cilliank

Thanks for this mnicole - probably some of the best feedback we've had! I'm eager to see how many others share this point of view so will keep gathering feedback for now.

Cheers!

@mnicole, I've been thinking a lot about your feedback and if you have time would really appreciate if you elaborate on your views on attracting worth sellers. Do you think the one thing that would compel you as a designer to post is quality control? If not, what are the one or two things that would most influence your decision to upload content, in the same way that you do to Dribbble for instance?

@bobwebb, thanks for this - can you advise what browser (preferably with version number) you're using? You're right, it's likely the large amount of Javascript but also at present the infinite scroll rapidly loads a lot of quite high quality PNG preview images which we've found has a direct affect on some browsers. We're working on both refactoring and image optimization to correct this.

Cheers!

@quiark. Again, really appreciate the feedback. I'm actually on a similarly sized notebook right now so seeing the same issue you're experiencing. It is a little cluttered and I suppose in honesty because we'd had feedback in the past that users wanted to see as much content as possible we focused on squeezing in a lot.

The download graphic was a last addition so absolutely something we need to address.

Really useful, again thank you!

@mnicole thanks for the really solid feedback. All the points you've raised are quite reasonable. If I'm hearing you correctly your biggest concerns are around the 'cheap' factor and the risk of rip off while also maintain quality content and viable pricing?

I don't want to appear to have an answer for everything but we have a pretty complex community based curation solution that will very much be powered by it's users in the future and we have some ideas on how to work with top designers but at this stage it's very much about proving that there's a need for a tool like this.

Bear in mind, our focus isn't on ripping off - it's actually on allowing creatives to sell the building blocks of their design work between one another. It's really about the 'foundations' and not complete design work. This is for content creators/professionals to rapidly share assets between each other - think about how you use font libraries rapidly rather than perhaps cheap assets. We're not there but we're working on it! :)

On the UX point - can't fault you for spotting that - very eagle eyes, we're still working out some UI kinks and already looking at more drafts of this.

Any more feedback would be appreciated.

@bmelton - thanks, for some reason when I tried to submit it with a URL the post wouldn't submit!

@davidandgoliath - thanks for the support. We're working hard on version 2 already, hence hunting for more feedback :)

Cheers.

@mmayernick - that's exactly what we're trying to achieve as I believe that the need for assets is specifically part of the production workflow (whether it's design/development, etc) so it's very action driven (i.e. I need something I search, I'm selling something I post). So we believe tight integration with IDE's is vital.

Right now it's about 30% of our overall traffic which is probably higher than we expected but certainly not what our vision is yet.

@Mondras - thanks for the quick response!

You're right the desktop app is definitely a little memory intensive, something we're working on but really appreciate your feedback. Anything else is really appreciated.