author websites: things to observe, things to do, things to avoid at all costs

[truepenny]

So scott_lynch is looking for suggestions about author websites, which reminded me that when I was trying to figure out what I wanted my website to do, I spent an afternoon trawling through author websites and came up with, aside from a bad case of bleeding eyeballs, a list of Do's and Don'ts, most of which I'm pleased to observe I have followed my own self.


Legibility first.

Main font MUST have good italics

Accessibility should be part of the design.

Provide information about browsers, fonts, etc.--not ultimatums

The front page should be ONE screen, should explain the site's raison d'etre.

What's with these contentless entry pages?

Too many sites with nice front pages can't be bothered to carry through.

A little self-deprecation is okay, if handled correctly, but not to the point that it looks defensive.

Don't apologize or be defensive about web design choices (i.e., lack of graphics, etc.).

DON'T pretend world and/or characters are real.

Even if you have invented a language and/or alphabet (and even if it IS really cool), don't USE it on the website (explaining is okay, if necessary).

Cryptic is not cool.

Do not "sign" the webpage.

People can make up their own minds about bookmarking.

The site should be MORE than just a brag sheet.

Avoid at all costs seeming too self-satisfied.

Blurbs (either quotes from reviews or back-cover "read me now" descriptions) should be optional, if present at all; they CERTAINLY should not head the page.

Avoid "cute" and obvious metaphors, like talking about the site as if it were an RL house.

Provide content other than the endless variations on "Hi! I'm an Author!"

Yes, this is self-promotion, but it should feel as much as possible as if it isn't.

Grunge fonts are bad for menu items.

Uncials don't work as a content font, even for menu items.

Navigation should be intuitive and transparent.

The menu should (a) LOOK like a menu and (b) be readily legible in terms of size, font, and color; graphics should be secondary to the menu's purpose as a navigation tool.

The menu should also look attractive.

Menus should not be big, ugly icons with no text.

Drop-downs in the main menu don't make me happy.

It is okay for the menu to scroll off the screen.

Too much of any red is bad; too much primary red is painful: no bright red.

Blue on gray is ugly (favorite of science fiction authors).

Dark backgrounds in general are bad.

White-on-black is unreadable.

Too many fantasy authors use green, probably because it looks "Celtic."

Romance writers are drawn to purple.

Yellow, like red, is always heinous.

Orange and black look Halloween-y, not Gothic.

NO CELTIC-STYLE ANYTHING.

Use no graphics that simulate staring into bright lights.

The background MAY NOT distract from the content.

If images are obtrusively weird, then they should be explained.

No bandwidth hogs--except on a separate page and properly labelled.

Centering is not an infallible layout technique.

Right-justified isn't all that cool, either.

Webpage logos and titles should not be large or obtrusive.

Don't WASTE space.

Minimal CLUTTER: too many small boxes are bad.

Don't much care for what a multitude of buttons does to a page layout.

No horizontal scrolling

Consistent design for all pages; use IMAGES to avoid boredom.

No endless boxed off columns.

Beveling doesn't make boxes any better.

You should not have to scroll down to find the menu.

We wish to walk the fine line between visually interesting and distracting.

Rainbow links bad.

Over-produced is as bad or worse than underproduced.

No spawning new windows.

No sounds.

No animations.

No flashing stuff.

No plug-ins.

PROOFREAD.

Comments

[sandandsilk.livejournal.com]

This is wonderful. Thank you for putting it together. I'm certainly saving this in my memories for future reference.

[marith.livejournal.com]

Do you object to Celtic-style anything because it's cliched, or for its own sake?

Other than that, amen to your list. :)

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

I think Celtic art is brilliant. It's just grotesquely over-used.

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

*kicks leaves over yellow and red website*

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Yes, but that's a tasteful pale yellow, and the red is used sparingly. It's not PRIMARY COLORS RED AND YELLOW, which is what I was complaining about.

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

*g* Yeah, primary colors, not so good for websites.

[libskrat]

Uncials don't work as a content font, even for menu items.

*dies of broken heart*

[stillsostrange.livejournal.com]

Purple on red! Lime green!

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Heh. Most of these are excellent advice for anyone building a Web site.

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

Yep. (See also Jakob Nielsen (http://www.useit.com/).) What's sad is that so many people don't get even a fraction of the list. It is to sigh.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Blue on grey is lovely!

I work in navy blue on pale blue-grey, or in grey on black, depending.

I'm not sure what colours Zorinth is making my once-and-future web site, as presently he won't let me see it. But blue is plausible.

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

White-on-black is unreadable.

Personally I find white-on-black about the most readable possible combination, though yellow on navy also works for me.

fwiw, the points I would add here are; if you want to fix your colour scheme, fine, but fixing background colour and leaving text colour to pick up browser default or vice versa is bad; also, colour schemes that will all be undistinguishable to someboydy with red-green colour-blindness are bad.

[jennifer-dunne.livejournal.com]

Heh! I'm reminded of when I designed pbray's website ... "Make it look like CNN." "Can I use colors other than navy and red?" "What about just navy?" (She later did an off-the-shelf redesign, so I take no responsibility for the current brown-on-brown motif.)

I tend to point people to CSS Zen Garden (http://www.csszengarden.com) to get an idea of what is possible, before they try to come up with their own site. Your list is a great one for things you *can* do, but shouldn't.

And I'm glad you don't object to red and yellow in the background, or I'd be kicking leaves over mine (http://www.jenniferdunne.com) now, too. :-)

[naominovik.livejournal.com]

Yes, and to your list may I add a special dishonorable mention for sites that use black background with a combination of primary-color blue and red text? This produces a heinous 3-D effect that can literally make the screen swim, and since those are the default colors for unvisited / visited links, it appears with far too much regularity.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

good list. i only take exception to one item: Dark backgrounds in general are bad.

nope. i love them. i wish most of the web were dark. my eyes have a much easier time reading light text on dark backgrounds than the ubiquitous black on white, which gives me a headache in no time. luckily my browser allows me to click on a button to switch other people's bad-for-me colour choices to a more congenial display for myself.

though with dark background care still has to be taken about good contrast; bright green on black is hideous. heck, "no primary colours" might as well be part of your list; people abuse them badly enough to warn them off from their use generally.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

This is a thought-provoking list: I'd love to have time to think about all the points. Since I don't, an off-the-top reaction:

Some of these are good "this is hard to read" guidance, some of them are about personal taste. As long as a site is readable, it should express you, and appeal to your audience. Nothing's going to work for everybody.

Don't place obstacles between your audience and your content (telling them they have to download flash, get a bigger screen, watch your logo do a dance or guess what the icons represent before they can proceed).

And try to look at your site on as many different computers as possible: different monitor sizes, different browsers - not to mention, it may come up in no time from your hard disk, but how long does it take over a slow connection?

And when you've designed your fabulous site, keeo it updated.

[owensrobin91]

Nice list. Dark background can be a variety of colors. Unless it's completely light or has more than half of its elements in a dark color, it could be considered a dark UI theme. To accommodate those who don't opt ​​for a dark UI, you'll have a little more maintenance with a dark background. You have to choose everything perfectly from fonts, font size, icons, images, colors, etc. If the font is too small, it will be swallowed up by the dark background. Having a color that is too contrasting can make the whole design theme look cheap. Check out web design Sydney for tips and ideas.