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>
