Sounds like we're on the same page... On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Stephen Michel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Jonathan Roberts < > [email protected]> wrote: > > But they might show just a really killer nice nature scene on their > landing page, to make the viewer feel excited, hopeful and ready to go > deeper...a halfway cleaned up scene is just not as inspiring, though I > could see later pages showing those in order to communicate more > pragmatically what the actual status of a clean up is. > > I think the landing page should be mostly about getting the viewer to feel > excited to engage more, rather than about getting across a perfectly clean > or nuanced metaphor or a deep or complete vision of every facet of a > project. > > > They might. They might also show a picture of people cleaning up a beach. > The people are halfway done, and one half of the beach looks pristine while > the other half, not so much. > > I do agree, however, that some element of excitement is necessary to > convey the sense of "this is why we're doing this," that the current > version does not convey. Of course, this will be counterbalanced by the > desire to keep the entire site visually consistent. Which then begs the > question, if we want the home page to be more vibrant, does that also > require adjustment of the other pages? > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Aaron Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> 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> >> > > ~Stephen >
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list [email protected] https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
