Brandonsanderson.com upgrade

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

How many people go to an author's web site before they've read a book?

Front page content maintenance shouldn't be a hassle -- literally thousands of web sites do it every day. TWG does it pretty darn well, though I'd like more substantive blurbs, I'm not prepared to copy/paste whole paragraphs myself.  Automaticly rolling content should help.

I don't know why doubling up ont he links would help with the menu, especially when those links are scattered. What's the thought behind that? It's not like funky pictures help me understand a link better than a name does, especially when that name is in an organized and recognizable presentation.

Is the problem that the links don't work? Or that they can't find content? In the first case, fix the code, in the second, adding a second link for it won't fix it when the menu's already prominent. TO fix the second case, you need to think about reorganizing or re-labeling the presentation, not adding a graphic that, honestly, doesn't add, but detracts from, clarity.

[Spriggan]

We're not doubling up on the links.

You have a link to the blog on the graphic which takes you to the blog front page, or you can click on one of the more recent blog posts and they take you there.  Completely different links code wise and for the most part functionality wise.  Same thing with the Annotations, but besides those none of the other links even have content on the sidebar.

As for not liking a launch page, get over it, if you want to start at the blog then bookmark the damn blog, it's that easy.  Same think with PA, their most recent comic is always the same link, you can just book mark that comic page and go there instead of the news.  Or hell, use the RSS feeds that are provided.  But what makes your argument really fall flat is that the graphical menu that we will be using will take you to the same places that the text menu we use now is.  Both Mistborn links take you to the Mistborn Launch page, same with rants, news, ect.  Heck you should be happy because we're finally linking to the default blog link that shows you the most recent post which is something you rail on PA about.  I really find your arguments weak SE since you can easily not ever see the launch page if you don't want to, all it takes is spending 2 seconds bookmarking the appropriate page.

As for 42's comment about the front page being unmanageable, it's more new features are always being added and we have to contently find new space to link to those new features and it's getting to the point where the main page is unwieldy.  This new design is simpler, there's less clutter and just as effective if not more so then the current text menu we have on the current site.

It's simply a better design overall, and that's what's most important.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

1) why are you asking for anyone's opinion if you're just going to cuss us out for giving it to you? You got three responses. Two were negative, one was half and half. This should tell you something. If you're going to completely ignore popular opinion, why are you asking for it in the first place?

2) I think it would still be *much* *much* simpler simply to have a link on the side bar for the main blog than to disrupt everything on the main page. Designers always think that one or two clicks dont' make a difference. From a user end, they do.
And, incidentally, PA recently recoded. The old link stopped working. I had to re-update my bookmark. I'm sure you'll write this off as whining, but that is *bad* consumer interaction. You don't change a feature to make a link unworkable without warning the users first. in a place where the people actually *go*. It irritates people.
It is not *my* job to accomodate myself to a website. You guys should really try to learn that. You are advertising something. You need to accomodate to *my* patterns. Saying "deal with it" is the worst possible response you could give to a concern, except maybe to throw in some curses. Oh wait, you did that too.

but then, you probably just think I want to complain. So, I'll stop trying to give any helpful input and ignore it now. You are obviously more interested in telling me I'm wrong than you are getting any kind of feedback.

[EUOL]

E,

I appreciate your comments, as they are very useful.  I agree with you greatly on the re-codeing and link changing thing.  That's just plain annoying, and it has stopped me from going back to websites.

However, what I'm MOST worried about with my website is exactly what you think won't happen.  People coming who haven't read my books.  I do a lot of promotion on-line for the website, and have hundreds of people clicking through a week who have never heard of me.  

I also have a lot of older readers who aren't terribly web savvy.  Many of these people have emailed me to complain that they can't find content on my website.  The annotations are rarely read, not because there isn't an audience for them, but because people just can't find them.  

I want the website to work for them.  So, that's what I asked Sprig and 42 for (and, all of this design comes back to my decisions, not Sprig's--I think he'd rather the site be a little more like you're saying, actually.)

I wanted:
1)  A website that displayed graphically on the front page links to each of the books I'm working on, along with common things like the blog and what not.
2)  A website that was easier to navigate, and which used a visual linking system, rather than a text-based one.

They're working under some pretty annoying constraints, and I really appreciate their work.  However, the things you're saying are a concern.  I wish we could make it work for everybody.  However, the problem is, many people look at the main page right now and are overwhelmed.  I want something they can look at, see Elantris and Mistborn displayed prominently, and just click there to be taken to cool content.  

[42]

How many people go to an author's web site before they've read a book?

With how Brandon has marketed himself with business cards and sample chapters--a lot.

I don't want to antogonize you more E, but after talking to about 10 other people (enough for statistical significance), your opinion seems to be atypical. Over half of the people I've spoken with really like the design.  I've had another two that didn't love it, but didn't hate it either. You and Ookla don't seem to care for it at all. Sorry if you feel left out.

We are working under an assumption that this is a leisure site for most viewers, so theoretically they shouldn't be in a hurry. Some might be, but then they probably shouldn't be coming to the site if they are in that kind of a rush.

[EUOL]

Actually, I think that E and Ookla represent a segment that isn't atypical--but may not be quite as large as the other group we're shooting for.

E and Ookla are experienced web users who are accustomed, likely, to visiting text heavy sights like Slashdot and various forum message boards.  They're already invested in me as a writer, and to them, more information is better.  A long list of text links is, in their opinion--and I can't really argue--superior.  It gets across more information in a more orderly way.  

The problem is, that scares away a lot off other people who aren't quite as invested as they are.  My goal and hope is that people like E and Ookla, being highly proficient at these sorts of things, will be able to find the information easily, even if the design doesn't speak to them in person.  I suspect they'll link the blog, rather than the main page, anyway--since they know all of the important information will be displayed there.

That way, we cover as many bases as possible.  Still, it is very good to hear what E has to say in this area.  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I still don't see how this is a solution to the problem
I go to the site, and I see what looks to me like a random scattering of "rocks" with links on them. So I have to read every single one to find what I'm looking for, and I may or may not miss one of the links. How does that help an inexperienced or new user?

Again, it looks real purty, but I don't see this correcting any issue that's been mentioned in this thread. So I question the results of 42's informal survey. Did you ask them "what do you think of this?" Or "How does this look?" Or "How usable do you think this would be to a non-tech-savvy user?" Because while I can answer #1 with "it's ok" and number 2 with "It's very attractive" I can't help but answer #3 with "not very."

[Spriggan]

I still don't see how this is a solution to the problem
I go to the site, and I see what looks to me like a random scattering of "rocks" with links on them. So I have to read every single one to find what I'm looking for, and I may or may not miss one of the links.

Listen SE, I already know you're arguing for arguments sake (you told me this morning that was the case) so stop coming up with lame arguments. Like this one.  You don't like the site because the links are graphical and text based not Text only so you'd have to spend the time reading them to find which link you want.  What? You'd do that if it was text only.  Seriously man, try harder if you want this debate to actually be a debate.

why are you asking for anyone's opinion if you're just going to cuss us out for giving it to you?

I never asked for feedback on the new site redesign only on the webcomic site.  As far as I'm concerned the new BWS front page is non-negotiable in terms on design until I actually start to code it and people can actually use it instead of look at an image and overreact, which I honestly think people are.  I hate it when someone criticize something before they even use it.

I'm sure you'll write this off as whining, but that is *bad* consumer interaction. You don't change a feature to make a link unworkable without warning the users first. in a place where the people actually *go*. It irritates people.  

I agree, it's both whining and bad consumer interaction, I think it's something that's very minor so not worth complaining about if it happens to me but it's also bad design (and rather simple once you learn how) not do do a 304 forward in apache.  You should just deal with it since most people don't even know how you do httpaccess forwarding and until both Apache and IIS make it easier for developers to do that it's something that will never get fixed on the web, plus you've also got that all the different webhosts handle it differently so a forward that would work on TWG wouldn't work on EUOL's site.

But it's mute since we're not changing any URL or query string on his site.

"How usable do you think this would be to a non-tech-savvy user?"

I can guarantee that it's usable, just by basic design it's easier to navigate then even something like TWG's menu system and front page. I've taken lots of webdeisgn and interaction design classes, for what EUOL wants--a simple, non-overwhelming front page-- it's either this or just a page with 5 links and nothing else.

[stacer]

One thing we've discussed in looking at our own website is that text links can get lost in a page sometimes, especially for users that aren't as used to using the web. I think that giving the main elements a graphic interface will help simplify navigation, and that is a good thing for the average passerby.

I do agree that the design of BS.com right now is a bit busy. Usable, for the most part, but I like the cleaner design. Perhaps... would it be possible/even usable to have drop-down menus appear as the mouse hovers over a stone? That way, more savvy users could get the shortcut they're looking for, and less savvy users could just click on the stone and still get to their destination. I'm trying to picture it and I'm torn as to whether that would be too confusing (let alone whether it's even possible).

[Peter Ahlstrom]

SE, I hope you keep arguing, because if you stop then I'll have to start.

Now, I understand that different people's minds work differently, so a design that works well for one person won't necessarily work well for all. However, I think the new design is simply a bad idea from the bad old days of web design. It will alienate far more people than it attracts. This kind of design has always failed. Remember Microsoft Bob?

And the "bookmark the pages you like" suggestion is ludicrous. A web page should be something you use, not something you have to take shortcuts around.

Here's a website on current good design: http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/current-style.cfm

[Spriggan]

There were a lot of other reasons Bob failed.

And design it totally subjective so frankly I don't care what one person says is good design over another, I do care about usability though and am not willing to discuss that until it's actually usable.

You all can debate this all you want but for now I'm stepping out and ignoring this thread until I actually code the site.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Whatever. You did ask for comments.

[dreamking47]

I don't know anyone here so I'm sure there are currents in this thread I'm not aware of.  I do spent a fair amount of time working with clients to figure out what they want out of their websites, though, so forgive me an additional $.02 of input (I think I'm now up to $.04).

If I'm reading the comments correctly, the main criticism people are making is not based on text links versus graphical links, rather it is the idea of structured links versus unstructured links.  That is, it's generally easier for people to quickly scan and understand things when they're presented together in groups, rather than spread out and ungrouped.

As a quick example, it's easier to find "Warbreaker" here...

Books
- Mistborn
- Elantris
- Warbreaker

Community
- Blog
- Forum
- Signings

About Brandon
- Introduction
- Pictures
- Contact

...compared to here...

Mistborn   Blog   Pictures   Something
Introduction     Contact   Forum
   Something     Something
 Warbreaker  Something  Signings  Elantris

It's also easier for new people to understand what content is what in the first example, and to see all that's available.  It's easy to miss "Signings" in the second example, for instance.  And if you have older readers who aren't familiar with the web, they might well think that "Blog," presented without context, is the next great Brandon Sanderson epic!

That being said, I'm certainly not suggesting getting rid of the image.  What I would suggest is that you consider not placing the link stones randomly against the background, but instead use the image to not just be "purty" but also to provide groupings and context.  You have three main book titles and the image shows a triangle: you could put one title at each point, or around the central circle in the middle of the triangle.  You could use the circle in the upper right to establish a secondary group, such as community-related links.  There are a few other arcs, lines and shapes that could be used for grouping similar content areas.  Words or icons identifying groups wouldn't hurt, but these can be tricky and the main thing is to use groups to provide an indication of relationships and context.  The lack of those, I think you would find, is the chief problem with navigating the current website, and folks are right that the new design doesn't necessarily improve on this.  I think it can, though.

I don't think I'm saying anything revolutionary -- earlier in the thread 42 says "we need to organize the stones some more."  But hopefully this gives you some ideas for doing so, and perhaps makes that prospect more appealing for others here.

MattD

[42]

You have a point that we do need to group things better. We have yet to figure out how we are going to do that. We also have yet to figure out exactly what is going on the front page. The picture shown is not ment to be functional, only representational of how the site will look. The stones are not fixed in place. They are mapped out on a cleverly disguised grid. We still need to cluster the stones into related groups, but we aren't sure what those groups are at the moment. We've only intitially addressed that issue.  As we continue to work on the site we hope to resolve some of the major organization issues.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

see, sprig, you really don't want to hear anything

I did *not* make a ludicrous comment. I also defy you to point out where I said that *text* links were better than *Graphic* links. MY problem has always been one of organization. I said a menu on the left makes it easier to find things, where is a random scattering of links across the page doesn't help anything at all.

And sprig, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to convince BRANDON -- because whether you asked for feedback or not, Brandon asked me and ookla a direct question. And, rather than try to write off our response, it makes more sense to take into account our responses.

I showed the graphic to my mother-in-law and asked to her choose which point she should click if she wanted to get author's comments about Mistborn. It took her half a minute. That's bad organization. If the point is to help unfamiliar users, this is not going to cut it.

If I were to try to design the link structures from the basis of making things to find, i'd be redundant, but not by copying the links that are in the menu into the center of the page, I'd be redundant thusly:

Books: (each of the links below would have within it links to blog entires, annotations, sample chapters, and whatever else related specifically to that book)
Elantris
Mistborn Final Empire
Mistborn Well of Ascension
Alcatraz
Warbreaker

Annotations: (link directly to the annotations, obviously)
Elantris
Mistborn Final Empire
Mistborn Well of Ascension
Alcatraz
Warbreaker

Blog (main blog page)
most recent entry
penultimate entry
previous entry #3 (as deep as you want to go)

Forum

Sample Chapters:
Elantris
Mistborn Final Empire
Mistborn Well of Ascension
Alcatraz
Warbreaker

Appearances: (signings, cons, et al)
Soonest appearance
First appearance after that
the next event

Though not necessarily in that order. The idea is to link to both a main section, most general about an area, but also to link to the specific type of thing. I honestly don't see how doubling a link helps anyone. My first assumption would be that the problem is that people don't know what a link means, so it needs to be described better, or else they want something like annotations, but they're not sure where to find that.