Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevincox | Hacker News Reader

It would be nice to have a few more examples. The only example I see on the homepage is hidden in the video, both hard to see and not always visible.

View on HN

Yes, I would recommend showing two images (before/after) instead of the video.

You could do more interactive stuff, like the common interface of moving a slider on the "before" image to reveal the "after" image. And that's nice, but it should be supplemental to the two images.

But take this advice with a grain of salt - after all, the video did cause me to spend more time on your site than if two images had immediately answered the question I was curious about.

OP here. Thanks for the advice. I have been considering a few different options. Perhaps I could have a preloaded screenshot with the UI already initialised, so I immediately can show off the functionality? I don't know what is the best approach.

Yeah, I don't want to upload my data to a random website I've never heard of, just to see what the heck it does. You NEED a few examples, otherwise users will just close tab.

I uploaded a screenshot of the front page of hacker news

https://i.imgur.com/aTqN3qA.png

Maybe it's imgur but this looks so bad. A tweet with examples would be better choice if you can't update on the website quickly

having blur set to extreme probably doesn't help but I haven't messed around with it

OP here. I understand this instinct. In this case it doesn't actually get transferred, but stays on the client, as stated in the footer: "Image processing is done in the browser. No image data is stored or transmitted."

You should make that much clearer, maybe even by running it in a codesandbox, and submitting that link to HN. I think it might be received better than when marketed as a service (and also, if the process is client-side, why is there a subscription offering?)

Think about Figma. They don't charge for how many drawings you make - that would seem ludicrous, especially since most of the compute power required to use the product is expended during client-side code execution. So instead, Figma charges you for using the app itself, but only once you want to add another collaborator to your private projects (at which point you're obviously happy with the product and probably willing to pay).

If you want to monetize this, I would encourage you to think along those same lines. You are building a product for somebody - but for whom? You can answer that question by letting people use it for free and seeing who likes it the most - marketers? news article editors? - and then building more features to focus the product on their use case.

Don't think about charging by volume - think about getting consistent usage from users who face this problem often, and then figure out how to integrate into their existing workflows. Then charge them money to do that.

> Yeah,

You sound so cool when you start a sentence with "yeah" for no grammatical reason, as though answering a question that no one asked. I bet you're really laid back and were probably smoking a blunt and exhaling a massive cloud while you typed your comment. Did you personally innovate this conversational technique?

Could you please not cross into personal attack or post flamewar comments to HN? Those things aren't allowed here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What even is this criticism?

An ad hominem attack based on a single word and your extreme displeasure of it?

There are some tweets on it, but they are unclickable. I was hoping to expand them and see their examples.

100%, I also wonder what this would do to a regular non-screenshot photograph. Could be funky weird or funky cool.

OP here. It's basically Ken-Burns-on-steroids vibes.

Interesting, would very much like to see an example if you're up for it.

ken-burns 1.0

modern ken-burns not only slides the image, but does the 2.5D effects as well. much more interesting than just zoom/pan

> turns screenshots into dramatically angled photos

> much more interesting than just zoom/pan

yes, Ken Burns goes beyond zoom/pan and over into dramatically slanted, at least for what purports to be documentary.

OP here. Valid point! I find it hard to strike a good balance between demonstrating value and cutting to the chase. I wanted it to come off as a utility that lets you take action immediately.

My first reaction was “I can barely tell what this does” so it’s hard to feel motivated to take action at that point.

I had the same response. And beyond the motivation factor, the second response was, "I suppose I could test it myself, but I'm not uploading a picture of my screen to a strange website"

OP here. As per the footer text: "Image processing is done in the browser. No image data is stored or transmitted."

If you've the security consciousness to not upload then there's no way you trust that.

This critique makes no sense. Just monitor the traffic by using a random image if you don't trust the disclaimer?

Monitoring the traffic is consequent to distrusting the site, surely. I too would use an arbitrary image with no PII.

Or just.. close the page and go do something else, which is what I did.

Agreed

2nd this. Maybe, images with diff dimensions

Reply on news.ycombinator.com