💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29434307 captured on 2021-12-04 at 18:04:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm blown away by the value in this review from a regular customer. Both in terms of reassuring others of the value of the product, and providing incredibly valuable real-world feedback to the company. I hope OP gets at least a personal thank-you from Engo, if not a free pair of their next iteration to review.
Hey, thanks for saying so. I've never reviewed a product before so wasn't sure how it'd go. I normally write (on another blog) about software development like the rest of the HN crowd so this was quite different for me.
It would be amazing if more real reviews of this depth existed, or where easy to find. Any long reviews are usually just crap ad copy, especially for sporting gear. To find the rare honest review is getting harder and harder.
I actually use Reddit for that a lot. While you have to filter a lot, I normally trust it more then most comercial review sites. At least on Reddit people will call out the reviewers BS. I normally search for the item + review + Reddit. I think of it as actually reading what “the people” think of the product instead of the “professionals”.
I used to do the same thing with 'forum' in the place of reddit, for the same reason.
Check out Ray Maker's blog for impartial long form reviews of sports kit:
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/blog
Andrew Skurka has similarly meticulous “long term reviews”of running/backpacking gear:
.
He runs and backpacks more in one year than many people do in their lifetimes, which means he gets to observe deterioration quickly, and develop + test opinions very rapidly. Through his blog and reviews, he’s changed my mind on a lot of things that I wouldn’t have questioned otherwise.
The twin “appeals to authority” of experience and conscientiousness, when plainly genuine, are a deservedly powerful thing.
dcrainmaker.com for literally any sports tech.
Really? Reading this review I wouldn't buy them - the whole gimmick of seeing your stats on the display falls apart if the stats just fail to display for no reason. Yeah cool that they are comfortable and the display isn't distracting, but if the stats sometimes don't show then why would you buy this, unless you like being a QC tester and paying for it.
The parent comment was referring to the quality of the review, not the glasses themselves.
Right, sorry, I misunderstood then.
Thanks for the review.
This product reminds me of portable mp3 CD players with anti-skip technology.
It was _good_ but it was missing the mark in so many ways and about to be obliterated by iPod.
This is the analogy I'm going to use from now on when people ask how I liked them.
I think Engo has a chance to win though, at least for a while. They could release v2 next year with improved hardware and a slightly lower price and cyclists would eat it up.
Meanwhile, Apple is going to release their AR glasses but I don't think the initial version will be rugged enough for sports use. And I imagine they'll be MUCH more than $300.
Based on how you described them, it sounds like they are pretty cool and there are thresholds people have for battery life and price.
I know people who choose Garmin watches for those two reasons so they may have picked the right market to address with that compatibility.
> I imagine they'll be MUCH more than $300.
I am guessing they will be priced around $2500-3000.
The other non-negligible reason folks buy Garmin hardware is that they don’t try to sell you a subscription, they just sell good hardware.
Garmin certainly does offer outdoor adventure equipment with subscriptions and is looking for ways to incorporate subscriptions into more products because that's where the money is. Ex employee.
InReach and a few other specialised products, right?
I’ll be super disappointed if they start trying to charge a monthly sub for their fitness watches.
Conversations were around the intersection between cycling and safely equipment where the core features legitimately depend on ongoing services outside the device (gsm, for example).
Yeah I personally see no issue with subscriptions on that sort of product, or on things like the recent sim-compatible Forerunner watch.
Four is an awful lot of digits. I bet they'll be $999.99+-$10.
How do you take a photo of Augmented Reality?
You shoot through the glasses? At CastAR we shot all our demo through real hardware and I believe Tilt5 is too.
I tried, I promise! I couldn't get anything. It really is a very small area of the lens where they show the HUD text.
We did have a special camera setup — it wasn’t just holding up a phone to the glass (that was handy to just show something, but it looked washed out because there was no head to block ambient lights).
Those bigger cameras used by the press worked fine too even without a jig.
Why not simply do what Magic Leap does, and blatantly fake the camera images and games that don't really and couldn't possibly exist?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28838500
And then rip off other people's work without giving them any credit in your patents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28838443
And then sexually harass the very women you employed to solve the endemic "pink/blue problem" and fix the nepotistic sexist bro culture, and rebuff and ignore her advice, and pay her off to keep their mouth shut when she sues you for sexual harassment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28838421
And then give the entire AR industry a bad name by not delivering on your outrageously hyped promises, while burning through BILLIONS of dollars and fucking over your foolishly gullible investors.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28838737
Are you any where near Atlanta? If so can I borrow this setup when I do my next review?
Well I don’t work on that any more but T5 is in California so probably not.
You could try it by using a DSLR on a stand (stack of books?) hold up the glasses (by hand or whatever), try draping a black cloth over camera and glasses (no elastic or anything, just the cloth — you’re trying to be realistic). See how it looks, and if it looks realistic.
Are there examples up somewhere?
Having seen pictures and then experiencing AR myself (just HoloLens) I feel like honest photoshopping is probably the best we can do. But then that doesn't take into account the actual two-eye experience (maybe even more important in a monocular display), and the effect of movement.
I was doing a little user study recently where I was using HoloLens and the researcher was watching the streaming view. I felt like I had to keep explaining what I was really seeing because the stream felt so inaccurate.
How can you use an image to show the displayed image intersecting or displaying behind a real object? A stereoscopic capture might help, but seeing how things react to head movement is a big part of visual understanding. A short stereoscopic video might give some of that, and yet there is still a difference between watching that video and being the person that moves their head to interrogate the environment.
they aren't waterproof
I sweat an unbelievable amount. This is sorta incredible. But I'm absolutely intrigued despite this. Would definitely need Garmin integration!
Just sweat less. Duh. /s
I'm looking for a HUD solution for monitoring. I spend all day with some numbers and status displays on a screen, and I'd like to just be able to wander around and not have to look at my phone all the time.
What are my hardware options? I'm able to write to any SDK they give, but preferably I'd just ping a website as http or websocket and show the stuff on glasses.
I also think I'd be interested in generic AR glasses to connect my own application to, but I'm curious why it would be preferable to have the manufacturer's website sitting in the middle of your pipeline?
Personally I would find it preferable if I was talking directly to the glasses and did _not_ have to use any cloud service.
I meant ping my own website and just have it show what I'm serving. Like a simple endpoint that has some status text, doesn't have to be fancy. Just let me scrape 192.168.1.24:8080 every second and draw the text in my peripheral vision.
why not just set alarms when user intervention is needed and forget about it?
There's just something about trading where you think you need to have it to hand all the time. Plus there are issues that you don't know how to code the alarm for, ie you want to know that something is up but it's not specific why you think you need to do something.
Wouldn't it be annoying to have numbers displayed in your glasses all the time?
Isn't a watch app enough? With some way of telling it to beep when numbers go beyond some threshold?
Perhaps something smartwatch-based would make sense for this. Almost certainly cheaper and easier than AR and still more immediate than pulling out a phone.
To me the watch is the same as the phone. You need to use your hands for either.
More like a HUD than AR. Also a HUD to display HUD's battery life, watts and distance seems not super important. Maybe elevation, coming road geometry, weather, traffic..
I was never sold on VR. AR on the other hand is something I see huge potential in and I'd happily use on daily basis. That said, the only appealing option I've seen so far were the now defunct Intel, then Focal, then ultimately killed by Google, glasses. Those were something I'd have loved to have and develop on top of. The Engo ones came close but somehow they aren't the type of glasses you could casually wear. I have spent stupid amounts of time over the past 6 months trying to figure out a way to prototype something similar to what Intel was originally planning to do and I'd happily develop and open source something like it. All you need is a high resolution resin 3D printer to make the frame for the glasses and house the components. Small oled screens are pricey and the best option I could find[1] came at around 120$ a pop but that isn't the issue. For the most part an esp32+battery+lcd screen+resin+some other small components would set you back around 200-250€ which is fairly reasonable(most of which I already have). With deep sleep, the battery would last for weeks the way I'd use it. The biggest problem so far are the lenses. In essence you'd need to get your hands on custom prism lens with very accurate focal distance which in my case has proven to be practically impossible to come by. I haven't been able to find anyone that can/would produce small volumes/single units, at least within reasonable distance from where I live, not to mention how expensive that would get. I've been planning to contact a local optomechanical school and see if they can offer a hand but I'm extremely skeptical at this point.
[1]
https://lcdscreenmfg.com/product/0-39inch-micro-oled-display...
Maybe pedantic, but this seems like just a heads-up display. AR implies the projected image interacts with real objects in your field of vision. I wouldn't call this AR. Nice HUD though.
Not pedantic, it's clearly not AR.
At least not in a world marketers haven't completely taken over, where words still have meaning.
what does "augmented" mean to you?
to me, listening to a podcast while driving is probably augmented reality, and that has nothing to do with driving or the route I'm taking.
this _does_ augment the activity intended.
From the first sentence of Wikipedia:
> Augmented reality (AR) is an interactive experience of a real-world environment where the objects that reside in the real world are enhanced by computer-generated perceptual information
I agree in that there needs to be some interaction between real-world objects and virtual ones to be considered more than a simple HUD.
That sounds like where these glasses do. What do you want them to do in AR? Give you graphics?
A heads-up display moves with your head; augmented reality moves with the world.
So, showing a billboard every 100m alongside the road showing your speed, heart rate, etc would be AR (and yes, a hud seems better option for this kind of thing)
Something like optimal trajectory or gamification of the surrounding environment
I don’t see how that’s possible, it would have a prerendered map for a path like a game? use laser sensors to warn you of danger? I think it’s very possible on unnatural roads but on off-road it would not be useful.
That’s still the definition of the technology. You’re right that it mostly doesn’t exist yet.
In unnatural places can have markers that tell it to show you things, like how cars auto park, invisible signals could do it too, they could add haptics and it would be AR.
When doing Strava segments, a ghost rider riding at your PR pace!
They had an issue with that at a military base!
I mean if that's the definition of augmented reality - wouldn't literally all glasses be augmented reality since they either tint or do something to distort your vision?
To put oil on the fire, there is the same debate about cyborgs: glasses are a mechanical enhancement of the human body, so technically…
Less controversially, hearing aids and HDR goggles would also fit the bill.
Shoes, hats, many kinds of clothes are mechanical enhancements. Gloves for working without hurting one's hands, etc. All those things give a definite advantage over unprotected skin. I don't even start listing tools, which glasses are.
Would a chicken be a human since it's a walking biped?
I guess this is why there isn't hard science fiction anymore: nobody knows anymore if a toy is one thousands years in the future or it was invented yesterday :-( .
I read my son a fantasy book featuring lots of magic. I was a little surprised at how he didn't bat an eye at any of the magic. Halfway through I realized the fantastical crystal ball the characters were using is not fantastical to my son at all- he makes video calls on a tablet every day.
It also brings to mind the _palantĂr_ in _The Lord of the Rings_ and Gandalf's advice that it's perilous to use devices of a deeper art than you know.
Tolkien could have just as easily be writing about today's internet and its disinformation epidemic.
What did they say, cyberpunk never died, it just stopped being fiction?
Can confirm…
That's exciting to me, maybe I'm looking at it wrong though.
Very cool. I can't wait for a more generic data device pairings to these interfaces. I would love them for paragliding, where we have a variometer to track metrics that impact decision making (ascent/descent rate, air/ground speed, altitude, etc) and weight/deck space are a big factor.
Recent H1 here- how responsive are paraglider controls? I feel like for hanggliding I want to see those numbers while I'm airborne, but have no idea if they'd be useful because of how sluggish the response can be.
One thing I didn't notice: are they usable over prescription eyeglasses? If not, they'd be a non-starter for me.
Quite a few of the better cycling glasses are available with prescription lenses. I imaging Engo will eventually offer that if they can build enough of a user base.
I had not considered that. I don’t imagine you’d be able to wear glasses while wearing them, no. But unless you need glasses to ride a bike you won’t need them. Even if you are near sighted you can see the AR display.
I don't need glasses to ride a bike, just to see all the obstacles to avoid. ;p
I'd imagine HN readers to be more likely to wear distance glasses than the average population. That requirement knocks a ton of AR/VR options off the table for me :(
For a lot of AR/VR devices, the communities around them find ways of conveniently using prescription lenses. There's a pretty common Quest 2 mod, for example, using 3D printing and $10 prescription lenses to allow you to use the device without glasses (the headset itself comes with a glasses spacer, but it's notoriously awful).
The optics for these things in particular are almost never in the actual lenses, so for AR gadgets you can usually just pop them out and replace them, if you've got a way to source compatible lenses.
Are there no VR sets that can be fitted with corrective lenses?
I’m mildly farsighted and have an astigmatism in one eye. I use a Quest 2 with 3D printed adapters and lenses sourced from a $15 pair of Zenni Optical frames I ordered for the purpose.
How do they work out for you? I'm nearsighted with light astigmatism and I got some 3D lens adapters from VR Optician. But I have weird purple colour fringing around the Quest 2's bright blue buttons. It's like the 3 colours are separating there. Doesn't happen when I wear my glasses. I thought it might be because these lenses are attached to the Quest and not my head.
A use case for glasses like these with the heads up display would be while riding a TT bike in the aero position. The bars are not conducive to mounting a bike computer and it is a regular occurrence for it to fall off during a triathlon. With these glasses though you could just put the computer in your shirt pocket or wherever and not have to look down.
I am a cyclist (7/8k km/year) and I think that this product will become popular only if the price will be low.
It's just a fancy tool, but not it does not give you real advantage in terms of better training or improved cycling performances.
Maybe it would be better to have an integration to something similar with Veloviewer than display HRM and power information.
It sucks that AR products always inflate expectation in their videos and marketing images and over promise and under deliver.
It's very easy to make an honest video about what user will actually see, but these companies are not interested in that.
Many people believe that the functionality shown in these videos actually exist.
These look awesome! I am just getting into cycling but have yet to invest in a bike computer. Currently use the Apple Watch to track everything. Do you know If you can speed/distance/heart rate from the Apple Watch? If so, it would be an instant purchase.
As a very experienced cyclist, thinking back to when I was getting started, my advice is to not worry about something like this.
None of the data the glasses display, except for power, are of any real value to the degree that you need to see them constantly. Heartrate is pretty worthless, and I actually often make a point of NOT looking at distance, like on a longer ride - it can make the ride feel like it's dragging out. Especially with an out-in-front computer mount which are very common these days, glancing down at your bike computer really isn't much of a hassle at all.
Consider spending money on things that will make you more likely to ride, such as clothing for different weather conditions - or if by cycling you mean "for transportation", things that will increase the utility of your bike.
If you want really good mapping and routing, check out the Hammerhead Karoo head units, which run Android. Top-notch routing. The garmins are...OK. Garmin's definitely been far too cozy (little serious competition.)
I am an unexperienced cyclist, got into it when covid started, and I'm having an opposite experience — I've loved getting new sensors and geeking out on metrics and seeing how they all interact with each other. It motivated me to go out more for sure. Getting a heart rate sensor actually helped me to climb more efficiently — when I first got it I noticed that I was going too hard and my heart rate would go too high and I would have to stop and rest. Now I know that if I just keep my heart rate below a certain number I can go non stop for a much longer time.
RE Garmin — my first computer was a xoss g+, which was pretty good. And I recently switched to garmin edge 530 because I'm planning to get a power meter soon and I have to say I'm not a big fan — screen quality and navigation are kinda crapy for the amount of money they ask for it.
Power data is most useful when you are training for specific zones or as check when you are going to hard/easy. Of course, this requires a ant+ power meter but these are getting cheaper these days. Probably the best upgrade is a lower end pedal based power meter.
Heart rate, again, I find more useful for training, but in some cases can indicate fatigue that you may not actually feel in the moment.
I agree completely about not looking at distance. But, for me, heart rate is super important. It's actually the reason I've been looking into AR glasses for cycling and swimming. I normally have heart rate, power, and speed showing on my Wahoo - in that order.
What makes rides go faster for me is countdown distance to next waypoint. Those are usually only a few km apart and that is a real motivator.
It's been a while since riding regularly but I would ride to my heartrate and the kms & time disappeared from focus.
I find heart rate extremely useful for training and racing. It lets me see whether I'm above or below my sustainable threshold.
The watch can do it, but you’ll get better gps on the phone. I’m using Cyclemeter, generally pretty happy with it. It will work with on the watch, or on the phone using the watch for HRM.
It’s not really useful for checking while riding though, it’s more along the lines of a data logger. Might be a bit different with a mount for the phone, but I avoid having visible elevtronics while riding.
Careful though - the phone GPS can be significantly worse than a watch. I don’t cycle, but run a lot (I average ~135 miles a month). Anytime I’m on a long run where I care to know what my actual distance or path was (like a marathon), I have to turn off the Bluetooth connection between my phone and watch. If I don’t, then the GPS in my phone is used. That GPS signal is susceptible to fluctuations based upon which tower is “visible” (A-GPS). I’ve had it happen where I go through tunnel and the phones GPS thinks I’ve magically run a mile in the opposite direction. Some of my Strava traces look like they are all scribbles. I’ve had this happen with multiple phones over the years.
Also, over the course of a marathon, with my phone GPS, the distance has been up to a mile off. For my last marathon, my watch (w/o Bluetooth on) was only 0.1 miles off.
I’m not sure how much of a problem this is for cycling, given the differences in speed and distance, but for running, it can be quite the problem.
Note: I have the cellular Apple Watch, but I don’t think it uses A-GPS.
I’ve got a series 6 non-cell watch, and a 6s plus. (And an iPad mini 2 with cell)
The phone and iPad will generally show the path I take relatively accurately, including side of the road, and In some cases lane positioning.
The few times I’ve used the watch on its own(for walks), it’s been significantly worse, with paths going off through nearby houses. Either the frequency of locations is lower, or the accuracy is worse.
I probably wouldn’t get another watch after living with one for a few months. The heart rate is interesting, the apple pay is nice but not that much better than the phone, and sleep tracking is iffy.
This may change if I can get good haptic way finding working, but that’s going to be a Project.
I definitely think there is a difference in the GPS quality between the generation of chipsets used. My older Apple Watch (3, non-cell) had worse GPS than my newer (5 cell).
I didn’t really notice the difference and accepted the low GPS quality from my phone until I got the newer watch with the cellular chip. Then I could go for runs with music and GPS without my phone. The difference was amazing. The newer generations of watch are much better. And cellular was better then GPS only, ironically. YMMV - I think a lot depends on where you are and the towers that are nearby.
That said — I’ve also considered just flipping to a Garmin watch. The battery life in my Apple watch isn’t enough to get me through a marathon, tracking GPS while also listening to music (I’m not fast, so ~ 4 hours).
> That GPS signal is susceptible to fluctuations based upon which tower is “visible” (A-GPS). I’ve had it happen where I go through tunnel and the phones GPS thinks I’ve magically run a mile in the opposite direction. Some of my Strava traces look like they are all scribbles.
That might explain one of my rides having a spurious "cliff climb" where the altitude went bonkers.
That being said, I lost interest in Strava when they killed the Bluetooth integration with my Wahoo TICKR. That was just another of the incessant reminders of why I can't trust tech companies anymore.
I believe if the phone is in range the watch will use the phone's GPS. I record all my rides on my watch but my phone is always on my handlebars or in a backpack and I'm pretty sure it uses it.
The Wahoo Elemnt is a very nice bike computer. Has all the functionality you need, including nice maps, plus a long battery life.
I'd take the Hammerhead Karoo 2 over the Elemnt or Bolt :) More consistent updates, built on android (sideloading for apps!), and upward trajectory
I’m partial to the Wahoo since they’re in Atlanta and I’ve got to root for the home team. My biggest gripe with the Karoo is that since it’s running a full Android OS the UI should be gorgeous and it’s just... not. They didn’t even modify the title bar. It just shows the time and battery like any old Android phone. I’d love to see them hire a brilliant UX team and just really polish it.
I'm surprised it doesn't work with the radar thing, that would be the #1 benefit for me.
If it was waterproof and showed data from my Varia I would not have returned them. I don't ride on the roads without radar anymore.
I remember when Google Glass was hitting the first peak of the hype cycle, and thinking this would be a great use for them when they got a little better and cheaper. Will think about buying the next generation.
Very interesting! I'm a cyclist too, but I haven't read about the battery, how long it last? And the lenses have good quality/are fast to switch from clear to dark? (by the way the price tagof about 400€ is expensive to what looks like a bit more than "a toy")
The battery is claimed to be 10 hours, but I didn't test it to that limit. The lenses were really good quality - at least as good as my Tifosi's. Very comfy and stayed in place, which is crucial for AR. They don't actually switch the lenses themselves from clear to dark, it's just the brightness of the text that increases, which is instant. But if you wanted to ride at night, you wouldn't be able to wear them.
I agree they're expensive, especially since they aren't self contained like a typical bike head unit is. I keep comparing them to the Form swimming goggles - which are also AR. I feel those are totally worth it. But the Engo's are just a bit too expensive for what you get.
Interesting, their site claims they're photochromic (like "transitions") lenses, they should adjust to the brightness around them. Have you tried them in a darker environment?
Oh, wow. If it does it’s SUPER subtle. I started a ride in full sunlight and then went in full tree cover forest on gravel. I never noticed the lenses change, only the brightness of the LED.
It was visible the whole time though, which was impassible. Like, I TRIED to shake these things off my head going over tree roots, lol
400E/$450 is enough to buy a really nice head unit, or a power meter, or clothing for more weather conditions, etc.
Just really doesn't seem that useful, and reminds me of all the "help cyclists navigate with LED displays" junk. I swear, it's like every industrial designer's right of passage to design some crap accessory to "help" cyclists!
What kind of display did they use for that? Did somebody do a teardown of this thing?
OP I see you have LCD to display info, what did you think of the pebble as a bike computer, and have you tried one?
I never liked the idea of using a watch as a bike computer. If all you want is to record the data for later use it's fine, but then just use whatever you already own - your phone, Apple Watch, etc. If you need to actually see the data while moving the wrist isn't a safe place to be directing your eyesight.
It’s visible in the sun.
Depending on the speed, or info I’d agree it’s bad for many situations.
Is it difficult to focus on the text since it's so close to your eye? For example, if you hold your finger near your eve you can't focus on both your finger and stuff in the distance at the same time.
The article covers that: "However, you don’t see it on the glass. It looks like it’s about 10 feet in front of you."
This makes me very optimistic for the Apple Glasses. If this technology is already available "off the shelf", I imagine Apple could make something amazing, especially if they combine it with the scene-detecting AR that the iPhone already has.
Apple apparently got a patent for direct retinal lighting, which is probably a better experience overall, and seems more flexible. So it might be a totally different experience.
Projecting the image to the retina directly actually isnt really a better experience. It means you get an extremely small eyebox, and the glasses would require a custom fit for every single user. You can look at Intel Vaunt/North Focals for what this experience is like. If you even move your eyes too far to the side, the image will disappear.
As built so far, it is a small eyebox. Don't judge the future on one unreleased product. With more emitters plus computation and sensing, you could compensate for eye movement. Seems a bit short-sighted to make a blanket dismissal of an approach that has not been fully developed.
So how do these work exactly?
I tried very hard to get photos of the projector and LED display and simply could not. It’s all so tiny that it fits in the nose piece of the glasses.
But, basically there is an LED screen that brightly “projects” the display onto a mirror. This is, in turn, reflected onto the back of the glass of the glass. You look through it.
In practice, the display you see ends up appearing about 10 feet in front of you as free floating text. Logically, you know the text is actually less then an inch from your eyeball but that doesn’t change how it looks to you visually.
From the front, people looking at you can not tell you aren’t wearing normal glasses. There isn’t any glow or reflection.
The effect is even better with the swimming goggles. It looks like the bubbles (from exhaling) is in between you and the AR text.
Why in the world would you want these? Just go buy an SRM head unit and call it done.
I can tell you this are not a scam.
links to a picture with photoshopped display covering 30% of glass area in the middle
https://painandcycling.com/post-assets/engo-glasses/engo_ins...
. Even product box suggests 30% of field of view taken by the display.
What you see when you put them on is a small projection in the upper left.
mhm, so just like Google Glass was not a scam! Same "small postage stamp display in the corner" with huge misleading media campaign selling you on lies.
Article is good but why the website is so bad designed? Grey text (123,129,140) on White back is terrible (don't have enough contrast) and the lines are too long.
Also images are so big that don't fit to my screen.
If it's hard to design (for me it is) just follow proven patterns. Like Medium's style with short lines.
Good point on the text, thank you - I've changed it. If you've got time could you send / post a screenshot of the images not fitting? My contact details are on my main site in my HN profile.
The images are huge, I'll admit. Normally when I post on that site it's ride reports that are only read by my mother so it's heavily photo based. When writing this review I did think I should make a component for smaller images but, honestly, I wasn't expecting this many people to read it.
As for it being hard to design... yeah. This is just a free Jekyll template that I got and then pushed to GitHub Pages. At work I have the benefit of the UX department telling me what to change, lol
