On August 9, 2016 4:55:17 PM EDT, Michael Siepmann <m...@techdesignpsych.com> wrote: >On 08/09/2016 02:43 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >> On 08/09/2016 12:59 PM, Bryan Richter wrote: >> >>>> Also, I strongly support displaying it publicly that way "we only >>>> charge >>>> if the fee to processor is less than 10% of the total". >>> I will admit that the argument about sudden fee changes is a bit >weak. But I'm curious; what is the benefit to displaying a percentage >that makes you strongly prefer it? I still think a level of indirection >is a good thing. It almost always is in software. >>> >> First, I like transparently displaying the actual policy. >> >> Second, the percentage can vary by processor. So, Dwolla takes no >fee, >> and thus there's no minimum charge when using Dwolla. But say there >was >> a processor that took a strict 5% fee — I guess we'd accept that at >any >> level if we felt it was okay to use (even though that would be higher >> fee for medium and higher charges vs Stripe). But since this is all >> post-MVP, we can ignore this point. >> >> The main reason is that people are actually used to seeing fees as >> percentages. Most crowdfunding sites take a percentage fee (even >though >> that's unjustified — Kickstarter has no real justification besides >"we >> can" for taking a full 5% of a $10,000,000 project given that their >> costs are about the same as for a $10,000 project. We can discuss the >> merits of fixed amounts versus percentages, but percentage is the >common >> thing people are used to and compare. We use percentage in our own >> charts at >https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/market-research/other-crowdfunding >> >> I'll give some deference to Robert or others in the design area of >this >> though. > >I'd add that whether we display a minimum charge or a maximum >percentage, the fact is that we're using the percentage as our guide as >to what's a reasonable threshold, so it's more informative to display a >percentage, and connects more directly to what the user cares about. >They care about how much of their money is going to projects vs >overhead, and "fee always under 10%" clearly communicates a meaningful >limit on that, whereas "charge never below $3.50" leaves it unclear >exactly why we choose that limit and what it translates to in terms of >what they care about.
In Michael's mockup, when a charge is deferred to the following month, in the 'reason' field, we can replace "below minimum charge amount" with "to keep fees below 10%". That way we don't have to ever change that message *on the history screen* unless our policy changes -- if the message appears, it is always true. Of course we'd want to list out our providers, their fees, and the corresponding min charge on whatever page contains the "10% policy". As a user, I'd prefer to keep fees at 5% or below. I actually typed out something to that effect in my original comment, then deleted it because the way I phrased it made it post-mvp. But, I don't feel *that* strongly about it and we also have to balance our desire to keep fees low for users with our desire for payouts to, well, actually happen. -- Sent from my phone; please excuse my brevity. Email policy: http://smichel.me/email _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss