Minor edit suggestions for the Dialogue Matching page:
“and choose whether start a dialogue” → “and choose whether to start a dialogue”
Make the “Karma” and maybe “Agreement” columns center-aligned and maybe smaller.
Minor edit suggestion for this LW essay page:
The images for normal karma votes and for agreemen votes are somehow crazy big.
Other suggestions:
This might complicate things too much, but re: the synchronous dialogue format: Since LW is an international site, it’s hard for people from vastly synchronous timezones to find a synchronous time block. So in the form, it might help to either be able to select timezones, or to share a “here’s when I’m available for dialogues” calendar. Though rather than a formal field to enter this data, one could also add a prompt in the “Anything else to add?” text form.
Overarching thoughts:
This matching design is people-first: You first decide who you want to dialogue with, and then what to talk about. I’m curious why you went that route with the design, rather than a topic-first approach? In the latter, everyone would make it public what topics they’re interested in, then the table would list topics by level of interest (rather than people sorted by karma), and once you selected a topic, you could check all users you’d like to dialogue with.
Minor edit suggestions for the Dialogue Matching page:
“and choose whether start a dialogue” → “and choose whether to start a dialogue”
Make the “Karma” and maybe “Agreement” columns center-aligned and maybe smaller.
Minor edit suggestion for this LW essay page:
The images for normal karma votes and for agreemen votes are somehow crazy big.
Other suggestions:
This might complicate things too much, but re: the synchronous dialogue format: Since LW is an international site, it’s hard for people from vastly synchronous timezones to find a synchronous time block. So in the form, it might help to either be able to select timezones, or to share a “here’s when I’m available for dialogues” calendar. Though rather than a formal field to enter this data, one could also add a prompt in the “Anything else to add?” text form.
Overarching thoughts:
This matching design is people-first: You first decide who you want to dialogue with, and then what to talk about. I’m curious why you went that route with the design, rather than a topic-first approach? In the latter, everyone would make it public what topics they’re interested in, then the table would list topics by level of interest (rather than people sorted by karma), and once you selected a topic, you could check all users you’d like to dialogue with.