3 ms·

Sorry, I will be honest and say that there is nothing useful in what you have provided. I don't even think you understand the end user. You have replaced a sing

Sorry, I will be honest and say that there is nothing useful in what you have provided. I don't even think you understand the end user. You have replaced a single S-1 page with a bunch of links, and you don't even have the financial numbers. That's probably the biggest reason why people look at the S-1. Not including the S-1 financials means that you really don't understand the people who consume them, which is a red flag. Replacing sections with separate links, and forcing you to click around doesn't make things better, it's actually unnecessary friction.

shinkim0914 8y ago
Thank you for the feedback, you make very reasonable points. Here are a couple thoughts! 1. I'll be the first to admit that excluding the financials was largely due to the lack of my web design experience – creating pretty tables on WP is harder than I wish! 2. I'll make a wild guess that 90% of the general public doesn't know how to read an income statement. For the 10% of those who do, and read SEC documents regularly, there are existing paid tools like BAMSEC that you can use to improve the usability of the SEC website. BAMSEC has power features like ability to download financial statements directly as Excel spreadsheets. What I'd like to know is if there is an interested readership among the 90% that are intellectually curious - HN readers, for example - and find the S-1 language readable and interesting, when presented without the baggage of 1) navigating through the dense SEC EDGAR search system and 2) legal template language that represents bulk of the S-1 doc.
- docker_up 8y ago
  Your reasoning is not sound at all. 90% of the general public might know know how to read an income statement, but 90% of the general public is not interested in reading an S-1 no matter what the format is. The vast majority are happy reading a Marketwatch synposis of it. The percentage of the general public who are actually interested in reading an S-1 will be mostly interested in the financials. Again, I believe this is because you don't understand who your end-user would be, and who is actually interested in reading an S-1.

shinkim0914 8y ago

Thank you for the feedback, you make very reasonable points. Here are a couple thoughts! 1. I'll be the first to admit that excluding the financials was largely due to the lack of my web design experience – creating pretty tables on WP is harder than I wish! 2. I'll make a wild guess that 90% of the general public doesn't know how to read an income statement. For the 10% of those who do, and read SEC documents regularly, there are existing paid tools like BAMSEC that you can use to improve the usability of the SEC website. BAMSEC has power features like ability to download financial statements directly as Excel spreadsheets. What I'd like to know is if there is an interested readership among the 90% that are intellectually curious - HN readers, for example - and find the S-1 language readable and interesting, when presented without the baggage of 1) navigating through the dense SEC EDGAR search system and 2) legal template language that represents bulk of the S-1 doc.

docker_up 8y ago
Your reasoning is not sound at all. 90% of the general public might know know how to read an income statement, but 90% of the general public is not interested in reading an S-1 no matter what the format is. The vast majority are happy reading a Marketwatch synposis of it. The percentage of the general public who are actually interested in reading an S-1 will be mostly interested in the financials. Again, I believe this is because you don't understand who your end-user would be, and who is actually interested in reading an S-1.