[dtp]

Sorry if that sounds too harsh. I shouldn't shit on you too hard for trying to do something good. I've never written any software that does anything even remotely as good for the human race as this, so maybe I should just keep my mouth shut.

I really did have a strong "oh wow this is kind of messed up" reaction to Karmabox, though, and I suspect I'm not the only one who will. Maybe it would be worthwhile to offer an alternative interface that would be less jarring to people like me?

[manume]

I absolutely understand your reaction and yes, we realize it is a bit unusual to present the profiles like we do (and Watsi does) with the names and large images. However, I think in this case, "unusual" might be a good thing, because it gets people to actually click on the widgets and learn about Watsi.

Initially we didn't even have the headline above the profiles ("Spread the health! Fund low-cost, high-impact medical treatments for people in need."), and it was very unclear what the purpose of presenting the profiles actually was, so we added the headline to give some context.

And of course it's more "comfortable" to donate to a charity with a nice website, design and public image, and not actually see the faces of the people that are supposed to benefit from your donation. Watsi (and thus Karmabox) takes a different approach: there is no layer in the the middle, deciding for you who receives your money and who doesn't. With Watsi you can (and you're actually forced to) make that decision yourself. It's an uncomfortable one, but it has to be made, either by you or by somebody you don't know who works at the organization you donate to. I'd rather decide myself.

So in closing: yes, it's an unusual way to "do something good", and it has to be done carefully and tastefully, and we're always open to constructive feedback on how we can improve the website and the widgets to reach that goal!