[Design] project page specs

[Aaron Wolf]

Okay, I took the initial brainstorm after our discussion and finished a
draft of the actual specs for the project landing page:

http://flurry.snowdrift.coop:2040/shared/ahH1vsFBjbhHRsLW-5n-6uMjPLTwnd9x7LSec-eH_Iw

We should probably move this to the wiki where we can have a more
permanent and better formatted spec page and associated discussion page
separately.

This should for right now be adequate to implement aside from discussing
the questions I added to a questions section.

The brainstorm part below is the rough sketch and notes / discussion
that led to where we are now.

FWIW, the implementation really should focus on getting the stuff Robert
already mocked up and figuring out how to get that into an updated
branch we can build off of. However, we do not want to put on the live
site the junk test-data stuff, we want to have this working with a real
project: us for now. So, we should make sure all the pieces are in place
that are alpha important (marked with an A on the spec)

None of this is set in stone, thanks everyone for helping push this forward.

Cheers


-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] /Project page "ready"

[Bryan Richter]

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 06:36:23PM -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> On 12/06/2015 03:33 PM, mray wrote:
>>
>> On 06.12.2015 22:12, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>> A mild side-note: it seems semantically wrong to call the top section
>>> of the project page an . The pledge button and stats and
>>> screen shot are definitely not an article. That needs to be changed.
>>> An  is like a blog post, it is specifically for actual
>>> content that could be stripped out and printed as a piece of writing,
>>> an article…
>>>
>>
>> I don't think this is neither the time to change the design, nor the
>> time for any kind of side notes. The design does have issues in my eyes,
>> too. Let us talk about those after there is an actual page to talk about.
>>
>
> I'm not going to insist and will defer to some degree to others and
> their opinions about workflow, but I dislike the idea that we ignore
> apparent issues. The idea of fast iteration and agile development is,
> well, superior I think, to strict waterfall style work. Effectively, the
> idea that we absolutely complete a stage before it moves to the next
> stage where other sorts of issues can be addressed is, I think, an old
> fashioned and inefficient way to work.

Aaron, it seems like you are arguing against yourself here. There are
indeed imperfect elements, but that's ok. We'll iterate and fix them
next time.

If we stop and hash out every detail about mray's html right now, that
would definitely not be agile.

Waterfall is slightly different; we wouldn't be waterfalling even if
we *did* hash out all the html questions. But still.

> Now, it's perfectly fine to say "okay, that concern is noted, but I
> think that particular concern should wait until X and Y are done before
> we tackle it". I'm not against focusing or having an order to things at
> all. I just think there's risk of a lot of excessive work being done if
> we close off mentioning various issues and concerns until some point.

The alternative risk is spending a lot of time getting every little
thing correct, only to realize it will all be thrown away. Being agile
is about going all the way through the process, shipping real code, on
short timescales. It is not about being flexible with requirements;
that follows naturally. It is not about getting every detail right up
front; that is anathema.

>> Concerning the breadcrumbs in particular: I don't think there is an
>> alternative to having one hierarchy - that is the nature of them.
>>
>
> Yes, there must be specifically a clear single-path tree-style hierarchy
> for the breadcrumbs. But the breadcrumbs should not include the project
> categories, because those should be tags and not part of the hierarchy.

I agree here. It seems like projects would basically be a top-level
item for breadcrumbs.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] /Project page "ready"

[mray]

On 06.12.2015 04:29, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> I don't quite understand why the sun is bouncing around. When it starts
> to overlap the other objects, it looks really glitchy. Video attached
> 

Thanks for the video. This is ... interesting. Actually this animation
just rotates a white div container with rounded borders, and I don't get
any glitch like that either on Firefox or Chromium. What browser are you
using?

> Overall, on my very standard resolution of 1366x768 screen (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions — this is
> called "standardized HDTV 720p/1080i display… used in most cheaper
> notebooks", i.e. it is extremely common) things are still substantially
> too big. The layout of stuff on the page is just awkward in that it
> feels like I can't get a comfortable amount of things on the screen at once.

Maybe scaling the whole page down a bit is an option (like we scale up
on resolutions >2000px)?
Change the font-size of the  element and let me know what values
would work fine.

> 
> I don't know if @media queries can consider height, but I would use the
> breakpoints in such a way that anything within the 1300 to 1399 width
> size should be assumed to be widescreen, i.e. to be relatively short
> height. I think that all taller screen dimensions are more like 1200
> pixels wide or less or get into higher-res screens.
> 
> Other than those two issues, it's looking largely good, although I see
> various things I might want tweaked, but can wait until we hack out a
> more operational prototype.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/05/2015 04:15 PM, mray wrote:
>> I just want to let you know that my current branch at
>>
>>   https://git.gnu.io/mray/snowdrift/commits/new-project-page
>>
>> contains /project HTML and CSS that "could go live" from my part.
>> It is not super polished and may still have bigger issues, but nothing
>> that jumps to my eye.
>>
>> Note that I also changed other files and moved css into default-layout
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Design mailing list
>> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
>>
> 



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

Re: [Design] /Project page "ready"

[Aaron Wolf]

On 12/06/2015 03:33 PM, mray wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06.12.2015 22:12, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/06/2015 02:24 AM, mray wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 06.12.2015 04:29, Aaron Wolf wrote:
 I don't quite understand why the sun is bouncing around. When it 
 starts to overlap the other objects, it looks really glitchy. 
 Video attached

>>
>>> Thanks for the video. This is ... interesting. Actually this 
>>> animation just rotates a white div container with rounded borders, 
>>> and I don't get any glitch like that either on Firefox or
>>> Chromium. What browser are you using?
>>
>>
>> I'm using Firefox.
>>
>> To be clear, regardless of the glitch, when there's only a small
>> amount of the sun showing, the fact that it blends into the white of
>> the other div means that when it happens to be at a size like that,
>> it's not clearly a sun or anything and just seems very weird like "why
>> is there a little pulsing bump on the border??"
>>
>> My inclination is to remove the sun entirely from the project page.
>>
> 
> The sun gets removed, just only after the next breakpoint. Same is true
> for other background things. It does not really break the page to have
> it sitting there, I'm more concerned about eventually fixing the glitch.
> 
 Overall, on my very standard resolution of 1366x768 screen (see 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions — this 
 is called "standardized HDTV 720p/1080i display… used in most 
 cheaper notebooks", i.e. it is extremely common) things are
 still substantially too big. The layout of stuff on the page is
 just awkward in that it feels like I can't get a comfortable
 amount of things on the screen at once.
>>
>>> Maybe scaling the whole page down a bit is an option (like we
>>> scale up on resolutions >2000px)? Change the font-size of the
>>>  element and let me know what values would work fine.
>>
>>
>> Well, I tried just zooming out, and by the time the amount that shows
>> height-wise is reasonable (note that I have task bar and tab and
>> address bar, that stuff further cuts down the height of a standard web
>> browser on this common screen size), the smallest fonts are really
>> uncomfortably small.
>>
>> That said, the more I look at this, the more convinced I am that the
>> smallest font-size (that used for "matching" and "project total" and
>> "Projects > Software > " etc.) is actually too small even at full
>> size. It's just *barely* readable as is. I actually think we should up
>> the size of that smallest font generally.
>>
>> As for the overall thing about being too tall, mainly the issue is the
>> size of the image/screenshot. Other things about the design are all
>> really a bit too vertical and tall. The space between the navbar and
>> the pledge button is taller than needed. I really think basically the
>> design needs to be adjusted to consider having a good comfortable
>> amount of stuff showing within the first about 525px below the navbar.
>> And this should not be done by shrinking everything, as the smallest
>> font is already too small, and the spacing width-wise is good and
>> should not be made any smaller at all. More padding on the sides isn't
>> desirable.
>>
>> On an important side note: I feel pretty strongly that we should not
>> have hard boxes for "software" or whatever other project categories. A
>> project shouldn't strictly live in a "software" box such that
>> "Projects > Software > Inkscape > Updates" should exist. Instead,
>> "software" should be a type of *tag* so that a project can have
>> multiple tags. And the project page should indicate, probably in the
>> top-right of the div that has the project title, what tags this
>> project has.
>>
>> A mild side-note: it seems semantically wrong to call the top section
>> of the project page an . The pledge button and stats and
>> screen shot are definitely not an article. That needs to be changed.
>> An  is like a blog post, it is specifically for actual
>> content that could be stripped out and printed as a piece of writing,
>> an article…
>>
> 
> I don't think this is neither the time to change the design, nor the
> time for any kind of side notes. The design does have issues in my eyes,
> too. Let us talk about those after there is an actual page to talk about.
> 

I'm not going to insist and will defer to some degree to others and
their opinions about workflow, but I dislike the idea that we ignore
apparent issues. The idea of fast iteration and agile development is,
well, superior I think, to strict waterfall style work. Effectively, the
idea that we absolutely complete a stage before it moves to the next
stage where other sorts of issues can be addressed is, I think, an old
fashioned and inefficient way to work.

Now, it's perfectly fine to say "okay, that concern is noted, but I
think that particular concern should wait until X and Y are done before
we tackle it". I'm not against focusing or having an order to things at
all. I just 

Re: [Design] project page

[Stephen Michel]

For everybody else it will always turn out to be: What you give gets 
doubled by the community


So, this isn't quite true.
For people who pledge at the minimum level, your pledge will be just 
over doubled by the community.
For people who pledge at above the minimum level, their pledge will be 
less-than-doubled by the community.


This got me thinking, and the end result was this:

https://lists.snowdrift.coop/pipermail/discuss/2015-October/000121.html

I sent it to the discuss list because it concerns more than just 
design, but it is VERY relevant to this discussion.


~Stephen
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] project page

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/19/2015 12:57 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>> On 10/19/2015 12:30 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Bryan Richter > > wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:43:26PM +0200, mray wrote: On
>> 18.10.2015 21:18, Aaron Wolf wrote: > > We want people to
>> think is "I get the project $15 more dollars, and I > only had
>> to chip in $6! Thanks everyone, all you 2,470 others! I'm so >
>> glad we're all working together to support this!" I don't
>> think we want that at all. This makes it sound as if this is a
>> big bragain. Then I think the message should be more clear.
>> First off, it's crucial that people realize "When I give the
>> project 6 bucks, it actually receives 15 since other people
>> match me." That is THE Snowdrift model. :) Matching-funds is
>> one of the crucial differentating features of Snowdrift, so if
>> people don't like it, they won't like Snowdrift. And if they
>> DO like it — which they should — we should highlight it so
>> they understand it's what we do. We should be proud of it.
>> This fallacious good feeling is entirely based on the naive
>> idea that you will never be asked to give more yourself -
>> maybe way beyond $15 dollar. Isn't it two different things to
>> say, "Your funds will be matched by others," and, "Your
>> donation won't change over time?" We can easily say the first
>> one without making false claims about the second.
>> ___ Design mailing
>> list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
>> 
>> 
>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design 
>>
>> +1 to all of this. I'd like to highlight a different way of
>> pitching it: When you donate originally, your donation will be
>> matched by all current donors. When a new donor joins on, there's
>> now another person to match you, so your donation increases a
>> little bit (and is matched). 
>>
>> To be precise, if you're an average patron, then when you *first*
>> pledge, you are basically matched 1:1. But then every additional small
>> amount you put it after that is matched many times over, maybe
>> thousands-to-one! If you are the 5,000th patron and everyone's at the
>> base level, then your initial $5 is basically matched by $5 from
>> others. But when the *next* patron joins, your extra 0.1¢ is part of
>> an extra $10 — your extra is matched 10,000 to one!! 
> 
> I'm not sure this is the right way to think about it. If I'm the 5,000th
> patron, my initial $5 is matched 1:1. Now the next patron joins, and I
> add .1¢. Say I decide $5.001 is too much to pay, so I decide to drop
> out. The project loses my $5.0001, and $5 from the other patrons
> decreasing their pledge. Still 1:1.
> 
> I stick by this way of describing it: When I initially pledge, all ~5k
> patrons match .1¢ of my donation. When the next person joins, they match
> my additional .1¢.

Yes, when you drop out, it's a 1:1 loss, but it is literally true that
if you accept your $5 as a given, then your *acceptance* of giving
$5.001 *literally* means that your extra is indeed matched over and over
by every single other patron. It is factually true, not a weird spin,
that your agreement to donate more is matched by everyone else's
agreement to donate more, and so all patrons are getting matched many
times over for each *extra* they add beyond their initial level.

This is precisely true and how it works. You do *not* only get the
matching from the new patron, you *also* get matched by everyone else.

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] project page

[Jonathan Roberts]

All my dreams! Thanks!

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Stephen Michel 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan Roberts <
> robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stephen. This is extremely helpful. How do I access a site map so I
> don't have to keep asking these kinds of questions? The only way I know to
> find these pages right now is to stumble through a chain of clickable terms
> starting at the home page till I get to the relevant page.
>
>
> It's not everything, but the wiki directory covers a lot:
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Stephen Michel 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Jonathan Roberts <
>> robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mray, I hear your concern; you don't want people to be "tricked" into
>> buying into this system or to do it because it's a fun gimmick. However, I
>> don't think this representation crosses that line. I think it is a blunt
>> presentation of why this system is so effective. Yes, some people will feel
>> things about it that aren't as idealistic as we want people to feel. So it
>> goes.
>>
>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits is super helpful and
>> contains really well thought out possibilities
>>
>> Again...I know this is a new question and maybe it deserves a new thread,
>> but is there any discussion about paying for a high volume of transfers of
>> very small amounts of money?
>>
>>
>> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/transactions
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:43 PM, mray  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18.10.2015 21:18, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 10/18/2015 12:09 PM, mray wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On 18.10.2015 09:47, Jacob Chapman wrote:
>>> >>> https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to
>>> encourage
>>> >>> patrons to pledge.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> The problem with the match factor is that it is always the same, so
>>> >> there is no real benefit in constantly reminding a user what it is.
>>> >> It also is just an invitation to start calculating in the head - which
>>> >> I'd like to avoid at all costs.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > To be clear: despite your wishes for simplicity, we have not come to a
>>> > consensus about the idea of removing the ability to pledge lower or
>>> > higher levels. I recognize that the complexity of people pledging at
>>> > levels above the minimum is an issue, but I still feel that there are a
>>> > wide range of levels of wealth and it just does *not* make sense to
>>> > ignore that and force everyone to only have a single pledge level. All
>>> > other patronage models that people will compare to have different
>>> levels
>>> > of donation for wealthier or less wealthy patrons.
>>> >
>>> > If we accept, as I still feel we should, that the pledge is X per
>>> patron
>>> > rather than everyone at the identical minimum pledge, then the amount
>>> of
>>> > matching *isn't* absolutely fixed. Wealthier pledges mean more matching
>>> > for new patrons.
>>>
>>> My point is that even with a changing match factor your interaction
>>> remains binary: either you pledge (your amount X) or you don't.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>   We should not make people calculate.
>>> >>
>>> >> They should see what is happening and what the results of their
>>> possible
>>> >> action would be, and formulas don't really lend themselves neither to
>>> >> emphasize nor to encourage (at least the vast majority).
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I agree that we should have no formulas and calculation factors. We
>>> > should just show that you pledging means $Y more for the project and
>>> > costs you $X. In other words, it's a *big* deal to actually learn that
>>> > at this lower cost, you are effectively getting this *specific* higher
>>> > amount of funds to the project.
>>>
>>> I don't see a particular benefit from this. there is just not enough
>>> variation. The information starts being relevant only in cases where
>>> people substantially diverge from the average. For everybody else it
>>> will always turn out to be: What you give gets doubled by the community.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > We want people to think is "I get the project $15 more dollars, and I
>>> > only had to chip in $6! Thanks everyone, all you 2,470 others! I'm so
>>> > glad we're all working together to support this!"
>>>
>>> I don't think we want that at all. This makes it sound as if this is a
>>> big bragain. This fallacious good feeling is entirely based on the naive
>>> idea that you will never be asked to give more yourself - maybe way
>>> beyond $15 dollar.
>>> We should never even play with the idea to appear as if there are some
>>> interesting bargains! At the contrary: we need to make clear that people
>>> should feel great to be able to pay more for their project since it is
>>> guaranteed to be part of a true difference, rather than a nice 

Re: [Design] project page

[Stephen Michel]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jonathan Roberts 
 wrote:
Thanks Stephen. This is extremely helpful. How do I access a site map 
so I don't have to keep asking these kinds of questions? The only way 
I know to find these pages right now is to stumble through a chain of 
clickable terms starting at the home page till I get to the relevant 
page.


It's not everything, but the wiki directory covers a lot:
https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Stephen Michel 
 wrote:



On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Jonathan Roberts 
 wrote:
Mray, I hear your concern; you don't want people to be "tricked" 
into buying into this system or to do it because it's a fun 
gimmick. However, I don't think this representation crosses that 
line. I think it is a blunt presentation of why this system is so 
effective. Yes, some people will feel things about it that aren't 
as idealistic as we want people to feel. So it goes.


https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/limits is super helpful and 
contains really well thought out possibilities


Again...I know this is a new question and maybe it deserves a new 
thread, but is there any discussion about paying for a high volume 
of transfers of very small amounts of money?


https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/transactions


On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:43 PM, mray  wrote:



On 18.10.2015 21:18, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>
> On 10/18/2015 12:09 PM, mray wrote:
>>
>> On 18.10.2015 09:47, Jacob Chapman wrote:
>>> 
https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n

>>>
>>> We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to 
encourage

>>> patrons to pledge.
>>>
>>
>> The problem with the match factor is that it is always the 
same, so
>> there is no real benefit in constantly reminding a user what it 
is.
>> It also is just an invitation to start calculating in the head 
- which

>> I'd like to avoid at all costs.
>>
>
> To be clear: despite your wishes for simplicity, we have not 
come to a
> consensus about the idea of removing the ability to pledge lower 
or
> higher levels. I recognize that the complexity of people 
pledging at
> levels above the minimum is an issue, but I still feel that 
there are a
> wide range of levels of wealth and it just does *not* make sense 
to
> ignore that and force everyone to only have a single pledge 
level. All
> other patronage models that people will compare to have 
different levels

> of donation for wealthier or less wealthy patrons.
>
> If we accept, as I still feel we should, that the pledge is X 
per patron
> rather than everyone at the identical minimum pledge, then the 
amount of
> matching *isn't* absolutely fixed. Wealthier pledges mean more 
matching

> for new patrons.

My point is that even with a changing match factor your interaction
remains binary: either you pledge (your amount X) or you don't.

>
>>   We should not make people calculate.
>>
>> They should see what is happening and what the results of their 
possible
>> action would be, and formulas don't really lend themselves 
neither to

>> emphasize nor to encourage (at least the vast majority).
>>
>
> I agree that we should have no formulas and calculation factors. 
We
> should just show that you pledging means $Y more for the project 
and
> costs you $X. In other words, it's a *big* deal to actually 
learn that
> at this lower cost, you are effectively getting this *specific* 
higher

> amount of funds to the project.

I don't see a particular benefit from this. there is just not 
enough
variation. The information starts being relevant only in cases 
where
people substantially diverge from the average. For everybody else 
it
will always turn out to be: What you give gets doubled by the 
community.


>
> We want people to think is "I get the project $15 more dollars, 
and I
> only had to chip in $6! Thanks everyone, all you 2,470 others! 
I'm so

> glad we're all working together to support this!"

I don't think we want that at all. This makes it sound as if this 
is a
big bragain. This fallacious good feeling is entirely based on the 
naive

idea that you will never be asked to give more yourself - maybe way
beyond $15 dollar.
We should never even play with the idea to appear as if there are 
some
interesting bargains! At the contrary: we need to make clear that 
people
should feel great to be able to pay more for their project since 
it is
guaranteed to be part of a true difference, rather than a nice 
gesture.


>
> None of that includes doing calculations, it's merely: "I'm 
chipping in,
> others are chipping in *because* they're happy I'm included, and 
all of

> us together are helping."

I totally agree on this notion.

>
>> I do share your concern that the current illustration isn't 
good enough.
>> Displaying each donor via an icon does not clarify each one 
matches the

>> other.
>> I'm going to try alternatives.
>>

Re: [Design] project page

[mray]

On 18.10.2015 09:47, Jacob Chapman wrote:
> https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n
> 
> We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to encourage
> patrons to pledge.
> 

The problem with the match factor is that it is always the same, so
there is no real benefit in constantly reminding a user what it is.
It also is just an invitation to start calculating in the head - which
I'd like to avoid at all costs.

  We should not make people calculate.

They should see what is happening and what the results of their possible
action would be, and formulas don't really lend themselves neither to
emphasize nor to encourage (at least the vast majority).

I do share your concern that the current illustration isn't good enough.
Displaying each donor via an icon does not clarify each one matches the
other.
I'm going to try alternatives.

> Also I suggest we use /mo rather than /mth.

Ok. It didn't occur to me that there was an inconsistency.

> 
> Thanks,
> Jacob
> ___
> Design mailing list
> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
> 



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

Re: [Design] project page

[Jonathan Roberts]

The math is unclear to me as well. I think it needs to be clear to the
average viewer.

I think Aaron's suggestion would be more clear as well. You could have a
link on the page that goes to a page that explains the equation thoroughly
for those who want it.

Related question. How are we handling transfer fees for such small amounts
of money?

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/18/2015 12:47 AM, Jacob Chapman wrote:
> > https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n
> >
> > We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to encourage
> > patrons to pledge.
> >
>
> I agree, but I think the best presentation says basically, "at this
> time, you will add X, and the project will get Y more from everyone else
> in matching" or something to that effect, emphasizing the cost to you
> and the amount of matching more than just the total, although the total
> is worth showing too.
>
> I think the squared symbol is a bit confusing, we don't want to present
> it that way, and it's not how it works either. The matching is quadratic
> not exponential.
>
>
> > Also I suggest we use /mo rather than /mth.
> >
>
> Agreed, the site itself uses "mo" currently, although the design mockup
> is different.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Jacob
> > ___
> > Design mailing list
> > Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
> > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
> >
>
> --
> Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
> ___
> Design mailing list
> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
>
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] project page

[Stephen Michel]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jonathan Roberts 
 wrote:
How does the math work by the way? I assumed it was exponential until 
now...


https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mechanism

You pledge X per other patron.

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Jonathan Roberts 
 wrote:
The math is unclear to me as well. I think it needs to be clear to 
the average viewer.


I think Aaron's suggestion would be more clear as well. You could 
have a link on the page that goes to a page that explains the 
equation thoroughly for those who want it.


Related question. How are we handling transfer fees for such small 
amounts of money?


On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Aaron Wolf  
wrote:



On 10/18/2015 12:47 AM, Jacob Chapman wrote:
> https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n
>
> We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to 
encourage

> patrons to pledge.
>

I agree, but I think the best presentation says basically, "at this
time, you will add X, and the project will get Y more from everyone 
else
in matching" or something to that effect, emphasizing the cost to 
you
and the amount of matching more than just the total, although the 
total

is worth showing too.

I think the squared symbol is a bit confusing, we don't want to 
present
it that way, and it's not how it works either. The matching is 
quadratic

not exponential.


> Also I suggest we use /mo rather than /mth.
>

Agreed, the site itself uses "mo" currently, although the design 
mockup

is different.

> Thanks,
> Jacob
> ___
> Design mailing list
> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
>

--
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design




___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Design] project page

[Aaron Wolf]

On 10/18/2015 09:58 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jonathan Roberts
>  wrote:
>> How does the math work by the way? I assumed it was exponential until
>> now...
> 
> https://snowdrift.coop/p/snowdrift/w/en/mechanism
> 
> You pledge X per other patron.
> 

Actually, it's X per patron, not "other patron"

The math is this simple: You pledge $1 per 1,000 patrons, so that means
if there's 340 patrons, you donate $0.34. If there's 3,400 patrons, you
donate $3.40.

There's no formula to explain. It's that simple. We used to have a more
complex formula for certain objectives, but the complexity was too
cumbersome.

There's nothing exponential here. The quadratic thing is simply this:
1,000 patrons * $1 = $1,000 but 5,000 patrons * $5 = $25,000. Basically,
it's quadratic because it's linear increase in patrons * linear increase
in per-patron donations. So the *total* is quadratic, but each patron's
donation increases linearly.

The key items are: "you pledge X per patron", "your pledge today will be
X * Y given Y patrons", "your matching from others will be Z", the total
from everyone is A"

>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Jonathan Roberts
>> > wrote:
>>
>> The math is unclear to me as well. I think it needs to be clear to
>> the average viewer.
>>
>> I think Aaron's suggestion would be more clear as well. You could
>> have a link on the page that goes to a page that explains the
>> equation thoroughly for those who want it.
>>
>> Related question. How are we handling transfer fees for such small
>> amounts of money?
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Aaron Wolf > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/18/2015 12:47 AM, Jacob Chapman wrote:
>> > https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n
>> >
>> > We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to 
>> encourage
>> > patrons to pledge.
>> >
>>
>> I agree, but I think the best presentation says basically, "at
>> this
>> time, you will add X, and the project will get Y more from
>> everyone else
>> in matching" or something to that effect, emphasizing the cost
>> to you
>> and the amount of matching more than just the total, although
>> the total
>> is worth showing too.
>>
>> I think the squared symbol is a bit confusing, we don't want
>> to present
>> it that way, and it's not how it works either. The matching is
>> quadratic
>> not exponential.
>>
>>
>> > Also I suggest we use /mo rather than /mth.
>> >
>>
>> Agreed, the site itself uses "mo" currently, although the
>> design mockup
>> is different.
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jacob
>> > ___
>> > Design mailing list
>> > Design@lists.snowdrift.coop 
>> > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
>> ___
>> Design mailing list
>> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop 
>> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ___
> Design mailing list
> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
> 

-- 
Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop 
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design