Replying to your reply, but removing the quotes so the images are bigger:
[Evolution]
01:24:215 (1) - Its a nice slider, but the slider path cannot be read based on just looking at the slider. Are you supposed to go up or down? If you can't tell where the slider is supposed to go, then unfortunately it's not rankable with the current RC. these two arcs have a gap. it seems they don't go up... Is it possible for you to make that more clear? Maybe have the head down just a bit more so the two arcs are more visible?
03:33:568 (1) - This one, the slider-path isn't completely clear either. Do you go left, or downward first? I think with this slider, making a gap would be enough. Compare this with that, i think the former seems weird. The former have a clearly different angle but the latter is not there is a smooth S-shaped curve. It's imo but if stacking slider (like this slider) appeared, i regard that as smoother curve pattern. Why? otherwise its conceivable that this slider has interesting slider-path (for examble, this. I hesitate to put them (unless a slider has a transparency lol...)). i certain that it's still readable. ill keep it.
Mmm... I think it looks smoother. Your first image shows that there would be like a sharp corner turn, but I think if you consider the curve, its possible for the slider to be constructed like this: Which is why I think having a visible loop in the centre would make this easier to interpret. I agree though that going downward is the most logical movement, but I think this slider is still ambiguous since its *possible* to create a slider that goes left-ward and have almost the same shape.
[]
Just those two. Feel free to get another opinion on those two sliders though! I just want to iron this out because I can see people pointing them out as possibly unrankable elements. it's better to discuss them now while this is still pending, than later when it's qualified.
[Evolution]
01:24:215 (1) - Its a nice slider, but the slider path cannot be read based on just looking at the slider. Are you supposed to go up or down? If you can't tell where the slider is supposed to go, then unfortunately it's not rankable with the current RC. these two arcs have a gap. it seems they don't go up... Is it possible for you to make that more clear? Maybe have the head down just a bit more so the two arcs are more visible?
03:33:568 (1) - This one, the slider-path isn't completely clear either. Do you go left, or downward first? I think with this slider, making a gap would be enough. Compare this with that, i think the former seems weird. The former have a clearly different angle but the latter is not there is a smooth S-shaped curve. It's imo but if stacking slider (like this slider) appeared, i regard that as smoother curve pattern. Why? otherwise its conceivable that this slider has interesting slider-path (for examble, this. I hesitate to put them (unless a slider has a transparency lol...)). i certain that it's still readable. ill keep it.
Mmm... I think it looks smoother. Your first image shows that there would be like a sharp corner turn, but I think if you consider the curve, its possible for the slider to be constructed like this: Which is why I think having a visible loop in the centre would make this easier to interpret. I agree though that going downward is the most logical movement, but I think this slider is still ambiguous since its *possible* to create a slider that goes left-ward and have almost the same shape.
[]
Just those two. Feel free to get another opinion on those two sliders though! I just want to iron this out because I can see people pointing them out as possibly unrankable elements. it's better to discuss them now while this is still pending, than later when it's qualified.