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
