Re: [Snowdrift-design] Mockup of account history

[Michael Siepmann]

On 08/12/2016 03:32 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 08/12/2016 02:28 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Wolf  wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2016 01:58 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
  Here's a rough-around-the-edges modification of mray's mockup with the
  kind of information and structure I'm arguing for:

  http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/7949e02830/?raw=1

>>> My biggest concern is "carried over from last month" could give the
>>> impression that we *do* charge more than the limit for a month, like if
>>> the limit is $10 and the crowdmatching gets to $12, we carry over $2 to
>>> the next month. Of course, that's not what we're proposing. But I think
>>> it needs to be clear that the carry over is only from charges too small
>>> to be worth it given fees.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how to make that clear, but the point is that the
>>> carry-over is only ever funds that could have been charged earlier but
>>> we delayed them to minimize fees.
>>>
>>> The "to next month" parts get this, but the first thing I saw was "from
>>> last month" and there it wasn't clear.
>> In June of the mockup, it shows a scenario where $pledge + $fees >
>> $limit. This would allow someone to accrue a running balance that will
>> never be paid off, and violates our "no more than $limit per month"
>> rule. I don't think that should ever happen; in that scenario the pledge
>> should become suspended.
>>
>> However, that is not related to how we present the information on this
>> page.
>>
> Absolutely, and Stephen's point aligns with mine. The only thing that
> should ever be carried over is charges that came from a month that was
> too low to be worth charging. We should never carry over fees. The total
> of pledges *plus* fee has to be under the limit for a given month to
> keep the pledge active.
>

I think something is getting lost here.  I'll try to find it in previous
emails but we have definitely discussed a scenario where we need to
carry over to the next month in order to gradually get rid of carry over
from previous months, which would initially have exceeded the limit. 
Let me see if I can find what I'm referring to...



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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Mockup of account history

[Michael Siepmann]

  On 08/12/2016 04:08 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:

> On 08/12/2016 03:59 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> 
>
> Here's what I had in mind, from the "How the limit works" thread:
>
> On 08/03/2016 06:34 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 08/03/2016 05:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> Whenever there needs to be a carry-over, we use the difference
>>> between a month's charges and any outstanding carry-over from
>>> previous to reach up to the max, and thus widdle-away the carry-over >
>> over multiple months if need be.
>>
>> Error in my wording: I meant "the difference between the max and the
>> current month's charges as the amount of any carry-over that is
>> available to be charged in a given month"
>>
>
> That's what I intended to depict, but I see that how June 2016 doesn't
> do that correctly and instead depicts a situation that shouldn't ever
> exist.  Thanks for catching it, Stephen.  The "widdle-away" approach
> means we *can* carry over to the next month to avoid exceeding the
> limit, but only from any amount carried over to this month from the
> previous month.  I'll update it to depict that scenario.

How about this?:

http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/83aacffd4f/?raw=1

I've tried new wording to try to make it clearer, and updated the
numbers to show a realistic "widdle-away" scenario for a couple of
months.  Fortunately most of the time this complex a scenario won't arise.


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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Mockup of account history

[Aaron Wolf]

On 08/12/2016 03:54 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>   On 08/12/2016 04:08 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> 
>> On 08/12/2016 03:59 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> 
>>
>> Here's what I had in mind, from the "How the limit works" thread:
>>
>> On 08/03/2016 06:34 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2016 05:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
 Whenever there needs to be a carry-over, we use the difference
 between a month's charges and any outstanding carry-over from
 previous to reach up to the max, and thus widdle-away the carry-over >
>>> over multiple months if need be.
>>>
>>> Error in my wording: I meant "the difference between the max and the
>>> current month's charges as the amount of any carry-over that is
>>> available to be charged in a given month"
>>>
>>
>> That's what I intended to depict, but I see that how June 2016 doesn't
>> do that correctly and instead depicts a situation that shouldn't ever
>> exist.  Thanks for catching it, Stephen.  The "widdle-away" approach
>> means we *can* carry over to the next month to avoid exceeding the
>> limit, but only from any amount carried over to this month from the
>> previous month.  I'll update it to depict that scenario.
> 
> How about this?:
> 
> http://snowdrift.sylphs.net/f/83aacffd4f/?raw=1
> 
> I've tried new wording to try to make it clearer, and updated the
> numbers to show a realistic "widdle-away" scenario for a couple of
> months.  Fortunately most of the time this complex a scenario won't arise.
> 

How about putting the edge case of "carry over from … to …" *after* the
charge so it makes more math sense? As in:

Snowdrift.coop $9.39
Carryover from May $1.39
Payment processing fee $0.57
___
Charge $10 (at limit)
Carryover from May carried over to June $1.35

or alternately:

New charges:
Snowdrift.coop $9.39
Payment processing fee $0.57
June total: $9.96
$0.04 of May carry-over included in total charge of $10.00

Or something of that nature.

The features are:

* Show this month's total as a single clear thing to understand first
what happened this month

* Display the partial carry-over as an extra "hey, we had some room
before max to cover part of the carry-over from when we delayed charge
to avoid fees"

It could then say "X is remaining from earlier carry-overs to still be
charged in future months".

Thankfully, this scenario is unlikely edge-case as I've said before. But
I could see segregating carry-overs this way even when it's charging all
the carry-over…

Just ideas to consider



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