On 03/12/2016 06:10 PM, Iko wrote: > On 12/03/16 01:05 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote: >> I'm attaching a report on the intro messaging feedback from SCaLE >> 14x. I'd be happy to discuss it in Monday's meeting if there's room >> in the agenda. Comments, questions, or discussion via email are >> welcome too, of course. >> >> <snip> > > Thanks for producing the feedback survey and putting a report > together. I like the polling format of providing screenshots for > people to annotate, and the report is well-organised and succinct. > Some interesting points for discussion. Thanks - glad you like it. > Agreed: > * p13, "Browse" link — if we make it clear on the front page info that > Snowdrift.coop is for funding projects, then it'd be clear also what > "Browse" refers to, e.g. no need to label "Browse projects". > > * p13, "free the commons" — aiui the slogan isn't final, but confirm > with wolftune. There are other slogan ideas in the wiki. The current > one summarises the project goal and I don't have any clever > suggestions at this time. I don't think the feedback necessarily implies that the slogan needs to change, but it does suggest that the home page should somehow explain what "the commons" means and not assume everyone is already familiar enough with that term and concept. > * p14, "How it Works" and "Join Us" could maybe share similar style, > or both elements close in size to denote importance. > > * p20, replace planet graphic — this may change eventually. > > > Questions: > * p17, "Heavy users pay the same as small users? An admission fee is > not free!" — I don't understand the comment, or how the heavy/small > users comparison is relevant? The "admission fee is not free" part suggests to me that this person had not understood that Snowdrift.coop is about voluntarily supporting projects that produce things that are freely available to everyone, whether or not they choose to financially support the project.
The heavy/small user issue seems to me to point to a valid question
about the flexibility of Snowdrift.coop's model. For example, let's say
person A uses Inkscape only very rarely (as I do, a handful of times per
year at most) while person B uses it for several hours every day as
their primary professional tool. Shouldn't there be a way for person A
to support Inkscape a little and person B to support Inkscape a lot
more? This might mean that rather than either being a patron or not
being a patron, Snowdrift.coop would let people choose a patronage
multiplier for each project. Each person's monthly contribution would
still be proportional to the number of other patrons, but wouldn't have
to be the same for everyone for a given project.
> * p20, remove coop arrow — what's wrong with the coop arrow?
In terms of feedback, it got one question mark and one star followed by
exclamation marks. I'm not sure what the star followed by exclamation
marks was intended to mean, but combined with the question mark, and my
own prior confusion about the arrow, I thought the arrow may be an
element that adds complexity while being unclear to at least some
people. I believe it's supposed to point from the "coop" label to the
Snowdrift logo to convey "Snowdrift is a coop" but that was not
immediately obvious to me and apparently was not obvious to at least one
person who gave feedback at SCaLE, and maybe two. One idea that occurs
to me as an alternative is "[Snowdrift logo] = coop"?
> Items I'm unsure about:
> * p13, highlight the "free" in "free the commons" — my interpretion is
> it's not just "free" as in freedom, it's free in conjunction with the
> support of community, in the overall interests of community.
This was just one person's suggestion and I'd be inclined not to act on
it unless additional feedback in future supports acting on it. (I think
the word "free" in the slogan is a bit confusing, but that's a different
conversation.)
> * p14, prior knowledge — the problem is, although people don't need to
> know what the Snowdrift Dilemma is or the snowdrift imagery to
> appreciate some convenient way to support their favourite FLO
> projects, it's important in understanding why the pledge matching is
> introduced, one characteristic that makes Snowdrift.coop different
> from other funding sites. The "freely-licensed" part is another
> defining characteristic. If there is consensus that there are concepts
> which are important for people to know about before signing up, then
> the next question is finding a way to explain this simply and quickly
> before visitors join or leave. "Public goods" is one of those
> terminology questions I'd suggest discussing with wolftune, aiui there
> are specific reasons for using the term.
Right - avoiding the terms probably isn't the solution, but the point is
just that we can't safely assume people will understand them without
help. It's definitely a challenge to provide as much education as seems
to be needed here while keeping it all short and engaging. I'm
wondering whether (i) information icons with tooltips to explain some
key terms might be part of the best available solution, to make concise
explanations available without cluttering the home page with too much text.
> * p20, putting Matching Pledge first — people may not be fully
> familiar with FLO, and How It Works should explain what they're
> pledging towards, then how they can pledge. Maybe the sustainability
> heading doesn't entirely capture the section, it may also include
> accountability policies/mechanisms and probably a reason why it wasn't
> merged with Matching Pledge.
>
> * p20, avoiding FLO acronym — does anyone have suggestions for better
> wording that can fully convey FLO?
Actually the current version at snowdrift.coop/how-it-works doesn't use
FLO or free / libre / open right now. It talks about "public goods"
instead. I think this is better than the version we got feedback on. I
wonder if it could be simplified and made into more of a logical
sequence by merging sustainability into "public goods" and
"accountability" into "democracy" so that the overall message of the
page, in three rather than four sections, would be something like:
"Snowdrift.coop facilitates ongoing funding for public goods
through a matching pledge, with democracy and accountability."
(I have some concern that "sustainability" is too strongly associated in
most people's minds with environmental sustainability, creating a
potential source of confusion, so I think it might be best to stick to
phrases like "ongoing funding" and avoid "sustainable" and
"sustainability".)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
