Significant portions should be divided into apps--for instance: Frontend, API, and SMS. If you were to add email services, that would likely be its own app as well.
Interfaces should be kept simple. A good rule of thumb is that the number of discrete, identifiable features per screen can be counted on one hand. Heavy users of the app should have virtually no advantage in usability than a brand new user.
Users should feel that the site is trustworthy, but playfulness is important to keep it engaging. No one likes a boring government site, nor one that is overly preachy. Nor is it fully for entertainment or lulz.
Ultimately, the experience should be educational. Restaurant inspections are a dull and unintuitive process. After using the app, lay users should walk away better educated about what restaurant grades mean even without proactively searching for more information.
- Never suggest that grading or violations directly correspond to safety. They are, at best, a proxy and should never extend beyond that.
- Do not "shame" violators: "This place is dirty," "How can they allow this?"
- Do not exaggerate claims: "You will die," "It's safe to eat here"
- Do not portray ungraded inspections as the latest "official" result. You may show ungraded inspections in search results, but only graded inspections may be associated with a business as an official grading.
- You can make a recommendation provided is not backed by a deceptive or exaggerated claim:
- YES: "You should eat here (2 points)," "Many violations -- avoid this place"
- NO: "Avoid if you don't like puking"
- Verbose violation text can be abridged while keeping the original meaning in-tact.
- NO: "Evidence of live rats" --> "Rats"
- If you have the opportunity, explain the meaning, process, or caveats of violations, inspections, grading, etc. Remember, a brand new casual user should learn something new from just casual use.
- Emoji are an important part of making the experience fun. You may use them in search results for humor (don't go crazy though).