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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
