I used it to evaluate the text of this article [1], which is a pretty typically broad business type article (aka not "Here's how to use XYZ.js").
Feedback
- The side by side view feels like a developer thing. Like a markdown editor or HTML/CSS preview editor. I'm not sure it serves a purpose here as you only ever look at the right side after you paste in text.
- The "rating" bar for "fit" isn't prominent enough and doesn't convey enough useful information.
- Despite this being an article about software bugs, Kerberos, etc. it was rated as only "average" by every single target group.
- Some of the substitutions were just wrong. Example, it suggested "attacks" as a replacement for "defenses."
- Some of the substitutions were the same? Example, it suggested "security" for "security."
- I think the coloring gradations have some meaning in the drop downs, but I'm honestly not sure exactly how it works (pinker is closer to what your target?)
- Target categories are odd (I'm presuming that this was more just about where you pulled training data from than anything else), but I'd encourage more verticals.
Overall, I think this is an interesting experiment but doesn't seem useful in a professional context. In particular, I think there may be an assumption at work here that it's the specific word choices that define the differences in writing for these various groups, when in fact it's much more the approach, what's considered, or what's left out that really makes the difference.