The descriptions on that page are really weird. They're just descriptions looked up by category, but they try very hard to obfuscate it by being uh, personable and witty.
On it's own, that wouldn't be so bad (just quirky) but the style doesn't lend itself to accuracy or brevity and it's hard to tell which, if any, of the text was written by a person maintaining the project's page on the site.
E.g. in answering the question: "Can I make it?" with an overall score of "98%"
Yeah, you will probably be able to make this. Feels like this is almost complete, only thing missing is your spirit and some minor stuff.
Below that is the actual list of things that are missing, which contains one item (apparently worth "+2"): Difficulty is relative, especially with footprints I have never seen before.
I have no idea what this means (I suppose it's about PCB footprint? I think the first part of the sentence is just banter?), but anyway, the top text is just a representation of the 98% "Can I make it?" category, which a less witty website would describe as "Project progress" or something. The representation of 73% is Yeah, you might be able to make this. There's still quite some homework left, but it's doable for you, isn't it? And I didn't even quote the parts where they anthropomorphise the website...
To end on a less curmudgeonly note, apart from the copy-editing, the overall execution seems good; I like how they break down the total cost of the project.
thanks for taking the time to comment on the presentation of the projects. We try to index and rate all open source hardware projects by their development stage. Our goal is to provide an insight for users like you whether the project can be built. For that we evaluate the difficulty and the project's dependencies (like parts).
You are right that some of our copies are a bit quirky and maybe need better explanation/call-to-actions. We already work on that and will soon release a revised version. Our designer has tried to "humanize" our analysis to make it a bit more approachable, maybe we need to put some additional effort into that ;-)
On it's own, that wouldn't be so bad (just quirky) but the style doesn't lend itself to accuracy or brevity and it's hard to tell which, if any, of the text was written by a person maintaining the project's page on the site.
E.g. in answering the question: "Can I make it?" with an overall score of "98%"
Yeah, you will probably be able to make this. Feels like this is almost complete, only thing missing is your spirit and some minor stuff.
Below that is the actual list of things that are missing, which contains one item (apparently worth "+2"): Difficulty is relative, especially with footprints I have never seen before.
I have no idea what this means (I suppose it's about PCB footprint? I think the first part of the sentence is just banter?), but anyway, the top text is just a representation of the 98% "Can I make it?" category, which a less witty website would describe as "Project progress" or something. The representation of 73% is Yeah, you might be able to make this. There's still quite some homework left, but it's doable for you, isn't it? And I didn't even quote the parts where they anthropomorphise the website...
To end on a less curmudgeonly note, apart from the copy-editing, the overall execution seems good; I like how they break down the total cost of the project.