On 09/07/2015 04:44 AM, mray wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06.09.2015 00:59, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> I see the value of that idea of visualizing lots of patrons. I'm ok with
>> that in general as long as we *also* include **right at the place of
>> pledging** the idea that all these patrons will add more to match you.
>> That's not present directly, only the idea that the existing patrons are
>> matching each other. I really want the call-to-action and the
>> visualization to indicate the idea that the project gets more from all
>> these patrons *if* you pledge. That idea isn't strong enough in the mock-up.
> 
> 
> What do you think about labeling the button to "pledge!" and "raise 684
> pledges" underneath it?
> 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export27/project.png
> 
> Because actually visualizing it in this place really hard.
> 
> 

I think "pledge" is the right word, and I'm not certain about the
exclamation mark, but I lean toward supporting it.

"raise 684 pledges" is the right idea and better than nothing. It's nice
that it's so short, but it's unclear because "raise pledges" sounds a
little like "do the work of finding others to pledge" like "pledge to
get more pledges from others". And that's not right, obviously.

We *might* have to settle for imperfect and people will just get the idea.

My vision has been to have an actual stat available: the next pledge
will get $X extra matching from Y current patrons".

And we want to be able to express what the *current* cost of pledging
will be too. I think when people aren't sure what exactly their impact
or agreement is, they'll hesitate to click a pledge button.

I think we need to err on the side of clarity over brevity whenever they
conflict. We can work to get more concise over time but really cannot
afford to allow for any confusion or misunderstanding at this stage.


> 
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I *really* like the design otherwise!
>>>>
>>>> Last minor note for now: perhaps a clear watermark should be added to
>>>> these mockups to make it totally clear what they are?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As long as nothing indicates these are final I don't see a problem.
>>> Or what information exactly are you missing?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, for example, we don't yet have formal partnerships / affiliation
>> with all those organizations shown at the bottom of the mockups! We want
>> to and probably will get that, but I don't want to imply that we have
>> endorsements that we don't formally have yet…
>>
> 
> Is that watermark ok?
> 
>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks so much for all your work Robert! I'm excited to get things
>>>> implemented and get this thing going.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Aaron
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Design mailing list
>>> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
>>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Design mailing list
> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop>
_______________________________________________
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Reply via email to