On 08/31/2016 05:57 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:06:31AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray)
> wrote:
>> On 29.08.2016 22:35, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> I think two pages for "payment history" and "pledge history"
>>> should be considered. They each solve separate questions: (A)
>>> "where did my money go?" and (B) "How does this crowdmatch thing
>>> work in terms of my place in it and the projects I support?" (i.e.
>>> understand the system via reviewing your history as a patron).
>>> Both do seem relevant to MVP. Combining them may make it harder
>>> than designing to separately answer each question…
>> I don't think (B) would be relevant for MVP. We currently have at
>> least *some* information that can shed light on that. At least
>> enough for MVP.
> There doesn't seem to be any hope of reconciling "payment history" and
> "pledge history" pages. Nor does there need to be. I think it's time
> for a decision.
> There are three classes of information:
> 1. Current pledge information
> 2. Historic payment information
> 3. Historic pledge information
> These forms of information should be made available as separate pages,
> with the given ordering being used as implementation priority.
> "Current pledge information" will be available on the dashboard[1],
> along with the controls to modify pledge status.
> "Historic pledge information" will doubtless include aspects of
> history *payment* information. That's contributed to the current
> challenge: one *could* include *all* payment information within
> historic pledge information. But I am explicitly deciding to call out
> payment history into its own page.
> "Historic payment information" will, in fact, be hardly more than a
> list of credit card charges. mray's vision will be captured here. This
> page is too simple and useful to leave hanging. We can add a payment
> history page now, and it will be hardly affected when we add extra
> features. Whether or not we have features like limits, rollover, or
> suspended pledges will hardly affect the display of historic payment
> information. Payment history is a pleasingly stable form of history.
> Creating this page frees us to show historic pledge information in a
> way most suited to engaging and explaining the mechanism.
> P.S. Whether or not such-and-such a page is "MVP" has always been a
> vague notion. What does "MVP" mean anymore? We already have an MVP
> that we are iterating upon. Deciding when and to whom to advertise our
> existence is the real question.
> Right now we are focusing on the people who want to support Snowdrift
> at any cost. They don't need any history information whatsoever. Next
> comes payment history, since it's so simple and static. Finally comes
> pledge history, as part of the neverending task of engaging and
> illuminating the mechanism.
> [1]: Current pledge information will be available in other places as
> well, of course.

This approach sounds fine to me from a prioritization perspective. 
However, as soon as we're aiming to support more than a small number of
"insider" users, I think we will need an effective explanation of *why*
the historic payments were what they were, which means showing how
historic payment information relates to historic pledge information,
including edge case complexities where a month's payment was not the
same as that month's pledge total.  We can't just separately have one
list of credit card charges and another list of monthly pledge totals. 
We need some way to show how they relate to each other.  Both mray's and
my recent mockups aim to do that.  I don't think our debate has been
about whether we need to do that, but about how best to do it.  In any
case, I'm all for putting this on the back burner in order to get
something up and running that doesn't yet address this issue, and then
come back to this when we're ready to actually implement it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to