On 08/10/2016 05:59 AM, Bryan Richter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:35:03PM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) > wrote: >> >> >> 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. >
I'd like to not get distracted too much since the whole limits and edge cases here are post-immediate-launch, but: I suggest the design for the edge case just say "carry-over from February - April" for a case where several months go by before the total is worth charging, and then the over-limit edge-case can be displayed as "remaining February - April carry-over not charged last month" or similar. I don't think it's too hard to make this clear.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
