On 10/08/2015 02:53 AM, Jacob Chapman wrote: >> 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. > > This is exactly what I feel as well. One solution I propose is to show > more of the path up to the point that needs to be cleared. > > http://i.imgur.com/IDrStvD.png > > I think a lot of good thought and work has been put into the landing > page. To me, it is not super-obvious what is going on. The path needs to > be more distinct (probably not as distinct as the imgur link above), but > especially as a landing page, the message should be clear. > > I see two ways of going around this: > > 1. Make the path visible through lines or shapes. Like a fence or simple > lines that make sense. > > 2. Make the field of snow around the path be distinct. This could be > done by changing the background... > > Those are just my first thoughts in seeing the landing page for the > first time. The signpost and shadow-thing on the left side don't add > much to the context as they are. To me, they are a little distracting. > > The characters and the snow-shovels are great! :) > > The main problem I feel with the current design is the lack of > sense-of-direction. There does not feel like there is a path to clear. > It is all snow. > > That's all. > > Thanks, > Jacob Chapman
Thanks for being proactive in doing that mockup! I think there are aspects of that which seem like a good direction. Incidentally, I'd like to point out to everyone that the road in https://github.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/blob/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/older%20exports/export15.png that, with the edge of the road on both sides and the existence of some shadows and things… that has just some basic clarity in the sense of the road that https://github.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/blob/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export33/landing.png is missing. 15 is better in a lot of ways because the multiple houses with one further off than others enhance the sense of depth, the two edges… while some aspects of the newer 33 version are improved, the clarity of what the heck we're seeing is worse. I think the biggest issue is the completely lack of edge on the right side of the road. I understand the goal of simplicity and not distracting from the core snow, shovel focus… but we need the image to at least be clearer what it is. Thanks again to Robert for all this fine-tuning. I hope more of us (me too!) will try to do some mockups to actually express the ideas we're suggesting. > > On 10/8/2015 6:36 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> Send Design mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Design digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion >> (Aaron Wolf) >> 2. Re: Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion >> (Jonathan Roberts) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:18:34 -0700 >> From: Aaron Wolf <[email protected]> >> To: Jonathan Roberts <[email protected]>, "Design discussion >> for Snowdrift.coop" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal >> Discussion >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> >> >> 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 >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > [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
