As others have said, the purpose of the site is very unclear. I'm reviewing it for the sake of reviewing it, but normal visitors won't work so hard to figure out what the point of your site is, they'll just move on.
Here are a few suggestions:
1) Put a question mark after IsItOpen in your logo. Pick a more readable font. The shape next on the left side of the logo doesn't add anything either, so remove it.
2) Add a highly visible tagline that explains the site, either under the logo or in another highly visible place. Suggestion: "Rating consumer electronics on their extensibility and ease of use"
3) The FAQ needs work. I'm OK with a conversational style, but "What the hell does that mean?" is too much. Make this section clearer and get to the point faster. The sections starting with "Have you ever" are a step in the right direction. Remember, they've probably landed on this because they are confused about what the site is for. Its your last chance.
4) Remove the animated menus. They are buggy, slow, and annoying.
5) Comparing an iPhone to a keyboard to a stereo is not helpful. Presumably I'm trying to choose between a set of competing items based on their "openness" before making a purchase. So group the items by type.
6) On your about page you mention that during the submission process the user grades the item on a number of criteria. These would probably be a lot more interesting that an "openness" score with an arbitrary number next to it that has basically no meaning. Is .83 good? If its out of 1, yes, if its out of 5, not so much. I think its out of 5, but I had to look at a bunch of other products to deduce that.
6) Reduce the number of device types. Honestly, I think phones are probably the only place people really care about this, maybe TVs. I could be wrong. But I don't think you'll find a lot of visitors trying to figure out how "open" various keyboards are, whatever that means.
7) The design is hard on the eyes. You mentioned its an alpha, but make sure you clean it up before launch. Bad design takes away from your authority.
8) Buy a new domain. .org.uk will become an albatross.
The logo is really not very appealing, and it doesn't say anything about the project. It doesn't add anything to the site, which in my mind means it detracts. Your brand identity should definitely NOT detract from your product.
The database is really weak, which makes the site useless. You need to scrape some info from somewhere so that when I filter the tags by 'camera' I don't get a list of mobile phones. That happens to me once, and I'm gone.
You should put a brief description of the purpose of the site on top of the results on the home page. So that we know why we are there.
I can't buy anything here? This is a store with no cart.
Don't make me signup/register/login before allowing me to vote or rate stuff. There's nothing to play with to get me hooked before requiring login.
We've just recently finished a proof-of-concept site called 'isitopen'. It is designed to allow users submit and review consumer devices regarding how 'open' they are (i.e. available source-code, documentation, standardized plugs, etc.)
We've hit a point where we don't know where to go from here, whether the idea is even a good one, or how to market it.
Ho, stop, by who? The lay-out isn't very appealing and looks like it's still under construction.
I get the idea of the site, but, what do you want to say with it?
People who care about open-ness of their 'to-buy'-device are more likely to do their own research, this site helps with that, but does it really fill a gap?
Ditto on the last point. It doesn't seem to be about hardware compatibility as such, rather some intangible "openness" quality. If I were interested in the openness as an inherently valuable trait, then I would probably care about other things like the ethical and environmental credentials of the manufacturer (because I probably care about non-functional traits). If I'm looking for information on the ability of my hardware to interact with particular software, then surely the "hardware compatibility" section of that software's web site would be my first place to look? I guess I just don't see the gap that this is filling.
I like the idea of power plug proprietary-ness being written down somewhere, but if it were a real problem, I could probably find that information in user reviews on Amazon or similar.
So I'm just not sure that I can think of any instances where I would want to use a site that only tells me about the ideological aspects of my purchase, without particular reference to what the real hardware/software compatibility situation is, and which similarly doesn't give you the whole story in terms of whether I should buy from this manufacturer or not.
Sorry, I should have disclaimed. The site is very much alpha, so there are plans for a layout overhaul still. We've only just got something basic working and wanted to get some feedback before continuing.
As someone who's done a lot of research into how open a device is before they buy, I've found that I spend a lot of time searching for products which meet my needs. The site should help cut down the time needed in order to find open products.
Whether it fills a specific gap is debatable. Perhaps we should look at building the user-driven 'review' aspect of the site more, and let people discuss functionality more.
How about some sort of browser plugin that works with Amazon or other sites and automatically shows your openness numbers for whatever device I'm looking at?
First thing I looked at was the iPod touch. It said the firmware (which I read to be the OS) wasn't based on open source software.
It's not the prettiest site in the world, either.
Were you planning on making affiliate commission? I can't imagine that anyone will make a purchase based on openness of the platform in the first instance. If they were the kind of consumer that did, I doubt that they'd use your service.
I'm really sorry, but I don't have a lot of positive things to say about your site.
When you say the markup is not very good. What do you mean exactly?
We don't have a graphic designer, so I can understand the lack of aesthetic appeal. However, are you seeing issues with the CSS/HTML? How do you measure how well it works?
He's probably referring to the bulk of inline styling and javascript, and using tables for your layout. It should be fixed, but honestly the design has bigger problems than the code right now.
That's a good question really. And one which the site kind of just wishes to raise.
What makes Apple & Microsoft products closed, and what makes Red Hat or Neuros open? Clearly it's because their products and the companies themselves have a set of qualities which determine that.
Those qualities aren't completely clear, or defined, and yet, it's pretty generally accepted that Apple is closed and Red Hat is open.
Most people interested in open-source are aware of a some of those qualities and look them up when deciding on purchases, but they're shifting and changing (as Apple recently showed with the introduction of the MacBook Air which didn't have a removeable battery - does making it more difficult to swap out a specific component in a device make it more 'closed'?).
I think our target market has an idea of the qualities we're trying to quantify, but the real question is, do they care? Do they care enough to submit the products that they do the research on for themselves, to a site like isitopen?
