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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to