<http://pool.sks-keyservers.net/pks/lookup?search=0x6D65A4F7&fingerprint=on&hash=on&op=vindex>
On 06/13/2016 09:32 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: > On 06/13/2016 07:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: >> On 06/10/2016 09:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >>> On 06/10/2016 04:39 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: >>>> On 06/09/2016 06:36 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote: >>>>> On 06/09/2016 01:21 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: >>>>>> I've put some revised mockups at >>>>>> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/ based on recent thoughts >>>>>> and conversations. Two new things they include are (a) a >>>>>> red/yellow/green max status indicator on every page, and (b) the project >>>>>> pages list three ways it makes a difference to the project whether >>>>>> you're a patron or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking forward to further discussion. >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Michael! I like this direction in various ways. >>>>> >>>>> Main item: if we're keeping the global setting for pledge-base-level, >>>>> then there are ramifications of that that need to play out in the rest >>>>> of the mockups. >>>>> >>>>> For example, the amount of cost for a given patron *and* the amount of >>>>> matching in dollars will vary based on this pledge-base variable. A >>>>> generous pledge base will get less than 1:1 matching and the presence of >>>>> generous pledge bases from others will result in a minimal patron >>>>> getting greater than 1:1 matching. >>>>> >>>>> It would be ideal if the interface successfully communicates that this >>>>> is happening and makes the understanding of it clear and >>>>> self-explanatory… The current mockups all have numbers that are when all >>>>> patrons are at a minimum. So what happens in other cases? And is it >>>>> clear enough to people? >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise, I like the 3-benefits informative bit. >>>>> >>>>> Here's an aspect I've wanted that we had in earliest mockups: In the >>>>> place where people can change their pledge-base, a message could say >>>>> "remember, the *best* way to donate more is to promote the project to >>>>> others and gain new patrons (who you will match)" or something to that >>>>> effect. It's nice to note that larger pledge-base could itself provide >>>>> more incentive to others though. My concern here overall is how the >>>>> interface can successfully justify the variable pledge-base and help >>>>> people use it effectively and not counter-productively. >>>> I've made adjustments to all three project mockups to account for >>>> variable pledge-base-level, using the phrase "average pledge value per >>>> patron" to indicate that the pledge value is not the same for every patron. >>>> >>> Nice. Maybe we should have a mockup of what happens if you hit "change" >>> for the pledge level in the dashboard. >> Try the "Change" links for pledge level and monthly max at >> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/dashboard_sufficient.html >> . The "Suggest" button also works, suggesting in this case 20x whatever >> you put in the pledge level multiple field. The "Change" button doesn't >> actually make the changes, but the idea is you'd return to the regular >> dashboard view with the changes in place. (If the change you made >> resulted in one or more pledges being suspended, then the dashboard >> would should that of course, but the idea of the "Suggest" button and >> associated messaging is to prevent that from happening for the most part.) >> > I don't know why I didn't try clicking. > > What about using 0.1¢ instead of $0.001 ? > > I think some degree of guidance in this case makes sense. I don't find > the "suggest" button transparent though, like why this is the suggestion. > > So, there's this concern about thwarting the matching effect by just > adjusting pledge base to unreasonably high base. I could imagine more > clear guidance indicating that 0.1¢ is considered the standard minimum > default. We could make it more clear that 0.2¢ is a "double pledge" or > something like that. We could indicate that the *reason* for a higher > base as an option is for wealthier folks to offer more, or alternately > stated: because the world is full of wealth inequality so we can't > pretend that it makes sense for everyone to be at the same level. > > *Ideally* we'd be able to tell people who are millionaires that their > pledge base should be at least 10¢ or something. Basically, some > guidance for levels. > > My preference would be an interface with several clear radio options and > an "other" field instead of just open-ended. People need some anchors. > As in https://action.aclu.org/donate-aclu which has $25, $50, $75, $100, > other. > > We discussed this a while back when we were considering "shares" still, > and I liked: 0.1¢, 0.2¢, 0.3¢, 0.5¢, 1¢, other. (The implication being > that 1¢ was pretty high generous level, etc) and we tried doing some A/B > ideas with that vs 0.1¢, 0.2¢, 0.4¢, 0.8¢, 1.6¢, other etc. > > Michael, you'd be the right person here to think about the best way to > research (and the best info from existing general research) for how to > set up this choice list. I think we should start with this type of radio > options and then see how the presentation affects people. > > My hypothesis is that offering just a blank field will get far too many > people trying overly high levels initially. > > This outdated page from the time we were using "shares" may be useful > perspective while we figure out this design: > https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/archives/communications/shares > I see the issue. I probably won't be able to spend more time on this until next week, but will think about this.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
