prillalar | Fanfic websites - what works, what doesn't

Fanfic websites - what works, what doesn't

A couple of months ago, I gave my fanfic website a real overhaul. I got myself a domain name, entered all of my stories into Movable Type (and it took hours, like 30 or so), added categories and plain text versions, did up a new design, and did cross-browser testing until my eyes were bleeding.

What I ended up with was a highly organized and somewhat plain site. It's searchable. It's categorized. You can sign up for updates. And you can add feedback right to the story pages, like LJ comments.

I like it.

When I began the project, I had three goals for the new site:

It should be easy for me to update
Readers should be able to quickly find stories they want to read.
New readers should want to stick around and read more.

I'm fairly confident that I've met goals one and two. Movable Type, while actually blogging software, is very useful for archiving fanfiction. And the categorization, navigation, and layout I have is, I think, quite easy to use.

Each story also has an HTML and a plain text version, which makes it handy when someone wants a clean copy for an archive or if someone wants to print out a story. All in all, the usability geek in me is satisfied. (I tried to make it fairly accessible too, but it's hard to say how successful I was.)

But I'm not sure how attractive my site is to casual visitors. Of course, if you don't like my fic, you won't stick around, regardless of the site design. But we all know that packaging counts in making purchasing decisions. And website design counts in seducing readers to stick around.

I've met a lot of pretty standard web usability goals. The header includes my name, my URL, and the words "fanfiction" so you always know what the site is about, no matter which page you come in on. The nav, as I've said, is good. But I made a deliberate decision to be image-free (aside from the covers gallery) and that's what I'm wondering if I should rethink.

Images are attractive. They draw the viewer's attention. I was reading a book on DTP and print layout which suggested if you could lay a $5 dollar bill (I'm Canadian -- that's the smallest denom of bill we have) on a page and not have it touch an image or other graphic element, you should add one.

I wouldn't go that far with a fanfic site, but the point is well made.

Here's what's important to me on a fanfic site:

I can easily find my way to different fandoms, categories, and individual stories. And then find my way back again.
The layout is clear, clean, and attractive. (But it doesn't have to be amazing.)
The pages have enough contrast to read easily. I'm not likely to read fic that's not in black text on a white background.
Links don't open up new windows.
I can tell who the author is and easily contact them if I want to send feedback.
The page width on stories is adjustable so I can change the line lengths if I want to. Or at least it's not wider than 750px or so.
A consistent look and feel so that as I move from page to page, I can tell I'm on the same site.
Images are great so long as they don't take too long to load. They can be a good way of easily showing which fandom and/or pairing category you're in.

So, I'm interested in what other people look for in a fanfic site. Not a site to sell saucepans online or a Ray Park image gallery or something. A site where you would go to read fanfic -- personal, archive, whatever.

What makes you want to stick around and browse some more, given that the writing is good enough? What makes you want to stick forks into your eyes?

And if you want to stop by my site and let me know what you think, that would be groovy too. But not required -- I'm more interested in general opinions.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, for starters, I'm impressed by the formidable organization and clean design of your site. You have a lot of material to organize, and I think you've succeeded quite well. I'm probably more into images than you are, so while the nice blue block at the top works well, some kind of logo might work even better, in my humble, bad-with-html opinion. (I'm nothing like the coder/designer you are.)

In more general terms ... the most important thing to me is that the layout isn't so fussy and complicated that half the links are broken, that those broken links aren't images, that those images aren't part of a larger, complex table design, and that the site will work. On my work computer I use a hideously outdated version of Netscape Navigator, and a good percentage of BtVS sites have a lot of complicated table stuff (but forget to close their cells), or funky javascript, or pretty much every sort of code my poor antiquated browser can't read. I've visited pages that are reduced to absolute garble, and I don't think it's all Netscape's fault.

I'd argue against links opening up new windows, in general. I understand the reasoning behind having links that go off-site open in new windows (to keep your visitors put) but having every new section or story open up just drives me batty. I used to have a few links that did that, and I used to always make any link in I posted in livejournal do it too, but I've since decided that, well, people can use the right-click button and make their own decisions about new windows. I don't like having it imposed on me, personally.

About page coloring ... I've seen differing opinions on this recently. On the one hand, I think we can all agree that neon yellow text on a neon blue background can die. But just the other day I saw someone complaining that black text on a white background doesn't "read" the same way it does on an actual page (ie, no light reflecting off it), and thus gives her a glare headache after reading it for a while. I know that Te, for example, always does her stuff with black text and softly-shaded backgrounds, and that seems to work well enough, so I guess it doesn't bother me unless it's something hideous, like yellow text on a black background.

It seems to me that it's fairly easy to point out the no-no's of fannish web design (background MIDI's, blinking gifs, enormous pornographic photomanips, bad grammar/spelling, ugly colors with contrast issues, lots of broken links, etc.), but a lot harder to pin down what works. I've seen lushly graphical sites with beautiful layouts that make me die with envy, and I've seen stripped-down, highly functional sites like yours, and both seem to work equally well. I guess all that really counts with me is a) being able to find the material that the site offers, b) having the material be there (not broken links), and c) being able to read/view the material (very dark fanart is as bad as page color issues for fic).

And now I'm feeling all paranoid about my poor little site (http://thedoublehelix.org/sophia), although I think the only one of your rules above that I've broken is the new links one. :)

.m

I think there might be some confusion over the "links opening new windows" issue -- I'm in agreement with you. I don't think they should.

And don't feel paranoid! Your site works well. It's easy to nav to a fandom, and then to a story. I like your random story thingy. I've been pondering adding something like that to mine.

I'm considering making a wordmark (logo) for myself but I just have to figure out what it should be like.

If you opened up my site from your work computer, it would look a lot different. :) I've done the whole site with a pure CSS layout -- no tables -- and I decided that I would just hide all of that formatting from browsers that are below version 5. So, you'd see a plain black and white page, no styling, with the header, then the content, then the nav at the bottom. Still useful, just not pretty.

LOL about the new links thing -- I think my stupid brain just skipped for a second there and thought you were listing thing you didn't like. My bad.

I wish I knew how often people are actually using the random story link. I threw it in for fun, but it's not like I can really get a hit statistic off it.

A simple wordmark/logo would be nice, if you felt like it, but would just be icing on the minimalism. Of course, you've got the title of the site up there very plainly, so you're halfway there.

I think I've opened the site from Netscape once or twice before, noted the difference in layout, but was happy it still worked. It may not have been as pretty, but it was still completely functional and really, that's all I ask of anyone. :)

And I'm so glad to see someone who starts real discussion topics on LJ -- I've missed those. It's the one aspect of lists that just never really translated into blogs, I think. Sometimes I even miss the days of nazi listmods, reigning with iron fists and a Daily Topic. There was less creative thought, I guess, but I feel like there was maybe more thought. Anyhow. :)

.m

I'm beginning the pondering phase of a wordmark. I may be pondering for some time. :)

In re discussion topics, I really just thought of it as a way to get a bunch of people to do research for me. *g* But yeah, I know what you mean. There's more noise in LJ than I recall there being on lists and sometimes I feel like things are being recycled more quickly. Recycling always happens on lists too -- the same topics come up every once in a while. But on LJ the cycle seems a lot shorter.

And I think I'm still on a couple of those lists with nazi listmods. *g*

I love the changes. I'd been thinking about MT-ing my own site ever since I saw Dale Edmonds' and, I think, Cageyklio's recs(could be mistaken about the latter, don't know URLs off the top of my head) because yes, organization in a site is one of my top criteria. But I think it works best for people with a lot of information and a lot of categories: saves effort on both the site maintainer and the site visitors when it comes to adding/finding the information they want, and as yet it's still relatively easy for me to keep up with what I've got.

Agreed on all of your criteria -- like, for instance, I have "by Jintian" on the title of most, if not all, of my pages, so it's always clear whose site it is, as well as links to the index page and my email at the bottom. And re: images, I'm all about minimalism -- I have one main image on each of my pages to balance out the preponderance of text, but they're still in keeping with a very sedate color scheme (black & white, dark blue, turqoise green).

Great discussion! Hope to see some more perspectives on this.

I gotta tell you: if you think you might want to use MT for your site in the future, do it now. You don't want to wait until there are 180 stories to enter and you end up cursing yourself for writing so many stupid short pieces instead of a few long once.

Truly. It was a black couple of days there.

If you -- or anyone else -- want info/advice/help with MT, just let me know. I did a lot of tricky things in the end to get some of the special things I wanted working: links to text files, yearly archives, etc.

I like your colour scheme a lot and I think the pics add to the effect.

I like the site, the way it looks, the organization. I'm tempted to try to learn Moveable Type in order to put my recs all in some nice, searchable order, since they are growing out of control.

I'm impressed with your site (being just barely html-literate), although I think it could do with an image or two, just to perk it up a bit. :) I really like the review system you have-- much easier than sending an e-mail to the author (like that's so hard anyway).

Generally with a fic site, I like plain/solid colored backgrounds (repeated pictures or patterns are distracting and annoy the hell out of me), no sounds, no animated gifs. Just something plain and stripped down, searchable by author and pairing (if applicable), focusing on the stories. And simple, you know? I don't care how snappy and trendy the site looks. Let the stories speak for the archive. I run an archive (http://www.loveisblindness.net/) (RPS so don't go if you don't like it) and I know very very little about cool coding and tables, it's handcoded and all that, but I've gotten good feedback about the site (easy to navigate and find what you want, looks nice). So, substance over style is what I like to see.

I really like the review system you have-- much easier than sending an e-mail to the author (like that's so hard anyway).

Thanks. :) I've learned that the easier you make things for someone, the more likely they are to do it. So, if you want people to visit your site, make sure they can find the URL. If you want feedback, make it easy for people to get in touch with you.

I had a look at your site (didn't read anything, just clicked around a bit) and it seems quite straightforward, which is great.

I can't think of anything to add to your list of what's important in a fanfic site. I have become so used to dealing with poorly designed fan sites that I almost take it as a matter of course. Still, a site like yours - well organized, easy to navigate, doesn't open flashy windows all over my screen - is a huge relief.

The problems that bother me the most are those that make it difficult or impossible to actually read the stories: browser issues, long text lines, text not clearly visible against the background.

If I want to read something badly enough I will switch browsers, change the colors or suppress images, or find a way to deal with the long lines. But I'm not going to bother to do that for an author I'm unfamiliar with or stories that are ok but not great.

I'm usually hesitant to write to authors and complain about these issues. I'm not sure why. I think I assume that people who aren't already aware that there is more than one browser and operating system in the world are unlikely to respond. And I'm not sure how to do it without seeming rude.

I'm usually hesitant to write to authors and complain about these issues. I'm not sure why. I think I assume that people who aren't already aware that there is more than one browser and operating system in the world are unlikely to respond. And I'm not sure how to do it without seeming rude.

There, indeed, is the rub. I suppose there's always the "I really wanted to read your story, can you help me out?" thing.

I struggle with the browser thing a lot, as I do web dev for a living. It's hard to make clients understand that everyone doesn't have the exact browser and viewport that they do.

I really like your site. It's impressive and so *clean*. And yet I'd never do anything like it, because I've somehow gotten set in my ways with coding, despite the fact that I've only been doing it for a very little while.

Buffy fandom has *really* influenced me in terms of what I want from sites. I have no tolerance for 'ugly,' which for me tends to include badly done photomanips, clashing colors, insistent patterns, and a lack of understanding about too much/too little contrast.

On the other hand, I'm fully aware that my own site design is hideous to any number of people. In the end? I just want to be able to view a given site without eye-strain. I design my sites that way -- well, *I* can read them -- and I criticize sites that hurt me.

Give me easy navigation and pretty. That's not so much to ask. *g*

Buffy fandom has *really* influenced me in terms of what I want from sites. I have no tolerance for 'ugly,' which for me tends to include badly done photomanips, clashing colors, insistent patterns, and a lack of understanding about too much/too little contrast.

This is interesting -- is there a recognizable style for a lot of Buffy sites? I wonder if there are fandom fashions in websites, where certain design conventions turn up a lot in a specific fandom.

I think it's less a fashion for a particular style -- though many Buffy websites have the image-intensive splash page and love for images in general -- than it is an accepted sort of *thing* that your site must be Pretty. Stylish.

There's a lot of harsh words about ugly websites, and there are *tons* of awards and rating sites devoted simply *to* websites. And aesthetics is a clear value marker.

To the point where it's just fact that if the site you're looking at is impossible to navigate, but aesthetically pleasing? It's probably a Buffy site.

I've noticed a similar thing with blogs. Not so much fannish blogs, but there's a whole blogging culture where your layout is what matters, not your content. Which kind of boggles me, since blogging is all about content, but there you are.

At least the fan splash pages aren't in Flash. *g*

Lord *save* me from Flash. But yeah, the blog thing is both odd and completely understandable to me. I never would have moved to blogger in the first place without the lure of pretty pages, and I never would've moved back to lj if I couldn't have the same thing. Heh.

I'll just be playing in the shallow end of the pool, don't mind me.

Things I want in a fanfic site:
1. Plain backgrounds. If you must put an image running up and down the left edge of the page, make sure that it will never cover the words in every single browser that you are using.

2. Easy to find e-mail address.

3. I like a last updated date or something(like a What's new) to indicate the state of the page.

4. Easily navigable. If there are a lot of stories, I like to be able to see them listed alphabetically. If there are many different authors, I like to be able to see the list both alphabetically by author and by story.

5. A link back to the main page on each story page.

I love, love, love the neatness and cleanness of your page. It is terribly easy to find what one wants when one wants it. The only thing that I don't like (and it's easily avoidable if I view the .txt version) is that I'd like the story column to take up more space width-wise than it does.

The only thing that I don't like (and it's easily avoidable if I view the .txt version) is that I'd like the story column to take up more space width-wise than it does.

Right now I've got it set to 60% of the width. What's your viewport size like? While my screen res is 1024 x 768, I usually keep my browser width at 800 -- I don't like it much wider.

Do you find it easier to read if the lines are longer? I know that it's problematic both if it's too short and if it's too long. Trying to get this right is the bane of liquid layout. :)

Right now I've got it set to 60% of the width. What's your viewport size like? While my screen res is 1024 x 768, I usually keep my browser width at 800 -- I don't like it much wider.

I have a fifteen inch flatpanel screen at home, and I suppose my browser takes up most of the window width-wise except for an inch and a half widthwise. (I'll leave the pythagorean stuff up to you to figure out how many pixels that is. *g*) My screen res is 1024x768 too, I just keep my browser smaller than maximum because I like to be able to click on the things that are hiding behind it.

I do find it easier to read if the lines are longer. The .txt files are ideal for me. It just feels more real to me. That being said, the lines on your website aren't *that* short to me. If it was the only option, I wouldn't run, run away. Another five % and I might not even get the urge to click on the .txt version. *g*

In response to your question, I would always place functionality and readability over pretty visuals: a fiction site is primarily about the text. Forks in my eyes? Well, slowly-loading graphics tend to keep me out of a site altogether, while broken links and tiny, white-on-black text tend to cause me more frustration once I'm actually there.

In general, I would agree with the parameters you've listed, the only exceptions being that 1) I don't really have an issue with links opening new windows, and 2) I find that dark text on a pale-coloured background can be as easy to read--and sometimes more restful on the eyes--than black on white (although, when choosing those colours, it's important to remember readers with red/green colourblindness).

On the white-space issue: I think white space is often underused on web sites. I certainly wouldn't object to a $5 bill's worth of it.

Thanks very much for taking into account those of us with ancient browsers!

*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Fanfic websites - what works, what doesn't

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject