On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 09:32:12AM -0600, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 05:57 AM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 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.

To be clear, I am saying that we should use both Robert's and Michael's
visions, but on separate pages. Robert's "Where did my money go?" is
payment history. If we allow a page to be JUST payment history, that
page can be as simple as we please. It can skip months and provide
opaque totals. It does not need to carefully explain each month's
pledge/crowdmatch activity. It has just one purpose.

With that out of the way, we can provide a more robust pledge history,
which is Michael's "effective explanation of *why* history payments
were what they were". Pledge history will *include* payment history.
But the user won't be forced to parse payment history out of pledge
history. Payment history information will be separately available in
unambiguous simplicity. This will allow that information to FACILITATE
the explanation of pledge history, rather than be dependent on it.

I agree with mray that we need a simple, clear, unambiguous description
of payment history, and I agree with Msiep that such information is not
sufficient for selling Snowdrift to the world at large — and the whole
is greater than the sum of its parts.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to