Critters^TM Workshop

Whoa, Why the Retro Site Design?

No, you're not in a time warp. Yes, the site is still very active today. Yes, the site has that retro "2008" feel to it. It was, indeed, last redesigned in 2008. Every so often I hear from people that the "retro" design might turn people away, so let me explain why it is.

You know what's significant about 2008? Hardly anyone was seriously looking at the web on a phone or mobile device. The iphone and android phones came out about then, but sites weren't making themselves "mobile" for a while yet. Sites were focused on the best experience for laptop/desktop users, with large screens. It took a while for sites to redesign themselves for mobile use. Critters simply never did. Why, you ask?

Visually, the "modern" web style, with gigantic graphics and minimal text, is aimed at and best suited for tiny mobile screens. What I call "grandma big button" web sites. One thing on the screen at a time, or two, or even four, you know what I mean. Hard to hit the wrong button if they're so big. It also works on laptops/desktops, because it's the least common denominator, but it's not meant for larger screens. (cf. "Bento Style," "Bold Minimalism," "Neobrutalism".) For a while it was all the rage to have a slimmed-down mobile site AND a full size version, but that costs more money, so folks just drifted toward the Grandma Big Button look for both to save costs.

Which is okay for mobile, in a way. On my phone I can't read tiny text either, so reflowable layout and decent size text are nice for mobile sites. (Though <editorial rant on> I still despair of having to scroll scroll scroll scroll scroll to find anything meaningful. I truly hate it when sites that necessarily have complexity behind them present it so watered down, with 1-4 clickable actions on the screen at a time, so you have to really hunt for the actually complex thing you need to do. Which may be in there somewhere, but is so hidden it's painful, because it's not the top 1-4 things one does on that site. Really, I can handle finding things on a screen with more than four things on it. Call me old school I guess. [Hey, the site is better than it looked in 1995!] I realize the same could perhaps be said in reverse, that so many choices means it's harder to find the top choices, but, that's what the nav bar is for, and the general layout. Main stuff in the middle, things I want you to be aware of around the edges, nav bar at the top organized by category. Anyway. </editorial rant off >) So, I get it that sites need different things to be mobile-friendly.

The thing is, Critters is not suited to be a mobile site. I don't mean the layout, or even the large set of things one can do on the site. I mean the underlying fundamentals of Critters as a workshop for writers are not suited to being done on mobile devices.

Being in Critters really requires a full-size keyboard, for the simple reason that—for the vast majority of members—typing on tiny mobile screens inhibits going on at length in a critique. The average critique is about 500 words of critique material (not including quotage). This depth of analysis is a singular strength of Critters. Yes, some people could pad, but I've got ways to try to handle that. Mostly people get it, and do the depth of analysis. (Which is for their own benefit as a writer, which is the whole point of Critters.)

I did a survey a bit ago, and almost everyone using Critters used a non-mobile device to do both their writing and their critiquing. I.e., a laptop- or desktop- sized screen with a full size keyboard. This is a feature, not a bug. You can see more at a time, and you can type far more easily, thus at greater length. I can live without the members who want to type "Luv'd it" on a phone and think that's a critique. Or think that emojis replace analysis.

There may be people who actually write novels on their phones—and I'll wager they can also navigate the existing site to write in depth critiques too—so I'm not worried about losing that minority, nor care to cater to them.

In other words, the Critters site is by design meant to be interacted with on a full size screen with a full size keyboard. (Just as, fortunately, most writers have such a thing to do their writing on.) So I have no desire to have members who use a laptop or desktop to write, then bop over to do their critiques on their phone. They can go elsewhere. There may be a necessity for Critters to have a certain height of entry barrier to work properly. Doing solid critiques is not something I really see a low barrier for.

You may notice that the critterbot in the masthead graphic is typing on a laptop, not on a phone...

A day may come when I could be convinced by hard data that people can do in-depth critiques on a small screen, when writers forsake their keyboards and break all bonds of keyboard size, but it is not this day. [With apologies to JRRT.]

Indeed, I don't get a lot of questions about "how do I do XYZ on the site?" (implying most people can figure out how), but when I do, it's usually because XYZ is inside the nav bar and not front and center on the screen. 😉

As to whether Critters should do less—the other obvious way to simplify down to granny big buttons—I also don't believe that day is today. Critters does have a lot of things one can do, and may need to do.

That aspect of Critters is also 99.9% automated. I do very little manually, except field a few problems when the automation has broken for some reason.

Some of that automation requires things like text files to process for critiques. Accurately extracting critique commentary from Word files is non-trivial; and I have yet to be convinced that quickie in-line commenting is actually beneficial to the in-depth critique process. Requiring at least a new paragraph for commentary gives the comments a sort of mental heft that a quick track-changes modification doesn't have, and invites a longer, more in-depth comment. Identifying typos is not Critters' primary focus.

I don't doubt that there is a better overall organization the site could take, but to keep on target with the overall mission, a lot of the way it's organized is already focused on that. I'm open to alternatives, but cautiously.

Then there is the factor of time. I'm one guy running this thing, for no profit, with one volunteer who helps answer questions. Voluntary donations don't even cover my operational costs. Tweaking the look is usually not the best use of my time, and paying for costly site redesigns simply isn't in the cards.

There's intentionally no profit motive here, unlike all those other online workshops I'm aware of. I run Critters because I can, to help fellow writers, as a way to pay forward the help I had. You can read more about why I do it in the sidebar on "The Nyx Model". The only reason for the login here is to deter bots from scraping people's manuscripts; not as a paywall. (In still being part of the free-non-profit-one-volunteer-guy ethos, it is definitely a throw back. That used to be very common. Now so much is profit-centered. I don't see many of those kinds of non-profit-centered sites still around. www.electoral-vote.com is in that realm, but even that's a team of folks now. Really dedicated folks! Blows my mind how much time they dedicate as volunteers.)

So Critters is a pretty unique, ah, critter.

If writers get turned off and don't join because it isn't granny big buttons, well, they probably will get turned off to the structure that actually keeps Critters working well, too. I don't mourn a lack of new baby profit centers, because I'm not in it for profit. Critters is not a business. (Nyx, despite my thinking many time it has outlived what people might find useful, keeps on trekking. Indeed, it gets more in voluntary donations than Critters does, even though it's even more archaic—Nyx is a command line site with a linux shell for heaven's sake.) Critters may or may not hang in there like Nyx, with a dedicated cadre of users and stream of newcomers, but so far it is. All the other online workshops that have come after have generally been run by more than one person, and generally with profit in mind. They have resources to buy fancy new togs, but they're also taking money from many very poor writers, which I am loathe to do. (It may come as no surprise, but a lot of writers and budding writers have very minimal financial resources.)

All of which is to say that I do think the Critters site can look somewhat more modern, but it's a steep hill to climb to do things that are more than cosmetic without going to granny big buttons. The basic aspects of the cosmetics could be changed, e.g. color schemes, fonts, etc. if there are strong ideas. I'm open to that, within those limits.

So, I don't want to be discouraging, but to lay out the realities as I see them. Critters is a unique beast. Everything in Critters is structured to help you improve your writing. Everything. 100%.

If there are ways you think I can implement some fairly simple changes for big gains, I'm all over it. Drop me a line.

Meanwhile, please enjoy Critters and how it can help you improve your writing. It's just a jump to the left...

| 2008 design by inklight using Free CSS Templates |
| Released for free under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License |