As a web developer my only suggestion would be to hone the design's responsiveness. It's odd though because on one hand, it's odd to see your header width responsive but not the content, but on the other hand, it's pretty functional because not everything is a link, which is good with phones. Was this intentional?
I'm glad you pointed out the width of the image stream not being responsive. This is intentional. A gripe of mine regarding the latest image display paradigms is the over-use of browser width. In my research, the strain on the eyes as a result of two dimensional scanning (up/down + left/right) became annoying very fast. The sweet spot seems to be 3 columns, allowing the eyes to gracefully pan down the page and every now and then look away at the background to prevent excess strain.
It might be weird to say this, but as another person picking a .io for an ambitious project, every great site on this tld helps the domain's image.
Bit of constructive criticism:
1) My first reaction was to attempt to click on the image to go to the source or see the enlarged original. I find that clicking on the image doesn't do anything at all.
2) "Show Map" works fine if what you're searching for is around you, but as it is, I just got a map zoomed on my location and there's nothing at all to see or look at.
3) Scrolling is choppy (Google Chrome) for me. Particularly when a new background image is being loaded. Maybe provide an option to turn off the background image for those who experience the same or want a slightly cleaner look?
Cool job though. I've bookmarked it for when I'm looking for visual stimulation for ideas.
My response to your criticism:
1) Good point. Originally, clicking the images would take you to the source page. I removed that functionality because it messed up the experience for touch devices. I'm going to add it back in for desktops in a few minutes.
2) The map is sort of a "look ahead" feature. That is to say, it's value will rise as more and more location-based images are shared. I'm rather impressed with the quality of content currently available around major metro areas.
3) Curious to know what hardware you're using. I'll add a way to turn off the background in a few minutes.
Thanks again.
Chrome on Windows 7 20.0.1132.47 m
Core2 Duo @2.66GHz
4GB of memory
64 bit
It's really just the fading effect that slows things down. I'm running at 1920x1080 on a Quadro NVS 160M.
