On 01.09.2016 16:38, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> 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.

Sounds good to me, too.
I'm just somewhat confused what this means in terms of a decision.
If MVP is a vague term - what exactly needs mockups *now*?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to