On 10/07/2015 03:08 PM, Jonathan Roberts wrote: > I think the primary element that makes the old image effective is the > timeline: it's showing you the finished project. The huge snowdrift > beside the cleared road shows it, Mimi and Eunices faces show it, and > the general vibe is that "The way has been cleared!" rather than > "everything's still bleak and covered with snow." The surrounding > atmosphere also confirms all of this; the friendly sun, the plane flying > by, the vibrant trees. This world is alive and well on it's way to > positive change, not still stuck in a pre-snowdrift.coop > <http://pre-snowdrift.coop> malaise. A graphic where everything is still > covered with snow is just not as exciting, hopeful, or effective in > getting the metaphor across. > > If our metaphor was something having to do with defeating villians, > would we be showing a graphic with a bunch of villains towaring over the > hero, or showing the hero just winding up his punch? No! We would be > showing the villains flying in all directions from the hero's punches, > or lying defeated in a pile with the hero standing over them! > > So ya...to me all this discussion about whether there should or > shouldn't be trees is like arguing about whether the hero should be > wearing a cape or not. I think it's irrelevant, and I think the point in > the timeline we're showing is the actual missing element. >
I think the feeling we want is one that says there's good promise, good progress, but lots to do, and we need to work together to get it done, *will we do it?*… i.e. a middle-ground in the time-line, partly cleared, reason for both optimism and concern, much to do still. Think of any other political movement like an environmentalist organization. They wouldn't show *just* images of pollution and horror, but neither would they just nice nature scenes. > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Aaron Wolf <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On 10/07/2015 01:41 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > > Aside from my particular responses below, I'd really like to focus > this > > conversation on one question: What are our goals for the landing > page? I > > think once we're all 100% on the same page for that, it'll be much > > easier to iterate on specifics. > > > > - In 1 second, get an arbitrary internet user emotionally invested in > > Snowdrift.coop. > > - "Together, we can uncover this awesome thing that's currently > being > > suppressed." > > - Encourage users to proceed deeper into the site > > - At the moment, this is by clicking the one big button on the > front. > > - Maintain visual consistency with the rest of the site. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Aaron Wolf <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> On 10/07/2015 12:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > >> > >> In the context of our recent discussion > >> > > <https://lists.snowdrift.coop/pipermail/design/2015-September/000096.html> > >> about the home page... Here's a pretty common thing that happens > >> in communication between a user (Bob) and a designer (Alice). > >> *Bob's Perspective:* Bob wants to give Alice some feedback about > >> an email application he uses. Bob keeps hitting the delete button > >> when he means to hit the save button. He wants to give good > >> feedback, so he brainstorms a bit, and finally tells Alice > that he > >> thinks the application would be better if the save button were > >> bigger. Alice replies, saying she won't make the save button any > >> bigger. Bob is frustrated, and argues back with Alice. *Alice's > >> Perspective:* Bob emailed Alice with a suggestion to make the > save > >> button bigger. However, if Alice did that, it would break the > >> aesthetic of the application, and moreover, she's not sure if it > >> would actually solve Bob's problem! Alice is frustrated, because > >> she's arguing with Bob, and because Bob has an unsolved issue. > >> *Analysis:* When Bob sends Alice only a suggestion, Alice is left > >> with only two actionable options: implement (bad because Bob's > >> suggestion introduces new problems) or not (she can also > follow up > >> with Bob, but Bob's still attached to his solution and upset it > >> didn't happen). The problem is twofold: in his zeal to provide > >> good feedback, Bob is actually providing a suggestion -- > >> essentially, doing design work -- rather than feedback. However, > >> he can't be expected to know what would be most helpful without > >> Alice letting him know what kind of feedback is helpful. As > it is, > >> Alice is stuck trying to work backwards from Bob's suggestion to > >> exactly what his problem is. What should really happen, is a > >> discussion between Alice and Bob to figure out what Bob's issues > >> is (for example, the 'save' and 'delete' buttons are too close to > >> each other and have icons that are too similar). Then Alice has > >> the flexibility to design a solution that fixes Bob's problem > >> without introducing new issues. It's also worth mentioning > that if > >> Bob provides only a suggestion, then even if Alice follows up > >> with, "I'm not going to implement that particular suggestion but > >> let's try to figure out a better one," Bob is still left with a > >> sour taste in his mouth because he has a tendency to become > >> attached to his solution. With that in mind, I'm going to try to > >> give a bunch of feedback such that we can have a discussion about > >> what should change, rather than arguing about whether the scene > >> needs more trees. More indented --> more specific suggestions --> > >> more change-able as long as the higher-level stuff doesn't > change. > >> --- *I believe that our landing page should provide a 1-second > >> emotional explanation of why we care (or, why an arbitrary > >> internet user should care) about Snowdrift.coop.* /"Together, we > >> can uncover this awesome thing that's currently being > >> suppressed."/ - They'll get a longer explanation of why they > >> should care deeper into the site, but I think this is > important as > >> a hook, to get them to be invested immediately and keep them > >> reading. *Thoughts on how to achieve this.* - I don't think a > >> sense of "path" is important. - I think a sense of "barren > >> wasteland" is important to *keep.* - HOWEVER, I also think there > >> needs to be a sense of "If we cleared away this snow, it'd be a > >> vibrant place!" I think this is the sense of vibrancy that Aaron > >> was missing. Unlike Aaron, I don't think it needs to be explicit. > >> - I think having something like a streak of green on a tree could > >> have this effect. - I think version 27 > >> > > <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/older%20exports/export27/landing.png> > >> is the worst offender in this regard. It feels like if you > cleared > >> away the snow, you'd still be standing in the middle of a tundra. > >> - Bonus points if there's a sense of the awesome thing being > >> communal / a community. - I think the houses in the background in > >> version 1 do this well. - I think the latest, version 33 > >> > > <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export33/landing.png>, > >> does this better than version 32 > >> > > <https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export30/landing.png>, > >> because the mountain in the background is a little more > prominent. > >> - I also personally like it because there's less of that blue > >> strip next to the path. I really don't like that strip of blue. - > >> I'm talking about visuals. I think it's supposed to give a sense > >> of a snowbank, but only because I've seen previous iterations. As > >> it is, it just looks like a flat shape on the ground. It barely > >> even gives me a sense of depth. It's really hard for me to > look at > >> the picture because it's *SO* flat. v33 does help with this, but > >> only a little. Cheers, Stephen > >> > >> Thanks for the thoughts, Stephen. While the meta discussion stuff is > >> sensible, the issue boils down to making sure we communicate > productively. > > > > Agreed. I was just sharing my prior experience as to what makes for > > effective communication. > > > >> To the point: I agree that without context from seeing previous > >> iterations, the strip of blue is just not clear enough what that is, > >> what's going on. Even with the new version the sense of real deep > snow > >> is lacking. It feels just like there's snow on the ground at all. > >> Ignoring the issues of destination and trees (because each of these > >> items is independent), the core issue is that the sense of the > >> thickness of the snow and the sense of a bank of snow or otherwise > >> just the immediate visceral clarity of "think snow blocking the road" > >> is lacking in the recent iterations. I agree that lots of subtle > >> things are better from iterations just before to iteration 33. What I > >> can say clearly is: > >> https://snowdrift.coop/static/img/intro/snowdrift.png and the earlier > >> iterations from Robert feel more clear visually. Like I can flash the > >> image by someone and they get it instantly: there's a road, it's > >> blocked-by/covered-in heavy snow. The new illustration merely > achieves > >> "it's snowy, I guess there's a road or something, not sure what that > >> blue strip is." > > > > Do you feel that deep snow is really important? In my opinion, the > > important thing is the feeling of "There's snow preventing us from > > realizing this awesome thing underneath." If that were achievable just > > by whitewashing everything, with little streaks of color poking > out, I'm > > all for it. If it's achievable by showing a big snowdrift blocking the > > road as per the image you linked, I think we should do that. I > have too > > much schoolwork at the moment to dedicate time to iterating myself > (but > > maybe I'll be able to squeeze it in here or there), but I'm very > > interested to see what others come up with. > > > > To answer this one question: I do want "snowdrift" the name to at least > be sensible enough. But that's still pretty broad. No, I don't think the > key is "deep snow". The key is exactly what you suggested: "This could > be great if we could all work together to get this snow cleared" in > whatever achieves that as long as it is "snowdrift" enough to work with > the name. Keep in mind, *the* metaphor from game theory of the snowdrift > dilemma is specifically the idea that a snowdrift has blocked the > road/path… So, I want the metaphor to at least seem reasonably > connected, but it's the "need to clear this together" that matters more > than how we achieve that feeling. > > I agree that there's *potential* in the idea of some elements peeking > out from tall snow, perhaps street signs or trees or whatever. But I'm > not sure about that. > > I think Robert's clear that this is "we need to clear this together" > image, and the important point is that the current image, like with that > blue streak by the edge of the road, it just isn't visually clear enough > to immediately understand as well as it should/could. > > > >> Now, do I know what the solution is? No. My speculations involve > >> things like better outlines, better shadows, somewhat longer visible > >> part of the road… I suspect a harder sense of clear-road up to a point > >> where BLAM there's heavy snow in the way… that would help. So maybe > >> the point is to show it more partially cleared already — that could > >> mean a little longer cleared road and higher snow banks and snow piles > >> on the side of the road framing it and indicating some work already > >> accomplished, but then you can see there's lots more to do. I'm not > >> strictly tied to any particular suggestion, I'm trying to describe the > >> inadequacy of the current status, and yes, speculating with some ideas > >> about what might help. > > > > Robert: is this discussion any more helpful to you than the previous > one? > > > >> Cheers, Aaron > >> -- > >> Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> > >> _______________________________________________ Design mailing list > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design > > > > ~Stephen > > -- > Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design > > -- Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> _______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
