erik-svensson
BuilderTester
Listings
- Cibello: Pantry Recipes: What should I cook? ?
- Sinniva: Understand your reactions and choose your next step, with a course and optional AI conversation. ?
- Cleat: Personal support for recovery and everyday life, without shame, scores or twelve steps. ?
Apps tested
- BriefIntake, : BriefIntake — tested as a business owner Hi, I signed up with Google, added the offer line "Fractional CFO services for early-stage SaaS startups, $4-8k/month retainers", created an invite and then played the client in chat. I was a COO of a 12-person SaaS company who needs investor-ready financials. About 20 turns with Anika, then I read the brief on the Dashboard. Your question: would I take the call? Yes. What decided it was the clear budget, the hard deadline (end of February, tied to investor meetings in March), the named CEO sign-off and concrete success criteria. The one-line recommendation at the top ("Book a scoping call this week...") is the most useful thing on the page. I'd read that first every time. But the scoring feels too generous. Everything was 100/100, both brief quality and buying intent. If every decent lead gets 100, the score stops helping me prioritise. I'd like to see the spread between a strong and a weak lead. What worked well - Setup took under a minute, and the invite link was copied automatically. - Anika's questions were relevant and adapted to my offer: what changed, cost of doing nothing, who signs off, budget, timeline. - "Prior spend: Not needed, budget given" is a nice touch. - The brief layout is clean, with book call, calendar, download, transcript and outcome marking. Where I got stuck or unsure 1. The prospect page shows a black screen with tiny "YOU'RE ALMOST THERE..." for 10–15 seconds. A real client might close the tab. 2. Anika asked for my budget "in Swedish kronor" even though my offer was in dollars and I never mentioned Sweden. I guess she took it from my name. She should follow the offer's currency or ask. 3. She often asks 2–3 questions in one message (budget + one-off or retainer, start date + deadline + why that timing). One at a time would feel more natural and give cleaner answers. 4. When I gave my email, she repeated it as the start of her next message. 5. After my second answer she showed "Noting that down, takes few seconds", which sounds like the end, and then kept asking. 6. After the chat, the Dashboard still said "Invites · 1 live" even though the link was used. 7. The chat took about 3 minutes, not the six promised. That's good, but update the copy. Visual and copy - The dark theme with small, low-contrast text is hard to read, especially the helper text on Intake and the empty states. - The prospect sees "being qualified for Erik Svensson", my personal Google name. Ask for a company or display name during setup. - The "For a clear call" checklist ("interrupt and say it immediately") shows before you choose Chat, where it doesn't apply. - Showing an upsell ("Run discovery calls yourself?") to my client after the brief feels a bit off. I'd let the business owner turn it off. I didn't test voice ("Talk with me"), Discord or Premium. If I were prioritising 1. Make the score actually discriminate. 2. Fix the slow prospect page. 3. Ask one question at a time, in the offer's currency. 4. Improve contrast and text size. A genuinely useful tool. The brief alone would save me a bad discovery call. Best regards, Erik
- Ventari, : Ventari — first impressions Hi, I signed up with Google, went through the intro and set up the Morocco trip for 4 people, 7 nights in Marrakesh. The idea is great: saving together for a trip with friends is a real problem, and the app looks polished. The itinerary in particular is attractive and detailed. But the money numbers need to be rock solid before I'd trust it with my friends' money, and right now they aren't. What worked - Google signup was quick, and my name showed up on the home screen right away. - The itinerary is genuinely nice to look at and makes you want to go. - Copying the invite link and the crew code both worked, with clear confirmations ("Invite copied", "Code copied"). - The loading states were short and clear. Nothing hung. What broke or confused me 1. Three different monthly amounts. I entered $150/month in the planner, and it told me I'd finish paying after departure and recommended about $213/month. The "Your pool is ready" screen then said $213 each, the pool itself said $178 each per month, and auto-save defaulted to $180. Which one is true? For a money app this is the most important thing to fix. 2. "Behind" on day one. The new pool showed a red Behind status at $0 saved, with 156 days to go, before any payment was even due. That feels stressful and wrong. 3. "How many nights?" doesn't let you choose. The only option was "Confirm 7 nights in April" (Apr 15–22). Either make nights and dates editable or change the heading. 4. Hotels aren't available. Under Flights & hotels, the Hotels tab says "Hotel booking isn't available yet" even though the trip is sold as flight and hotel. Say that earlier, or hide the tab. 5. Small number mismatches. The itinerary says $4,254 for 4, but the pool goal is $4,256. The account is in USD, yet flight results showed EUR. Small things, but they hurt trust. 6. The home airport is never asked. The route defaulted to MAD→RAK and home from AGA. Money and trust The 3% card and booking fee, the Rapyd e-wallet and the refund rules are all there, but spread across help pages. I'd put a short "where your money is and what it costs" box right on the add-money screen. The listing mentions a free trial and then a paid plan, but I never saw a price inside the app. Only EUR, USD and GBP are offered, so SEK and other currencies would be welcome. Smaller things - 7 intro screens before signup is a lot. 3 would be enough. - On desktop, the narrow mobile layout leaves big empty margins. I stopped before adding money, so I haven't seen the pool grow yet. If I were prioritising 1. Make one monthly amount the single source of truth everywhere. 2. Drop the Behind status until a payment is actually missed. 3. Make dates and nights editable, and ask for the home airport. 4. Be upfront that hotels are coming later. Lovely concept and good design. Fix the numbers and I'd happily use it for a trip with friends. Best regards, Erik
- Search jobs, : Glaibaan.co — Initial Product & UX Review Hi team, I spent some time exploring Glaibaan.co and wanted to share a few observations. My background includes 20 years at Google, alongside extensive experience in full-stack engineering, product development, and UX design. These are my initial impressions, focusing on discoverability, information architecture, interaction design, and visual consistency. 1. Location-first job discovery — Highest priority Make geographical search a primary feature. For many job seekers, particularly in service industries, location matters more than a specific job title. Someone living in Phuket might be equally interested in hospitality, restaurant work, cleaning, retail, or administration. Their question is not "What position am I looking for?" but "What jobs are available near me?" I would recommend: - A dedicated location input with autocomplete. - Radius-based search (1, 5, 10, 25, 50 km). - Optional device geolocation. - Browsing all nearby vacancies without a job title. - Synchronisation between geographical filters, results, and map boundaries. 2. Map usability and semantic markers The map is valuable, but navigating, zooming, and inspecting small markers one by one creates unnecessary overhead. I'd introduce larger, industry-specific markers: cutlery for restaurants, a cocktail glass for bars, a bed for hotels, crossed tools for automotive, a storefront for retail, cleaning equipment for cleaning, an office building for office jobs. Support them with consistent iconography, adequate touch targets, accessible labels, and clustering at lower zoom levels. Selecting a marker should show a concise preview: industry, position, employer, location. The goal is immediate visual recognition. 3. Industry classification and information architecture Titles like "Runner" and "Assistant Manager" appear without prominent industry context. An Assistant Manager could work in hospitality, retail, logistics, or many other sectors. Establish a clear industry taxonomy and make it central to discovery. Every job card should communicate: Industry → Position → Location → Employer. Industry should also be a first-class filter, independent of job titles. This also gives a stronger foundation for search relevance, filtering, and scalability. 4. Visual hierarchy, alignment, and design consistency Spacing, alignment, proportions, and distribution of information in the job listings feel somewhat inconsistent, which hurts scanability. I'd revisit the components in Figma and establish a design system covering grid and alignment, spacing tokens and padding, typography and hierarchy, consistent card anatomy, icon sizing and placement, and responsive behaviour and touch ergonomics. An 8-point spacing system with reusable component variants and clear design tokens would be a sensible foundation. This is not just aesthetics: consistency improves comprehension, perceived quality, and efficiency. 5. Interaction clarity and system feedback Several elements were hard to interpret. A number with punctuation and a clock icon was unclear, as were an eye icon with a strike-through and a share icon. Users should never have to guess what an interaction will do. I would recommend: - Descriptive tooltips and accessible labels. - Equivalent explanations on touch devices. - Clear hover, focus, active, and disabled states. - Immediate feedback after actions. - Confirmation or undo for actions that change visibility or saved preferences. 6. Employer side (signed up as Erik Test AB and posted a test job) The employer flow was mostly clear, and good to see an industry picker (Restaurant, Hotel & Bar) here. Two things failed: the company logo/description lookup returned nothing, so the profile ended up without logo or About text, and the auto-generated Thai translation failed, so I had to uncheck Thai to continue. For a Thailand-first marketplace that translation step should be rock solid. Suggested implementation order 1. Geographical search. 2. Industry classification. 3. Map experience. 4. Design system. 5. Interaction feedback. The underlying principle: design around how people actually look for work, rather than assuming they already know which job title to search for. For a geographically focused employment marketplace, that distinction is especially important. This is by no means a comprehensive audit, just what stood out in the time I had. I appreciate what you're building and hope this helps. Best regards, Erik
- AI Carousel Generator for Instagram & TikTok, : Tweenery — honest first impressions Hi, I spent a good session with Tweenery and followed your test instructions. Short version: the core idea works, and the output is better than I expected. A few things hold it back from being something I'd trust every day. What worked well - Signup with Google was quick, no card, 300 free credits. Good start. - Onboarding is optional, which I liked. My choices (goal, audience, voice) actually showed up later in My setup, so it feels like it's listening. - The gym topic gave me a six-slide 4:5 carousel in a calm cream/terracotta editorial style with an illustrated cover. The story flowed well, from the hook to practical steps to a save-for-later recap. No cut-off text, no gibberish. Would I post it? For a general account, yes, after a quick fact check. It doesn't look like AI slop, but it also doesn't look like *my* brand yet. - The single-slide edit is the best part. I asked to make slide 2's hook punchier, got "Go all in, burn out fast." in about 40 seconds, and the other slides stayed untouched. Exactly what I meant. - The first ZIP export worked: six clean PNGs. Where it broke or slowed me down 1. Reference remake failed on the first try ("This run didn't finish. The agent ran into a problem."). The retry worked and gave a coherent five-slide design, sage/off-white/teal with serif type. It felt close to the reference style, though I can't say it was a perfect match. 2. On that remake's ready screen, four of the five preview thumbnails showed broken-image placeholders. 3. The ZIP export for the remake failed ("Couldn't zip. Try again"), and retrying didn't help. That's the most important bug, because export is the whole point. 4. Generation took almost 3 minutes. That's acceptable, but a progress indicator showing what step it's on would make the wait feel shorter. Credits and trust The first carousel cost 95 credits and the edit 22. Neither cost was shown before I pressed send. I'd strongly recommend an estimate before each run ("≈ 90 credits"). People get nervous when the meter just drops. The model picker explains the speed/credit tradeoffs, which is good, so bring that same clarity to each run. Smaller things - Auto picked 3:4 for the remake even though the size menu offers 4:5, 1:1 and 9:16. It's a bit unclear why. - All media had 19 files after a few runs, some with duplicate-looking names. Grouping them per project would help. If I were prioritising 1. Fix the failed export and the broken thumbnails. 2. Show the credit cost before each run. 3. Make the first remake run more reliable. 4. Add progress feedback during generation. Overall a promising tool. The targeted slide edit is genuinely useful, and once exports are reliable I can see founders using it every week. Best regards, Erik