I just told a dev to check out Nostr and to build his social app that he's building on Nostr. His first response was that it sounds expensive. I asked him what he meant. He said that the first thing he saw was that it's $99. I was confused and looked into it...
nostr.com mentions an NSEC hardware signer for $99 on it's homepage.
I wonder if that's giving the impression that it costs $99 to use Nostr? I would not have thought of this until it just happened...
I refer people to primal. What does it say there? Not joking. π
But yes: π Iβd assume that if it showed that too. Seems legit.
π¬
When I looked at the site it did not seem to me that it costs $99 to use Nostr. It clearly says itβs a presale for a signing device. Maybe the Dev didnβt look too hard.
If a "developer" can't understand what the homepage of nostr.com says than I think he/she should just stop coding! π§
It's sad honestly, I have a @Nostr.com address but I feel the website itself is kinda being wasted, wish I owned it honestly, make it more informative. When you visit it you get a corporate company vibe if you know what I mean.
There is some good content on there to be fair though.
I believe it's very informative and very well done. Maybe some slight improvements though? I believe users may be misled to think that they need to purchase a Nostr address or buy a hardware device. This is not the case and will confuse brand new users. That flow could be changed to be less confusing.
Yeah, true. I suppose he has a right to do whatever he wants to with it though, honestly surprised Fiatjaf isn't the one who owns it.
At first glance it is quite misleading.
Such an important dissemination site should avoid certain lapses in style.
Yes I think so. Nostr hardware is advanced/niche even for nostriches and limited in use cases. Not home page material imho.
When I first saw this my impression was this is not at the right place but who am I to judge others UI/UX π«£
That website isn't smartly setup. The top should be a clear nostr introduction with prominent links that guide new users through the educational process. The hardware signer is a bit down the page, but since they failed to educate the new user at the top, it's very easy to jump to the conclusion that you gave to spend $99 to onboard. It needs a redesign with a focus on introducing nostr to new users, and educating them on how it works.
It's so bad. How many header sections does one site need?
I see this so often from developers and engineers. At some point, they got it into their head that they're also competent website designers and they end up creating sites that are absolute garbage. They're like, "well, I can write code so that means I can easily whip up competent website that meets the needs to the intended audience!" Lol no.
There's a reason website development and UX design are entirely seperate careers. With few exceptions, devs aren't qualified to create effective websites. It's just not the same skillset. And then they typically get defensive when you offer up any criticism, and they double down on insisting that it's good enough.
Effective, professional websites need both competent programmers, and competent designers. And this is a perfect example of that delusional mistake.
I dunno, I think they're doing their best and I wouldn't assume hubris/neckbeard "design/ux is for retards" behaviour (though that definitely is a thing, fuck me the battles I've had with those types of devs over the years!).
But Nostr.com is such an important domain I think being terse is warranted, you'd be hung drawn and quartered in any competent agency for producing the mess they have.
Luckily geniuses like you and me are here to save the day heckin' lol.
Agree it's a different skillset and requires ProTier designers. Unfortunately there's no money in it so all the good designers have focused on Web3 and fucking NFTs. Example: https://www.maciej.co/
Disagree the team are delusional as I've seen them make numerous changes and attempts to engage community in feedback over the past week.
I don't believe in mincing words when the design, ux, content strategy and IA is as egregious as it is but let's refrain from slander π.
I didn't say they weren't doing their best. And what I said doesn't come remotely close to slander. Putting aside the fact that slander is spoken defamation, not written, I wasn't talking specifically about them. I was using this situation to comment on the common misjudgement of developers and engineers who erroneously believe they are well suited to also take on the job of professional website design.
I have no way way of knowing for a fact what the circumstances are behind this specific website, but it certainly has all the hallmarks of the scenario I described. This site was clearly not designed by someone who understands how to efficiently and effectively create an educational website intended to onboard new users to an unfamiliar platform.
It's not a personal insult, and it's not a knowing lie about a particular person intended to defame. So, it's neither slander, nor libel (written defamation). It's a speculative commentary on the trend of developers believing they are suited to crank out effective educational websites.
This is a well-known, disgusting phenomenon. Many people don't make it clear that they're not interested, but instead rattle off meaningless stories.
True, that is indeed misleading for new joiners. Hope they change it asap
