johari = no
Feb. 12th, 2006 12:15 am1. 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-12 01:09 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-12 04:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-12 04:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-12 05:12 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-12 06:33 am (UTC)