[adambrault]

I think you make some fair points. 100% agree we desperately need a better demo on the front page.

I think the landing page needs help, too, but we've gotten mostly positive responses to it. I personally didn't expect this, because I wanted a nice demo and we just flat haven't had time to put one together.

We launched it on the same day as our realtime web app conference (krtconf) and I wrote the bulk of the copy at about 2 a.m. the night before. Not my best work, but no excuses--sometimes you just have to ship! :D

[peterwwillis]

A brief (snarky) reflection:

"Our team at &yet has been building &! for a year, using and improving it for nearly 6 months."

Approximately %0.00023 of the time spent was on the landing page copy on the night before the deadline. Perhaps a project management system would help here.

[moe]

Points taken and rest assured my criticism was only about your landing page, not about the product (I didn't bother to sign up for the above reasons).

Keep up the work, if your product quality can match that of the visuals then you might be onto something. :-)

Edit: Despite the criticism from others in the thread I still like the visual appearance. I just think you overshot a little and forgot that the even the nicest form still needs to follow function.

[SCdF]

You also need a front page that doesn't flip me off for not having a browser that supports web sockets.

Even if your app (whatever it is, I can't even view _text_ about it) requires web sockets you can explain that somewhere else in a less… 'gtfo old man'-kind of way.

(I know you guys tried to soften the blow with the whole we heart websockets cuteness but it was very much a case of "… well, sweet then. Closes tab")