On 03.08.2016 10:31, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:55:44AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
>> On 01.08.2016 23:30, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> We discussed this in today's meeting.  Here's a revised mockup,
>>> also attached in .ods format. This shows payment processing fees,
>>> two successive months of carry-over, and an example where a pledge
>>> was suspended:
>> Thanks for clarifying via the mockup. I think it can be simplified
>> in several ways:
>> https://snowdrift.sylphs.net/prototypes/mray/#history_page
>> * a pledge value/month next to a total/month isn't necessary. It
>> only matters what you actually paid that month. So I would only show
>> one sum/month.
> This is different from how all receipts and bills work, which show the
> sum-of-goods subtotal, then any fees and taxes, then a final total. Do
> we want to keep that just so it's more familiar?

disclaimer: the actual numbers on the mockup can be considered random.

I regard familiarity to receipts and bills documents relatively
unimportant. Our mechanism is the driving force behind almost all
financial transactions - this does not compare to anything I know of.
We should focus on people understanding what the mechanism does, not how
it works "under the hood".
To be clear: I'm not promoting intransparency. There should be a gapless
log of transactions, but that isn't the history in my eyes.

>> * items that did not contribute to a months spending can be omitted for
>> clarity.
> Hm. I guess we should ask, is the purpose of this page to show *just*
> payment history? I don't think so. I think it is a history of
> participation within the mechanism. In that case, omitting items that
> don't contribute leads to a *lack* of clarity.

I think this page should just show the payment history.
We may offer a complete log elsewhere.

@clearly indicating participation:
A simple list of projects can probably illustrate participation in any
given month most clearly. Since its almost only a log of binary choices.

Example: *trying* to match many big projects without the necessary
backup isn't even participation. It is only intended and doesn't help to
clarify what actually happened.

The key concerns when giving up control are the questions:
"How much did they take?"
"Where did it go?"

The "why?" and "how?" are less interesting since you gave up control
already and handed it over to us.

> Also, our hope is that we will be able to sum up a patron's
> contributions to all their projects, so they would only be hit by a
> single payment charge. In that case, it is impossible to get charged
> in April, but have other donations roll forward from April to May.
> Either a patron contributes to *all* their projects in a month, or
> they contribute to none of them.

You're right. My mockups content isn't for real and makes no sense on
that level.

> So: whether there is one project, or many projects, there is only one
> thing that matters: What do we show for a month where a patron is
> pledged, and contributes, but is not charged?

A simple note:
"Your charge was just too low for the charging fee limit.
We carried it over to next month."

beneath that a big "0".
Because "0" is what happened.

>> Suspended projects are not treated different as non-pledged and should
>> not show up specially. Notifications can be used to communicate all details.
> I think the same critique applies. If this page is to show a history
> of participation, suspended projects need to show up.

My rationale is as above: The special thing about suspended projects is
their *lack* of participation. That is not to say the event can be
neglected, but in terms of displaying participation it does not make
sense to display "almost-paticipation".
It should be the job of the notification system to warn and the job of a
complete, gap-less log to document it.

The reason I think the history should not do all those jobs is that I
generally expect people not to care about gap-less documentation.
They should get an easy to digest history of what happened before with
their money.
At least that is what I would expect.

>> * I also like keeping the history tab consistent with the running months
>> matching tab.
> +1.
> FYI, I have created a US to track this story, and have pasted in the
> mockups so far.
> https://tree.taiga.io/project/snowdrift/us/454
> I've named it according to my understanding that we are talking about
> a history of participation rather than just a history of payments, but
> please consider that point "open for discussion" still. :)
> _______________________________________________
> Design mailing list
> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to