On 08/02/2016 05:55 PM, 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.

I think the pledge total was necessary when we were planning to have the
max/limit apply to that before payment processor fees and carry-overs,
but with the new approach discussed in the "How the limit works" thread,
I agree this subtotal is not necessary.

> * items that did not contribute to a months spending can be omitted for
> clarity. Carried over pledges appear on the respective new month.
> Suspended projects are not treated different as non-pledged and should
> not show up specially. Notifications can be used to communicate all details.

I strongly disagree with this. I think omitting this information creates
lack of clarity.  I think we should assume that users will rarely look
at the history, but that when they do, it's because they want to
understand where their money went (or didn't) and why.  That includes
knowing that it where it did *not* go that they might have expected it
to go, e.g. to a suspended project, and knowing why they were *not*
charged that month, i.e. because balance was carried over.

> * I also like keeping the history tab consistent with the running months
> matching tab.

I do not think consistency with the main dashboard view should be a goal
here.  They have very different purposes.  The purpose of the main
dashboard view is to show your limit, your current pledges, your amount
available to crowdmatch others, and especially the *relationship*
between these.  This means it makes sense to use a lot of space to make
the relationship clear.  In contrast, the purpose of the history is to
clearly and concisely show and explain a historical record of
transactions.  A familiar format like an account statement, that makes
efficient use of space is much better here, in my view.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to