the few concrete rewards to owners and mods of websites and boards like this is the thrill of getting the opportunity to fool around with graphics and choose between the various options of bells and whistles. Just my opinion for the record and because you told us about it . . .

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

What I love about the current layout is basically everything: it is my favorite for the simple, elegant style, the soft color scheme, the lack of any flashing, moving parts. The lack of ads, obviously. The only thing I would change is to use a larger typeface. My browser will not increase the typeface and I do not like to have to switch browsers to get a larger typeface on the SWG. I do not know how it hurts anyone to use a slightly larger typeface as a default. (You did something a while back to allow one to increase the typeface, but it reverted to no-increase possible again. I don't want to keep raising it. Currently, I cut and paste in order to read stories at the archive, which cuts down on my reading. If a story is available on someone's LJ, I will read it there, but usually try to come back to the site to post a review in order to support the SWG.)

[hhimring]

I haven't really got any design suggestions (I like the blue colour scheme), although I think the Artist of the Quarter idea is great! The one small peeve I have about the site is probably not really design-related. When I look at the Archive frontpage, occasionally the content of the Random Story box has slipped and overlies the top of the Most Recent box so that I can't read either of them until I refresh the page.I don't know whether anyone else experiences the same phenomenon?

[nelyo-russandol.livejournal.com]

I love the simple design, and I vote for the art gallery idea. Beyond that, my requests are for "keep it plain", and maybe a couple of extra views, which may or may not overlap into functionality, I leave them to you, anyway:

- Can you have a search option based on the date when something was posted, i.e. oldest first or newest first? Not just the latest 10 stories but all of the fics, same as with author's names

- When I have looked at the SWG from my mobile - not more than a handful of times, as it is most awkward to read on its tiny screen - I have to scroll down all the column items on the left before I get to the main content page. Can this be sorted in a "mobile" view, for those lucky people with decent-sized tablets and bigger/better phones than mine? I'm hopeful I'll have my own one day, too!

[keiliss.livejournal.com]

I second the comment about the mobile view. My new phone handles the SWG site fine, but it was an absolute pain with my old one, had to scroll forever and jump through hoops to get where I needed to go.

If you're staying with a very simple layout, could we have colour options? I know it's relaxing but I'm not really a blue person.

[engarian.livejournal.com]

I have little to say except please keep black text on a white background. It is by far the most readable combination, and after all, reading is what it is all about.

- Erulisse (one L)

[ithilwen.livejournal.com]

The only thing I don't like about the current site is that story text runs right up to the right edge of the page; a bit of space between the right edge of the page and the story text would make things more readable. Other than that, I think the current site design is great!

[hrymfaxe.livejournal.com]

I second this. :)

[independence1776]

I really like the site as it stands, mostly because it's one of the few sites that works 100% on my outdated browser (and no, I can't update it). It's the only fanfic archive site I don't have to switch computers to post stuff. Which makes me happy to hear that you're going to keep the current layout.

I also like the lack of graphics. It's clean and simple. I'm here to read.

I don't like the text size and font-- the default size could be larger (but not as large as the + button makes it) and I prefer serif fonts.

My suggestions:

~ keep the site layout simple and let us have the ability to choose between serif and sans serif.

~ I'm also go to probably go against the grain and say that while the default should be black text on a white background, I think you should have a choice of white text on black and black text on light cream. Some people find them easier to read. (I'm light sensitive-- my monitor is dimmed for comfort-- and I'd definitely use the black on cream.)

[dawn_felagund]

Well, you should be good to go. :) No way no how (so long as I am paying the bills!) is our main site going to have loads of graphics or be designed with anything more than XHTML and CSS. We have our graphics fun and I stretch my web design muscles during special events.

The redesign will be similar to our current design in that it will be simple and, I hope, easy to navigate. One of my pet peeves is going to a site and being unable to find out anything about the group or what the site's about.

[dawn_felagund]

I addressed the simplicity of design above. :) Ads are a legal issue as well as an ethical issue for me so, again, as long as I'm paying the bills, there will be no ads on the site.

When you're talking about increasing the typeface, I assume you're talking about the text-size adjustor on the archive? I just checked it (in Firefox), and it's working for me, so I'm sorry to say that looks like a browser issue. :^/ I'll try in IE and Chrome later. What browser are you using?

I'm also going to code the font sizes differently in the stylesheet so that it will be easier to make adjustments in your browser. It works for me in Firefox, but I know that I didn't write the stylesheet ideally for font size adjustments, so it's possible that all browsers aren't going to be so forgiving. If your browser currently isn't increasing the font when you tell it to, that's because I've coded it wrong; in my defense, I didn't know any better when I built this site! :)

Anyway, in short, I hope the font issues will be addressed. :)

[dawn_felagund]

Thanks, Himring, for replying! :) I've never had that happen with the Random and Most Recent boxes. What browser are you using?

[dawn_felagund]

Thanks, Russandol, for commenting! I'm glad everyone is okay so far (I haven't read all of the comments yet) with my plain-jane approach to designing the main site. :)

As far as searching by posting date, you can see list of stories arranged by posting date on the Titles screen; select "Most Recent" from the next-to-last drop-down. As far as changing the Search page itself, that would require rewriting the software, which is beyond my abilities, I'm sorry to say. :^/

I will look into designing to accommodate mobiles as well. I'll be doing a more liquid design this time, which might help; I'm not sure. When I did the current design, no one was looking at webpages on small devices yet! :) That's obviously become an issue I'll have to address, so I hope to save you some scrolling soon!

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

Amen! I am here to read to! I do love the special events graphics, but not for everyday. And I am notorious at being unable to navigate the special events pages!

Black on cream or very pale colors is the same difference for me. Grey on pale colors is already slipping into a problem. You are very, very young! White on black even bothers me for a graphic display, not mention something with real text. At your age I could read anything. By the time I hit 35-40 that was no longer true and it happened overnight (I still read without glasses also--so that is not the problem). I always think that no one else must read as much online as I do.

[dawn_felagund]

Thanks, Kei, for the feedback! I've replied to Russandol that learning more about how to design for mobiles is definitely on my to-do list. It wasn't as much of an issue when I made the original site but has certainly become one! :)

Since the banner will change quarterly, the color scheme will likely change then as well so as not to clash with the banner. Past layouts will be available to use on the archive, so if you like one in particular, you can set up your account so that that one always displays. So, in short, yes, I'm hoping we'll have more options, at least on the archive! :)

[dawn_felagund]

No worries there! Dark backgrounds with light text is generally a design faux pas, as well as one of my biggest design pet peeves, because you're right: It isn't readable. I can only recall seeing it done once in a way that I found readable or liked. (And that was a site designed by my SWG webmaster partner in crime, Rhapsody! :)

[dawn_felagund]

That is a very doable request, so consider it on my list! :) Thanks, Ithilwen!

[dawn_felagund]

Consider it done! :D

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

I use AOL and I updated to the latest version also, which I don't even like, specifically to try to accomodate the SWG. I guess I am fighting a losing battle on this question.

Why does the default have to be so very small--does anyone really read it without expanding or is that the mobile phone question? I would stop complaining if I understood the why of it and just suck it up.

[dawn_felagund]

Thanks, Indy, for the feedback! :) When I designed the current layout, I very much designed it to be compliant with older browsers. I won't be using any coding beyond what I'm using now (XHTML and CSS), so the new layout should continue to work for you as well. Part of the reason for that was that I designed most of the site at my former job, which still used IE6 (and was still using IE6 when I left). Since IE6 is one of the fussier browsers, I had the opportunity to test it in that. Please let me know if any changes are showing up oddly in your older browser, and I will do my best to address them.

The text will definitely be a dark font on a light background. I'm not necessarily committing to black text on a white background. I'll definitely keep your preference for a not-quite-white background (and serifs!) in mind for the redesign! :)

[dawn_felagund]

The default is so small because it is the most comfortable size for me. I also have my Kindle set on the smallest font possible, and I don't go above 10pt by choice in MS Word, except for headings. When the site debuted, I asked the members for feedback. You weren't with us then, and no one asked for a larger font size, so that is how it stayed. Unfortunately, I can only see out of my own eyes, which is why we are doing this now, so that I can hopefully meet everyone's needs in the future! :)

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

I like the information accessible from the home page and the statement of purpose. With the exception of the character bios (still carefully hidden for a lot of people--I know your logic, because you explained it to me in great detail, others do not). People tell me that they click "references," then they click "essays," when they don't see them there they write me an email asking for the link. And do the same damned thing again the next time they need a different one. Those are people I know! I don't know where the people I do not know go, or if they just give up. For a few months until I got used to the chain, I would click on "newsletter" and then on the lastest bio and then scroll to the bottom and click for the others. Now I actually know how to find it and also know that they can be reached through author name on the story archive.

[dawn_felagund]

I'm still open for suggestions on how to organize/label the References page to make it easier for people to understand what's where! :) There is an explanation about how the page is organized right on the front page, without even having to scroll (at least not on my monitor). There's also a boldface "Don't see what you're looking for?" right at the top of the Essays page with a link to Periodicals. While I'm happy to put into place better organization/labeling than what we have now, if I make information available to people and they choose not to use it, that's on them, not me. We do have to keep the two sections separate since "Essays" undergo the peer review process and periodicals do not.

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

I think I am the oldest person active in the SWG, but there are others of my generation! And I know others still with worse eyes that me! Computers are not good for one's eyesight either! Life's a drag sometimes.

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

How about "peer reviewed essays" and "all others."

[dawn_felagund]

I don't think it was an age thing so much as a "I don't like it now when she's asking for feedback so I'll wait till it's permanent and then bitch and complain" thing. ;) Human nature! No one complained about the font, which would have been fixable in a few keystrokes, but I did get a complaint about the color scheme after the fact. Too bad. That's why I'm very heartened that people are asking what they want now rather than waiting till the new design is finished! :)

[dawn_felagund]

I don't really think that makes it any clearer, except to those of us who are familiar enough with the review process to know the difference. I think more people are familiar with the fact that CotM and similar pieces appear in the newsletter (hence, Periodicals). The average person would still be left wondering where to go and, apparently, unwilling to read any clarification we might provide.

What about "Reviewed Essays" and "Periodicals"? I've resisted this because I don't like the emphasize the "reviewed" aspect, which makes the periodicals seem less reputable (which they're not; they're just completely different kinds of writing!), but since you're our main Periodicals writer, if you were comfortable with it, that would carry a lot of weight with me.

To everyone else: I'm open to others' thoughts on this, btw. This has been a point of debate among those of us heavily involved with References for some years now.

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

My daughter tells me that I am a cranky old lady and that this persona is very new for me and really annoying and she generalizes that she finds a lot of people my age that she has to deal with professionally are just like me!! I do know my eyes are significantly worse than they were five years ago. And if anything I am harder on them in the way I use them.

Complaining after the fact is a drag. I just remember relaing to the font enlarger button that it worked for me for ages and then it didn't. Then I wondered after a couple of tries to fix it, if people really liked it so small and I was the only one who needed large print!

[dawn_felagund]

I am blessed with extraordinarily good eyesight. I'm sure more people are with your font preferences than mine! :)

Complaining after the fact is one of my few peeves as a mod, I have to admit, at least when I go to any effort to solicit feedback before the fact and I get crickets in reply. The text adjustor problem certainly wasn't complaining after the fact; the only thing I can figure happened is that we updated the software and some change threw a wobbly with your browser. Or maybe an update in your browser threw a wobbly with the text-adjustor code.

I am not at all familiar with the AOL browser. Does it have View --> Zoom? (That's how to force a font increase in Firefox and, I think, IE as well.)

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

Periodicals is not reminiscent of anything to me (except the newspaper and magazine room of a library or bookstore) and I would not get one to five requests per month if other people made the association. Hey, I pimp the things and happily give links and am thrilled with every email I get asking about them, but I don't know everyone who would like to read a bio. I think they are a great resource for the site and am honored to get to work on them. I do know, warts and all, that they are so much better than what I previously relied upon--Encyclopedia of Arda and various wikis without sources.

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

The problem with AOL is that is does not have its own enlarger. One has to be able to read a website or use that site's enlarger button. My computer is already set to large. If I go any bigger on my computer settings, then I start running text ontop of graphics and it is absolutely impossible to read.

[hhimring]

Thank you, Dawn! I use Internet Explorer 8.

[dawn_felagund]

I think that's what I have installed on this computer, so I'll start looking at the site there and see if I can't replicate your problem.

[alasse-mirimiel.livejournal.com]

I've never had any problem or complaint about the site so I can't offer any useful suggestion. I agree that the best idea would be a simple design. Just wanted to say that I'm very exited about the gallery :D

[dawn_felagund]

I thought/hoped you would be! :D Thanks for the feedback!

[alphien.livejournal.com]

Personally, I really enjoy the layout of the site as is. (Not to say that I don't think there should be any change). The clean, easy-to-understand interface is simple, which really works, given the site's intended purpose. Not that I'm against graphics or whatever, but I just don't think they're necessary. So really, no complaints/suggestions from my end.

I do think that serif fonts would be nice, if it's not too much trouble. And the art gallery sounds super-awesome!

[dawn_felagund]

It sounds like we're on the same page as well. :) We currently have one graphic on each page, which is how I'd like to keep it in the redesign. I'm also all in favor of functional over flashy! :)

That's two votes for serif! :) I'm definitely willing to make this change, unless I hear from lots of people who prefer sans-serif. (It'll make my dad--an old-school printer--happy too; he's always vaguely horrified that I chose to do my website in sans-serif! :)

Thanks for the feedback, Adonnen!

[independence1776]

Grey anything is bad. It just makes it incredibly hard to read, whether text or background.

Oh, white on black bothers me-- if I *have* to read a webpage in it, I'll actually switch the setting on my monitor to the "white on black" mode so it shows up correctly. (The setting reverses all colors, so it doesn't affect just the text.) But there are a ton of LJs that use light on dark, and I don't know why, so people obviously like it.

[independence1776]

Awesome! I know it's far too much to ask for (and arrogant besides) to expect things to be catered to me. But I also think that many people forget that there are a lot of people who don't or can't afford to upgrade to the newest systems, and when sites are coded just for that, it makes things inaccessible. (The amount of news sites that crash my browser…) I just want to be able to post my stories and read!

Yay! As long as the background color isn't grey. As I told Oshun above, grey is a pain in either text or background. (And if I had to choose between a non-white background or serif fonts, I'd go for the serif anyday.)

New Look

[kiniro-no-hana.livejournal.com]

I like the way you have it now, cleam and simple without ads to take away from focusing on the content of the site. Even though I don't come but once or twice a month to check for new things, and I don't even have the distinction of posting a story yet (I'm the kind who starts and never finishes stories until the power goes out and i have nothing to do but type my battery away), one thing i never liked was the white background. It's good for the stories, but on the main pages it's just....white....emptiness. Maybe look at another color? Like a soft green or blue. I agree with your lack of flash, but a little color in the background would be welcome, at least on my part. Feel free to disagree, as long as this wonderful site staying up!

Re: New Look

[dawn_felagund]

Thank you for your feedback--and congrats on joining the ranks of the SWG authors since posting this! ;)

I've gotten a lot of feedback about background color, with several folks indicated that black-on-white isn't the easiest on the eyes. This is something I will have to research and talk to members whom I know have vision issues to find what makes our site most accessible to readers with visual impairments. At the moment, though, a light-colored background with dark text looks like it may be a strong possibility.

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

I just remembered another legibility and readability thing which many lovely sites ignore. Textured background on web pages dramatically reduces legibility. Punctuation and accent marks are lost in speckles or waves of the background. These textured backgrounds can be lovely from a distance, but very hard to read.

I tried to find backup of the concept that pale, but warm backgrounds are supposedly easier on the eyes than cool backgrounds, which I was taught early in my publishing years for print publications, but I could not find anything addressing that online. (Having computer issues at the moment.) But keep that in mind. Since some people want not a white page surface, but a color, so I was taught that tan or pale yellow is supposedly easier on the eyes than stark white or a pale blue or lavender for example (guys still think pink is girlie and unfortunately think apricot is pink!).

A graphically striking header which does not meet these standards could be the place for artistic creativity, but not blocks of text or instructions on how to get from one place to another.

[dawn_felagund]

No worries--a textured/patterned background wouldn't even be under consideration! :) In addition to the reading challenges they pose, that would be another image to slow down page load times, and I'm really serious about having no more than one image (the banner) on our main pages, as we do currently.

I intend to research background color and readability, as well as talk privately with members who have mentioned that they have vision issues that prevent comfortable reading on certain backgrounds. My first priority will be keeping the site comfortable and accessible to them. If you find those links, please do let me know--that's just what I'm looking for! :)

I had to laugh about apricot being viewed as pink. Someone once told me that they didn't like our blue and pink color scheme on the current site. I never would have mistaken our light orange highlights for pink, but clearly some people do! :)

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

I think that is so funny! I do not like pink, but I do like apricot.

I'm really serious about having no more than one image (the banner) on our main pages, as we do currently.

That really does reassure me!! I get so upset with too many bells and whistles on webpages. I feel like people who have reactions to strobe lights! (I know I am quite nuts!)

[parmalokwen.livejournal.com]

Could you enable anonymous reviews?

[dawn_felagund]

Sorry, but this is an issue we decided on at the group's founding and still feel strongly about. There is no way for us to enforce our Site Etiquette and Terms of Service if we allow anonymous reviews, and we feel like that could create a hostile climate for authors; it has on other sites that allow anonymous reviews. Accounts are free, available for anyone who wants one, and come with no strings attached, so we continue to encourage readers to sign up for an account if they're interested in commenting on stories.