4 ms·

I'm sure you come at this with good intentions, but god do I hate low effort 'advice' like this. Basically you're saying 'just make everything better, that'll b

by roel_v 7y ago

I'm sure you come at this with good intentions, but god do I hate low effort 'advice' like this. Basically you're saying 'just make everything better, that'll be great!'. No shit Sherlock, I'm sure nobody ever thought of that. If you're going to offer unsolicited advice, at least give specific, actionable advice of things that are not multi-year projects by themselves. It's like telling a car designer 'yeah cool car, but maybe you should add some drag racing stripes, oh and it'd be cool if the car could drive over water, too!' Uh, thanks, I guess?

benbristow 7y ago
It's hard to be specific. The site at a first glance looks dated and very early 00's. The colour scheme, the stripy background, the layout, the fact it isn't responsive (well it tries to be with a burger menu but fails), the GIF clipart (esp. the 'new' graphic and the flags). As a prospective customer you might be a bit put off at first glance and think the software is dated too and go off looking for something newer.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > As a prospective customer The site is selling anything; complaining that the free gift comes in insufficiently fancy wrapping is tacky.
  - keenmaster 7y ago
    Non-profit operations have customers too. I think they’d better achieve their mission with a nice website, referral revenue to help with upkeep, and an iOS app for wider reach. People live off of their mobile devices, especially the people that most need free software. I’d totally understand if they don’t have the capacity to do any of that though.
    - mike_hock 7y ago
      Unless the project itself is about the web, a polished fancy website is to me a yellow flag that the project is not open source first but trying to sell me something. A lot of open source projects that are serious about the actual software have ugly websites or even nothing beyond a README.md on Github.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    a paid version available on the Mac App Store, sandboxed, automatically updated and bundled with 1400 pieces of furniture and 418 textures. https://apps.apple.com/app/sweet-home-3d/id669289700 https://apps.apple.com/app/sweet-home-3d/id669289700
- the_other 7y ago
  I can tell you that this prospective customer didn’t care one iota about whether the site looks on-trend. If anything, the site design confirmed the app was likely free and — significantly — probably free of late ‘10s-era tracking/adware/user-as-product nonsense. It actually makes me want to use it. I looked at the screen shots, read the device/OS support and I’m sold. I’ll download it as soon as I have time/energy. If it had a mobile version, I’d have run it, but I fully expect to only want to use it on larger format devices. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but I doubt a purely touch interface would ease creation of a model of my weird-shaped rooms.
keenmaster 7y ago
2/3 suggestions can be implemented in a few days. The devs can probably make a great looking website with ease, so why not pick the low hanging fruit? The age of the website might be the #1 thing that struck people when they clicked on that link. Consumers of interior design software are especially sensitive to good design. Maybe the devs like to maintain the retro look, but all I was saying was: hey, from the perspective of a consumer, people would be more likely to download with better UI/UX. Judging by the website, potential customers might incorrectly think that the software isn’t updated at all. Customers are brutally efficient with product selection. As for the app, I want their software on my iPad. So what? I thought that a “low effort” comment would have zero feedback or attempt at insight of any kind. I also thought that bringing up ML might generate discussion about the future of design software so that’s why I threw it out there. That’s a big market opportunity that most people reading this on HN can take advantage of.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by roel_v 7y ago

benbristow 7y ago

It's hard to be specific. The site at a first glance looks dated and very early 00's. The colour scheme, the stripy background, the layout, the fact it isn't responsive (well it tries to be with a burger menu but fails), the GIF clipart (esp. the 'new' graphic and the flags). As a prospective customer you might be a bit put off at first glance and think the software is dated too and go off looking for something newer.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> As a prospective customer The site is selling anything; complaining that the free gift comes in insufficiently fancy wrapping is tacky.
- keenmaster 7y ago
  Non-profit operations have customers too. I think they’d better achieve their mission with a nice website, referral revenue to help with upkeep, and an iOS app for wider reach. People live off of their mobile devices, especially the people that most need free software. I’d totally understand if they don’t have the capacity to do any of that though.
  - mike_hock 7y ago
    Unless the project itself is about the web, a polished fancy website is to me a yellow flag that the project is not open source first but trying to sell me something. A lot of open source projects that are serious about the actual software have ugly websites or even nothing beyond a README.md on Github.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  a paid version available on the Mac App Store, sandboxed, automatically updated and bundled with 1400 pieces of furniture and 418 textures. https://apps.apple.com/app/sweet-home-3d/id669289700 https://apps.apple.com/app/sweet-home-3d/id669289700
the_other 7y ago
I can tell you that this prospective customer didn’t care one iota about whether the site looks on-trend. If anything, the site design confirmed the app was likely free and — significantly — probably free of late ‘10s-era tracking/adware/user-as-product nonsense. It actually makes me want to use it. I looked at the screen shots, read the device/OS support and I’m sold. I’ll download it as soon as I have time/energy. If it had a mobile version, I’d have run it, but I fully expect to only want to use it on larger format devices. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but I doubt a purely touch interface would ease creation of a model of my weird-shaped rooms.

keenmaster 7y ago

2/3 suggestions can be implemented in a few days. The devs can probably make a great looking website with ease, so why not pick the low hanging fruit? The age of the website might be the #1 thing that struck people when they clicked on that link. Consumers of interior design software are especially sensitive to good design. Maybe the devs like to maintain the retro look, but all I was saying was: hey, from the perspective of a consumer, people would be more likely to download with better UI/UX. Judging by the website, potential customers might incorrectly think that the software isn’t updated at all. Customers are brutally efficient with product selection. As for the app, I want their software on my iPad. So what? I thought that a “low effort” comment would have zero feedback or attempt at insight of any kind. I also thought that bringing up ML might generate discussion about the future of design software so that’s why I threw it out there. That’s a big market opportunity that most people reading this on HN can take advantage of.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]