Last year when we combined Madam Scoop's Index to J.K. Rowling Interviews and the Quick Quotes Quill I wasn't quite satisfied with the way the "by year" pages functioned.
On one hand, adding Madam Scoop's summaries to the list of citations made it easy to see what articles had canon-level information; but on the other hand, the pages were harder to use because they were so cluttered. Well, I think I found something I'm happy with -- the "by year" pages are now in chart form (samples 1997 - 2001 - 2005). Well most of them! The really big ones (1999 and 2000) aren't converted yet. Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The new format looks good. It's nice to be able to see when the interviews occurred, alongside other events in the Potter world. It actually looks more organized than the old layout. :)
Just wondering how the ratings are determined?
The ratings are subjective but based upon what I know about how people use the site and what they value. A chat with lots of great questions where Jo's wordings are unfiltered by a reporter gets a higher rating than a simple news report of something she did that has no quotage at all.
There is the possibility, of course, that I've misunderstood what our readers value; that's one thing I'm hoping people will comment about here.
I have a couple types of readers in mind when I design anything for this site: casual users who visit once or twice (who might quickly get information overload). The ratings system is for these hypothetical users. Then there are the dedicated fans who are interested in the full range of what gets written by and about Jo, then there are "power users" like John Granger who need to find canon quickly. The "types" column will be (I think) useful to people like him or Steve (Lexicon) who really just want the interviews, not book reviews, etc.
We'll see if it flies, but that was my thinking.
That sounds like a good system. I probably fall into the category of people who scour the Accio Quote pages constantly for canon references, but it looks like the ratings system is good for even the casual visitors. I checked the sample 2005 page, and I would've rated those interviews similarly based on your explanation. :)
Post a Comment