On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray)
> 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.

I think this looks amazing. But I am easily wowed by nice graphics.
Looking forward to Michael's response. Robert, I'm also curious how
you think we should handle that stupid edge case of "This month + Last
month's carryover > Limit". I wish we could just abolish that edge
case somehow. Not sure it's possible though.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to