On 08.08.2016 19:55, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> Here's a revised mockup without the pledge subtotal and showing both the "too 
> low" and "too high" reasons for carryover. In this example, the user 
> increased 
> their limit in July.  There are other changes also, such as noting what the 
> limit was on the charge line.  I'm also atttaching the .ODS file.

I think there need to be two distinct representations of your activity
on snowdrift.

1. A *complete* log of all activity, including details as date and time
when any project pledge button was used to pledge/unpledge, date and
time when your payment processor got set up correctly, when you money
actually got transferred, ... just *lots* of details.

2. An overview of what just happened, reassuring that things are going
as you expect them to go, and that you understood the crowdmatching
mechanism and that YOU are in control.

Assuming that both views are needed my approach is to visually support
each accordingly. Your mockup seems closer to a representation as in
"1." But I'd like to have a very simple and intuitive view in MVP that
mainly addresses the understanding of the mechanism rather than
controlling its accuracy. Of course we need both to live up to our
proclaimed goals of transparency.
My rationale to go for "2." is that we are on a journey to approach
people and earn enough trust so that they give up control and hand it
over to our mechanism. Having good intentions(tm) and having simple
rules like: "Never over limit!" & "Always under 10% fees!" is a good
start. But we also need to create an experience of being the driving
force in that mechanism, and my impression is that representation "2."
supports that better than "1."

Michael, do you agree a distinction of "1." and "2." makes sense?

My premise to a representation of "2." is:

   --- "What did I pay last months - and why?" ---

This question needs to be answered as simple and clear as possible.
Once we start explaining more we'll have a hard time to stay simple and
justifying not to go into even more detail.

So looking at your mockup this goes through my mind:
 * Why does paying $0 have to look as complex?
 * Why are numbers of patrons so prominent?
 * Why list projects that got no money from me?
 * Why is the day of the month of transaction important?

My attached mockup addresses those issues by
 * simplifying $0-months and making the carry-over visually obvious
 * moving patrons away from where you probably do some quick math
 * removing suspended projects
 * removing the date

I do agree though, that having the respective limit for each month is
necessary, so I added that bit of information.

Michael, what are your views on having such a premise and approaching
things the way I do?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to