Here's Eventbrite's original full S-1 for comparison: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1475115/000119312518...
I personally find the original much easier to read and use. Jumping back and forth in this viewer is jarring and lacks context.
Eventually: data extraction!
Replacing sections with separate links, and forcing you to click around doesn't make things better, it's actually unnecessary friction.
1. I'll be the first to admit that excluding the financials was largely due to the lack of my web design experience – creating pretty tables on WP is harder than I wish!
2. I'll make a wild guess that 90% of the general public doesn't know how to read an income statement. For the 10% of those who do, and read SEC documents regularly, there are existing paid tools like BAMSEC that you can use to improve the usability of the SEC website. BAMSEC has power features like ability to download financial statements directly as Excel spreadsheets.
What I'd like to know is if there is an interested readership among the 90% that are intellectually curious - HN readers, for example - and find the S-1 language readable and interesting, when presented without the baggage of 1) navigating through the dense SEC EDGAR search system and 2) legal template language that represents bulk of the S-1 doc.
90% of the general public might know know how to read an income statement, but 90% of the general public is not interested in reading an S-1 no matter what the format is. The vast majority are happy reading a Marketwatch synposis of it.
The percentage of the general public who are actually interested in reading an S-1 will be mostly interested in the financials.
Again, I believe this is because you don't understand who your end-user would be, and who is actually interested in reading an S-1.
Cool project nonetheless!
The real S-1 has a clickable table of contents, is easier to navigate (doesn't require back and forth clicking) and has more data (financials, capitalization, voting structure, etc)
- There's no hover effects on your links. This makes the top level links (Business, Discussion + Analysis, and Letter from the Founders) look like they're not clickable, especially because they're treated so differently than the rest of the links.
- Plus signs are often used to hide nested content, especially in navigation trees like you have here. If these are simply links, they should look like links.
- Once you're in a section, there's no breadcrumbs or active styling in the header. Because there are so many links, it's hard to know where you are or create a mental model of the space.
- It might be helpful to add previous and next navigation once you're inside one of the nested pages, instead of requiring people to go back out to the main page.
