Endmyopia Site Redesign Thread


Web design. Talking to people (designers especially). Feeling tempted by these kinds of projects with a similar fervor as dentist visits.

Been fishing for designers on various freelancer sites for a while now.

Especially with doing podcasts, it’s getting a bit painful for people to repeatedly ask basic questions (that the home page should do a decent job answering at a glance). And when podcast hosts say “so where should listeners go” … and you know how hard my cringe is (and yours too probably), telling those poor unsuspecting bespectacled folks typing in e n d m y o p i a doooootorg …

and then going … what in the unholy f*ck is all this mess?!

Because people do. I get to hear it all the time, of course usually in very polite ways. “Weeeeelll … uhm… yes it was a bit confusing perhaps … uhmmm”.

Hired a couple of designers off some freelance sites to mock up some revisions. I provided a general wireframe that should be a bit more usable than what we have going on now. Lots of front page content changes, for sure.

Harder part is how to tie it all together and make it look like something that’s worth investigating further.

To that end, we convinced the accountants (also just Jake) to bite the somewhat bigger $$ bullet and spend over a thousand dollars on a design contest on https://99designs.hk/discover. (handy site btw, to get various opinions vs. just hiring one designer and praying you picked the right one)

Neat thing might be that if / when we settle on a more visually pleasing format to tell the story, the site infrastructure makes it really easy to add and remove and switch around “blocks” of content. And we can easily do “heatmaps”, which basically show us what visitors click on, and what they ignore.

So ultimately we don’t have to guess what a good page layout is. Come up with a visual reference language type of thing, create content blocks, see what people click, refine as needed.

Once that enormously fun headache is done, we’ll apply the same premise to some key pages. Like the ones that don’t exist properly now. Which will soon be around to provide easy to understand explanations of the basics. And good science to back it up.

Then focus on making Le Rough Guide more accessible (and tempting), make the courses better, and then spend a bit more time on community and especially talking about things to do with your newly found sharpened eyeballs.

That last part is ultimately what it’s all about.

If you won the lottery (or just 20/20 eyesight) what new and interesting things might you point them eyeballs at? One could opine that’s another thing that’s a bit lacking right now, and would be great to focus on.

We do need INSPIRATION for why a newbie reader should even care about DIY-ing a non laser, slightly longer version of LASIK. 20/20 eyes without glasses!

Long ramble, short point. Spending a boatload of time (and them dollarz) on getting endmyopia a bit more tempting, interesting, share-worthy, and inspirational.

Also worth noting … if you find an eventual push for more paid stuff, this be why. Doing more of this, making things better, is most certainly requiring resources.



Not just versus LASIK. I think we have to convince a lot of people why they want to ditch the glasses and reverse myopia. It seems to be obvious for us, but there is a ton of people who see no reason to get rid of glasses (especially when they found out about Zenni and co. and realize they can get a lifetime of glasses supply for the price of one retail glasses). Heck there is even a forum for people who love glasses (including “soda bottle” glasses) and there is a ton of question and topic there about how to induce / increase myopia


As a manager of a UI/UX team at a software company, I’d like to highlight User Experience (UX). Because the endmyopia design is all right; the UX is terrible. I found the site a week ago, and never found out how to sign up for the 7-day email intro - I just found the individual blog entries by searching the site!

First thing when it comes to UX is knowing your users, how the site is perceived and what the pain points are. So spending lots of money on a new design might be a waste unless you also clearly map out what content you have and how users should find it.

For example, I wanted to learn about astigmatism because mine is high, but to get to foundational knowledge about it I had to sift through lots of “20/20 GAINZ” posts involving astigmatism. Great for motivation, but separating “knowledge base” writups from regular posts could make facts more accessible for new users.

Long post, but one starting suggestion (that you might already be doing) is to map out what content there is on the site today.
What different types of content (tools and resources, knowledge, motivational posts etc.) are there?
How should users find the content, what is a logical way to structure it?
What do new users need to know?

This can all be done in a simple google doc document, no design needed at this stage.

My cents worth of input. I’m happy your looking into this, because everyone benefits from this being more accessible!


About UX. When I started reading the blog I first had to learn wrong. I didn’t realize the advice was for average myopia and then a later video corrected the advice to suit more of a higher myopia. So I would’ve liked to know better which videos are for which situations. So I don’t have learn and re-learn, which is confusing. Same with diets though. Maybe it’s part of the process. Constructive learning is good though, instead of being served everything.

Another thing is how the videos show up when you type a word in the searchbar. They appear as a list, but you don’t get to see all videos and pick the best ones. If you keep a break from scrolling them down, then the page resets and you have to scroll through all of them again.

1 Like

Feedback and ideas always welcome.

@jswetzen makes a good point about putting some of the common vision specific issues out front. Of note here is that we’ll probably be moving away a bit from the massive volume of free and unorganized guides. Going to be a bit simplified DIY and then various more detailed options available to contributors.

@valleyguy Yes. I think here also simplifying the DIY options and breaking out the more “pro topics” and in depth stuff will help.

Will try to avoid turning it into a “design by committee” but for sure I’m also 1) a bit too close to all of this and 2) a lot of great ideas come out of this community.

We’ll get about 35 initial designs and then narrow down favorites from there.

Early design example.

The visual aspect and content will be easily separated so we can add “content blocks” to add / replace things as everything evolves.

Credibility and ease of use has been something I’ve purposely not indulged so far. Especially since the goal was “free”, putting in some work is how I like to do things. But now with podcasts, it’s hard to get on good ones with a confusing, sh*t site, and with those listeners showing up at our doors it’s a bit uncool to act anti-social about the approach. :smiley:

It’s as much a “re-design” as an attitude adjustment.


Design-wise the example you got looks nice. Now if we think about the UX: the double menu at the top is unchanged, probably because the designer is aware of the main message (end myopia) but unaware of the richness of the content in the site. But that double menu is a nightmare for finding things, especially for new users. It takes a while to even notice the two different navigation ways on mobile. I found an article about UX for navigation that might give some insights. The section “Limit the Number of Levels” is interesting. https://www.uxbooth.com/articles/the-rules-for-modern-navigation/


I had a look at the forum you posted about- it is crazy that people would want to induce more myopia on purpose.

1 Like

Various initial design concepts floating in. Got a dozen or so more, definitely a lot of directions to go here.

KInd of like the science section highlights idea.


So much creativeness out there. (trying not to think about the workload to then fix all the subsequent pages and parts of the site, not only visually but also for ease of use).


Yes yes I see nobody cares here (which hey, that’s how I feel too).

Still if you are in the mood to look at some of the design finalists (first drafts of course and content will evolve), and cast your vote on what you like … here it is: https://99designs.hk/contests/poll/3caba89e63


One thing that I think would help is to clearly specify the benefits of the website with a next step call to action. For instance, if you look at https://www.drberg.com/ it gives 3 simple bullet points and asks for the email address. Simple and to the point.

The proposed designs would all would great with a reworked top section that opts them into the 7-day campaign, directs them to the rough guide, or whatever you want them to see next.

I’m very analytical and read all the scientific studies, watched literally every video on the channel, and read hundreds of blog posts when I got started, But as a marketer I realize only 2% of people are like me. Give most people a couple benefits and a couple testimonials and if they’re a person who’s ever going to take action they will.

In my opinion the top main section of the homepage should cater mostly to those who already want to fix their eyesight and are ready to learn how to proceed asap. Then provide the analytical person a place to learn more details. The website loses some people who are ready to go because there’s so much emphasis and info designed to convince the people who are not ready to fix their eyesight naturally.


Yes indeed, the benefits up top are a must. Going to adjust that.

Might skip asking for the e-mail there for a start, just because I’m throwing my own personal bias in that one (and sites that go for my e-mail from the first look, less a fan).

Aiming to find a design solution that’s as “content blocks” friendly as possible, so we can adjust content based on what heatmaps and ongoing feedback tell us. One of the goals with this “design” update is to have some kind of visual format we can apply to content (vs one giant static sort of “once every three years” kind of change).


I totally care just not had time to check them :slight_smile: But did a review now. I really hope not the “generic modern designed site with huge person filling 50% of the page” design will win, which is the current highest voted :smiley:

Edit: the “generic modern designed site with huge person filling 50% of the page” is now only the second one :slight_smile:


I voted! Just did the rating without commenting. I can’t explain why I like or don’t like a particular design :worried: .


This :rofl:

I might have oversimplified some of my feedback, but my general thought is ‘if a smiling human face is the first thing you see, it’s usually a scam’ in my mind. Clip art of humans as well. I might be out of touch with this one though, perhaps it would work for other people. The more abstracty cartoon designs look better as it shows perhaps more thought went into the site, even if you can drag and drop those just as easily.

If there’s going to be any ‘review’ of EM on the front page, it should always say where it came from (Trustpilot, Facebook etc.). Most of the designs did state that but I saw a few that didn’t, which could equate to a 1 second glance scam website rejection.

I think the science should still be front and centre just like it is on the current design. The science definitely tipped me into reading a lot more than I would have done, science must be on the front page :slight_smile:


I voted! I really like the little black non human character :smiley: Can’t really say why :smile:

:grin: Exactly what I thought when I saw the results. Yikes!

1 Like

I know right?! :smiley:

Current directive is to tone down “design” as much as possible. Leave it to font treatment and placement and space and let the content do the talking. Some light illustration and logos and such as appropriate. A lot of those designs look good for a few seconds. If you see the page 20 times though, it’s like eating cheap candy.

Who knows, really. I’m not a designer either.


I’m really torn here, because in one hand I don’t think that’s a good design, but on the other hand people vote for it, which has to mean that it appeals to the majority…


Agree. No big smiling person. Nice clean structured simple design. I like how a lot of Linux and other open source projects structure their Web pages. Will try to find some good examples


Maybe not the best or most exciting example but it’s clean and functional https://www.qt.io/

Or https://ubuntu.com/

1 Like