On 12.08.2016 23:28, Stephen Michel wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> 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. >
I completely agree that suspending has to happen as soon as the limit gets reached. We even suspect monthly spendings to rise with time, so this looks just like a temporary postponing a necessary raise of the limit. Also it adds complexity.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
