jackshepherd

Hello! I would appreciate any feedback for my new personal site. Specifically, I'm pleased with the concept and appearance on desktop/tablet, but I cannot think of how to make this design work well on mobile. Thank you!

The play on words in the name is used also used by a charity: Well Boring, who digs wells in rural Africa. The fact that we, as a species, have failed to deal with challenges like providing global simple access to water, make me think that a project like this is unrealistic in many ways.

Post-war London tried something similar, a futuristic vision of pedestrian walkways ("pedways") to separate people from the traffic. This failed, for various practical reasons, and you can see the remnants of the experiment throughout parts of London to this day.

This scheme would come at an unimaginable cost, surely changing planning laws to create less car-centric cities is a more realistic approach to the problem?

I made this since the concept had been kicking around in my head for ages. Obviously I don't condone this sort of thing.

The quote at the bottom is a bit tongue in cheek! I found it surprising how slowly money accrues even with very high salaries when you watch in real time. A watched pot I suppose...

Thanks for that... I'd even written a digitSuffix function but managed to forget "rd"!

Appreciate the feedback. I'd definitely like to work on the background. The wood texture is a bit of a cop out really.

To save HNers some time, I'd guess a lot of us will be in the 'software professional' occupation category.

I opted to put anything 'off the charts' as 100th - maybe I should make this clearer? Congratulations on the salary, though!

Thanks, very kind!

I created this site as a demo of my data-visualisation skills for a job application. Any feedback much appreciated!

Heavily depends of user-base.

My G/A account includes a consumer-focused site getting millions of UVs monthly, IE accounting for 49% market share, of which only 80% are IE8/9.

On the other hand my blog just had 20K visitors from HN, 65% on Chrome.

It seems that Facebook has a heuristic where it looks for unusual numbers of retracted 'Likes' and then starts requiring confirmation before logging new Likes.

This makes attacks such as these a little less worrying.

Wow - that is quite amazing. I wonder if that's in use in the wild yet.

Edit: It seems like this is a largely solved problem for Facebook: http://forum.developers.facebook.net/viewtopic.php?id=93201&...

Could definitely still be a problem for other social/ad/affiliate networks though.

Actually just CSS won't work in this case - because the Facebook Like button is within an iFrame. This works because Javascript cycles show/hide a transparant div above the Like button.

Thanks for that :) I was thinking of perhaps creating an invisible target for them with the same offset as the FB like/button, so that they could be clicked with the 'fake' cursor to enhance the effect!

I'm not sure if you can say that it's a direct result of Evercookie, but a number of high profile sites use this kind of tech - for example KissMetrics.com is used by a number of big companies, and they use ETAG cookies, Flash cookies - the lot.

That's because there's a transparant DIV above the Facebook iFrame, cycling on/off every few milliseconds. This is required to maintain the fake cursor's position (without it when the real cursor was over the iFrame the 'fake' cursor would stop moving).

If you move the cursor outside of the Chrome window and then back in it seems to work on Chrome OSX

I work for an airline and recently redesigned the flight search. Saw 10% increase in movement to next stage of the funnel.

I still don't feel like I can say 'increased turnover by £70million' in good faith though.

There is a limited market out there. For a small business a 10% uplift in conversion really = 10% more revenue. The same isn't necessarily true for a blue chip.

Chrome also reloads the page when viewing the source-code. Annoying for the same reason. You can see the source-as-is via the inspector but, still...