The boxes describing each thing start with ‘[name of thing] involves...’. But the names are long. There’s no reason you need complete sentences here; the title on the card reads as a header, and the text in the box could just be the meat of the description. Consider cutting these introductory clauses. (relatedly, consider divorcing the description in the textbox from the description once one clicks into the textbox, so that you convey more information on the main page, instead of risking conveying non-information in the first few words of something that’s really designed to be a longer entry).
Some of the text boxes seem to have less space allotted to them within the cards. E.g. AI development doesn’t get past its introductory clause, while at the same display size long-horizon planning gets in three times the words. See image.
I think these are small points, but things like this do a lot for legibility and cleanliness (which in turn aids legitimacy).
two minor nitpicks for readability:
The boxes describing each thing start with ‘[name of thing] involves...’. But the names are long. There’s no reason you need complete sentences here; the title on the card reads as a header, and the text in the box could just be the meat of the description. Consider cutting these introductory clauses. (relatedly, consider divorcing the description in the textbox from the description once one clicks into the textbox, so that you convey more information on the main page, instead of risking conveying non-information in the first few words of something that’s really designed to be a longer entry).
Some of the text boxes seem to have less space allotted to them within the cards. E.g. AI development doesn’t get past its introductory clause, while at the same display size long-horizon planning gets in three times the words. See image.
I think these are small points, but things like this do a lot for legibility and cleanliness (which in turn aids legitimacy).
We appreciate your nitpicks! I’ve added issues on Github.