On 08/31/2016 11:48 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> 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.

Sounds good to me.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to