...
The page features draggable “pills” that represent the different target user groups of our application. The place where they drop the pill decides the inter-group visibility of the comments. 
Once the user continues on from the privacy settings page, they arrive at the Tags page. This page fulfills users’ need to direct the type and sort of feedback that they receive from their peers and mentors. Tags are simply short words or phrases, much like those seen on sites like Flickr or Twitter, that suggest a theme for feedback.
Reviewer Interface
The reviewer is expected to receive a link from the artist requesting a review, and they simply enter their email address--an account will be created on-the-fly if it doesn’t already exist to give a low-barrier to entry.
The user is presented with the most recent version of the work (user testing showed that having access to multiple versions was confusion), and any public comments that have already been entered (in this case there aren’t any yet). Reviewers can provide a high-level rating, general comments, or more specific annotations to cover all levels of feedback the artists we interviewed were interested in.
Rating stars are directly manipulated: highlighting on hover, and filling-in on click.
Users can make general comments about the piece that will appear in the container on the right-side. The artist-defined tags help to guide the reviewer’s feedback without restricting it. We had originally required users to categorize their comments based on a predefined set, but in prototyping we discovered that reviewers found this limiting and stressful. Tags offer a more flexible, but still guided user experience.
...