SymptomMatch: Symptom-First Hearing Aid & Training Discovery Platform

Spent a while actually using it rather than just looking, so this is a mix of bugs and the "do people need it" question. Four things I hit, all logged out: 1. On /train you show "Your next focus: Everyday sounds" to a visitor who has never taken a test, on the same screen that says "Sign in to get a plan built from your own results." Those two lines contradict each other, and the first one is the more damaging: the whole promise is that the system learns my weakness, so inventing a focus for someone with no data is the one thing that undercuts it. Show the tracks, but say "take the screening to see which one is yours." 2. Related, and it is a real bug: clicking a different training track does highlight that card, but the "Your next focus" line above never updates. So the selected card and the stated focus disagree and I cannot tell which one a session would actually start with. 3. The track cards are buttons acting as a single-choice group, but there is no aria-pressed and no radio grouping, so a screen reader announces six plain buttons and never says which is selected. On most sites that is a nice-to-have. On a site whose users are specifically people with a sensory impairment, someone will notice. 4. Small but visible: the page scrolls sideways. A span with class sky-hero-haze renders 1385px wide inside a 1298px viewport, so the document is wider than the window and you get a horizontal scrollbar on desktop and a sideways swipe on a phone. One more thing, not a bug: /profile carries the line "this is a self-check, not a diagnosis," but /test, the page where the actual screening happens, does not. The disclaimer is on the page nobody reads and missing from the page where someone is about to draw a conclusion about their hearing. On your real question. The website is not the problem, the framing is. "Awareness of hearing loss" and "cognitive auditory training" are things nobody wakes up wanting. What people do search, and complain about constantly, is one specific thing: "I can hear fine but I cannot follow a conversation in a loud bar." You already built exactly that - speech in noise, conversation simulation - and you have it filed as track number two behind an abstract profile. Lead with the symptom, not the science, and the disinterest problem gets much smaller. The engineering is better than most things posted here: the headphone calibration step, the silent catch trials, the adaptive stopping rule are all thought through. I am a QA engineer, happy to keep going into the signed-in half if that is useful.

Spent a while actually using it rather than just looking, so this is a mix of bugs and the "do people need it" question. Four things I hit, all logged out: 1. On /train you show "Your next focus: Everyday sounds" to a visitor who has never taken a test, on the same screen that says "Sign in to get a plan built from your own results." Those two lines contradict each other, and the first one is the more damaging: the whole promise is that the system learns my weakness, so inventing a focus for someone with no data is the one thing that undercuts it. Show the tracks, but say "take the screening to see which one is yours." 2. Related, and it is a real bug: clicking a different training track does highlight that card, but the "Your next focus" line above never updates. So the selected card and the stated focus disagree and I cannot tell which one a session would actually start with. 3. The track cards are buttons acting as a single-choice group, but there is no aria-pressed and no radio grouping, so a screen reader announces six plain buttons and never says which is selected. On most sites that is a nice-to-have. On a site whose users are specifically people with a sensory impairment, someone will notice. 4. Small but visible: the page scrolls sideways. A span with class sky-hero-haze renders 1385px wide inside a 1298px viewport, so the document is wider than the window and you get a horizontal scrollbar on desktop and a sideways swipe on a phone. One more thing, not a bug: /profile carries the line "this is a self-check, not a diagnosis," but /test, the page where the actual screening happens, does not. The disclaimer is on the page nobody reads and missing from the page where someone is about to draw a conclusion about their hearing. On your real question. The website is not the problem, the framing is. "Awareness of hearing loss" and "cognitive auditory training" are things nobody wakes up wanting. What people do search, and complain about constantly, is one specific thing: "I can hear fine but I cannot follow a conversation in a loud bar." You already built exactly that - speech in noise, conversation simulation - and you have it filed as track number two behind an abstract profile. Lead with the symptom, not the science, and the disinterest problem gets much smaller. The engineering is better than most things posted here: the headphone calibration step, the silent catch trials, the adaptive stopping rule are all thought through. I am a QA engineer, happy to keep going into the signed-in half if that is useful.