It's not an extraordinary claim, it's a mundane and plausible one. This is exactly what you get when you ask an LLM to write in a "engaging conversational" style, and skip any editing after the fact. You could never prove it but there are a LOT of tells.
"The key insight" - llms love key insights!
"self-contained corruption-free" - they also love over-hypenating, as much as they love em-dashing. Both abundant here.
"X like it's 2005" and also "Y like it's 2009" - what a cool casual turn of phrase, so natural!
The architecture diagram is definitely unedited AI, Claude always messes up the border alignment on ascii boxes
I wouldn't mind except the end result is imprecise and sloppy, as pointed out by the GP comment. And the tone is so predictable/boring at this point, I'd MUCH rather read poorly written human output with some actual personality.
Do you have a different example other than 20 Days in Mariupol? Because the filmmakers definitely didn't watch that and think it could "make them buck". Principal photography for Civil War took place the year before 20 Days in Mariupol premiered.
Ah ok, stupidity on my part in both cases! It actually does work, but after skimming the description I assumed it was for styling 'View Source' tabs. Which would be a great feature btw.
* How can you not have a robot-eating-pizza logo! :)
* WAY too many different fonts and text styles. I count 12.
* Get some better/more appetising food photos
* The text boxes change size when selected, causing the layout to jump.
* Edit and cancel button icons jump 1px on hover.
* The cancel button has a text-selection cursor instead of a pointer
* The flat grey header doesn't really go with the wood panel effect.
* Wood panel bg repeats too soon with a visible join.
Results page:
* Overall very good, nice and clear
* The login pop-up needs proper styling
* I'd consider making the phone numbers always visible, rather than with the address expander. The first action if you're in a rush it to call a bunch of places to check reservations.
* The dollar signs to indicate price are a kinda ambiguous. How must is a $$$ meal compared to a $$$$ meal?
No problem, I've got plenty more- modal dialogs have green close buttons! 'Sort by' button doesn't show current sort type without clicking, etc etc. DocumentCloud looks like a fantastic project, I'd love to help out if you need it.
Very impressive and ambitious UI, lots of great attention to detail. Click-and-drag selection highlighting in particular. Here's some observations about the interface whilst I was exploring. This is Chrome/Ubuntu.
On the document search page:
* Double-click to open isn't intuitive for me on a website. Had a few puzzled seconds wondering how to open a document.
* Middle-click to open is broken.
* If I try to do a drag selection starting over a thumbnail, it doesn't work.
* The browser right-click context menu isn't always suppressed, and completely obscures your custom menu. Maybe float it to the left of the cursor so both are visible?
* Seems like the thumbnail/list view switcher buttons are the wrong way round.
* If I select multiple documents then click download, nothing happens. Either grey out the option, or add zip downloading.
* Selecting 'view pages' when in thumbnail view breaks the layout.
* The 'Page x of x' navigation at the bottom is non standard without being any more useful. Found it annoying having to actually type in the page I wanted to go to. Duplicating the pagination nav at the top of the page would be nice.
* Left-hand document list is well thought out, like that the scrollwheel works, but it still feels a bit awkward. Not sure why.
* 'Entities' seems too specific to describe what are essentially tags. Caused a bit of confusion. Phone numbers and 'terms' are not entities.
* The 'Log In' button is a bit out of context next to the other buttons. Maybe move it to the top right next to your logo?
* As the document links are taking me off-site, I'd like the statusbar url to still appear on hover.
* Found myself focusing the search box just so the text was dark enough to read.
Document viewer:
* The document sidebar might be better on the left. Having it on the right breaks Fitt's law for the scrollbar.
* Arrow key and spacebar scrolling doesn't work on document load. You have to click to focus the document first.
* The document page navigation might be better in the top bar, rather than the sidebar. Having it in the sidebar gave me the false expectation of sidebar content that changed related to the page I was on.
* The 'Pages' thumbnail view only seems to show up for some documents.
* The zoom level I set for the 'Pages' view also changes the zoom level for the 'Document' view. So I can't easily browse with tiny thumbnails but fullsize documents.
* Annotation UI is great, very intuitive. The restrained use of colour on the rest of the site really pays off, that yellow is hard to miss.
* With two notes parallel to each other cause their markers to overlap, example:
Yeah gimp does ugly resizing. Python image lib would probably be better, or if you have access to photoshop that works very well of course (bicubic sharpen setting). Or email me the file if you like. :)
Other ideas- I'd make the top blue gradient extend the whole width of the page. If you're going to make your signup buttons with fancy css shadows etc, might as well do the same for your logo text rather than having it in an image. Any reason for the lack of spaces in 'Wireframing&Prototyping'? You've got 'learn more' text in two different formatting styles on the landing page. No need for external links to open in new tabs, your users will be savvy enough to use their back button. I'd consider burying the 'get it free' in the footer rather than by the buying info - perceived value and all that.
I think the Pandora handheld is much more exciting.
http://www.open-pandora.org/
Specifically this- "But the most interesting part is probably that it isn't designed by a large company, it was designed by the suggestions and requests of hundreds of people on the gp32x forums."
The form factor is very impressive considering the sheer volume of physical buttons and i/o options. Even more so considering it was design-by-committee. Could have been hideous.
The tour pages are really well put together content wise; When trying to decide if a program is worth a downloading, I usually scan the screenshots page and make a quick decision based on first impressions. Comes across as easy to use but with some nice power features.
The landing page screenshot has been poorly resized however. I'd make that a bit bigger and prettier, and you could even go so far as adding slick little javascript tooltips to explain different tools. Could help your conversion rates maybe? Also perhaps consider using the same shiny green 'Try It Now' button on the bottom of the tour pages, instead of switching to a text link. Small grammar nitpick, 'How it works' is not a question.
Serves me right for not launching earlier. Anyway kudos, very impressive. He's taken a similar approach to me, generalising the common letter shapes into sets of css rules. Mine's designed to allow for image or gradient textures on the letters, and degrades gracefully on older browsers (loses its curves!). His is way prettier though.
Glad to help, a couple more before I go back to obsessing over my own pixels...
The vertical spacing between the green headings could do with tweaking, more space above and less below to tie them to the block of text they go with. Top headline text "Keeping tabs..." has the dots of the i's and the left edge of the 'g' sliced off. Your logo is nice but the wordmark looks (to me) very corporate and squashed up; maybe incorporate some blues from the logo and use looser kerning.
Great landing page, initially I was clicking around trying to figure out why such a slick looking tool was completely free! You really get across how and why your service would be useful.
A few little nitpicks, hopefully they're helpful: The bottom signup button isn't clickable. The orange 'join today' text could maybe do with a nicer font - more handwritten, less script. There's a small white square in the top right of your stock photo. Cutout outline visible on the woman's hair. The screenshots might be better popping up in a lightbox. The sign-up form struck me as generic, and didn't match the page I had just come from. The site root doesn't show my dashboard when I'm logged in. The icons next to the different types of entries look like youtube 'play' buttons, confused me for a moment.
For the last 6 months or so I've been working on a 'wikipedia for images' type site. I'm trying to fix all the UI deficiencies that bug me about other image sites. As a personal project with no deadline I've had a lot of fun premature-optimising the crap out of it! For example the thumbnails are in strips of 50 for a huge reduction in http requests. Here's the test set I've been using-
My plan is to initially scrape a lot of hard-to-browse public domain image sets, for example the Library of Congress daguerreotype collection http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/daghtml/daghome.html. And then I'll solicit contributions from the public to bulk it out.
I was going to wait till I was ready to launch before posting here, but that could be a while... Any criticism/suggestions or offers to help are very welcome!
Simple usability suggestion -- add an orange footer line to comments pages. There is no visual indicator that I'm at the bottom of a page; I frequently find myself pressing page-down in futility.
"The key insight" - llms love key insights! "self-contained corruption-free" - they also love over-hypenating, as much as they love em-dashing. Both abundant here. "X like it's 2005" and also "Y like it's 2009" - what a cool casual turn of phrase, so natural! The architecture diagram is definitely unedited AI, Claude always messes up the border alignment on ascii boxes
I wouldn't mind except the end result is imprecise and sloppy, as pointed out by the GP comment. And the tone is so predictable/boring at this point, I'd MUCH rather read poorly written human output with some actual personality.