johari = no

[jinian]

1. Black text on dark background leads to terrible squinting. It's not as bad on the Mac, but the script doesn't work on the Mac.

2. Annoying shortage of important words -- where is "creative"? -- and overlap of conceptual space in those that are there, like "clever" and "ingenious". (Shades of meaning would be fine if I could say what I wanted to, of course. When I can't, it's irritating.)

3. If people wanted to know what their friends honestly thought, they wouldn't require identification. (I don't know that it gives you a one-to-one list, but names allow a process of elimination, and I just don't think getting into that is anything but dumb.) Complementarily, there ought to be more negative words, because if I were coming off poorly I'd want to know.

Comments

[tiassa]

I didn't have any issues with the color scheme, but with the rest I do tend to agree. I would really like more words and more on both sides of the good/bad spectrum.

I would also really like to see some kind of connection between the person rating and the person being rated to show correlation between words you choose to describe yourself and words you use to describe other people.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

Yeah, correlating self-rating and other-rating like that sounds like a great idea.

[cheesepuppet.livejournal.com]

I second every point this person made.

[cheesepuppet.livejournal.com]

Uh, that person being Tiassa. I hit the wrong button, I should have replied to that comment directly.

[beaq.livejournal.com]

it doesn't feel to me like an ego game, or i probably wouldn't play (though i play other sorts). it feels more like...character creation? i wonder what sort of characters various people think they have met, and what sort they think they are, and why insides might differ from outsides. still, this game is sort of shallow. it worries me how seriously some people take the words chosen, and how hurt they get that certain ones aren't in their friends' top 6 impressions.

i like the idea in last para. i don't pick "intelligent" because it's given, unless it is an esp. marked aspect of personality.

perhaps redundancy and omissions because of alphabet strictures, not for real reasons? i go back to look.