Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[mray]

On 27.06.2016 03:55, Aaron Wolf wrote:

> I think the *vast* majority of pledges will set their limit for none of
> those reasons. They will set their limit to be conservative and know
> that they system will ask them for permission to go any further.
> 
> If people are really broke, we want them to feel minimal obligation to
> pledge at all and lots of gratitude for *any* participation.
> 
> For most patrons, The initial $10 limit works as "okay, I accept right
> now that up to $10 may just happen, but if things go beyond that, I want
> to be notified and have a chance to accept or reject the idea of going
> beyond $10."

The way I understand the proposal of notification would be: "Hey! $10 a
month seems to be ok with you, and you're currently only using $5 a
month, but as we want to ensure that projects get funded in the
future when even more people join maybe you can up that limit to $15
already, because you know crowmatching works that way that things grow
kind of. After all you're just spending $5, but your limit of $10 should
better be higher."

> Nearly all of them will be able to possibly spend $12 or
> $15 or $20 just as easily as they spent $10, but they won't be okay
> trying this new system with a high commitment level.
> 
> So, we don't want to shame them for not raising their limit, but we *do*
> want to say:
> 
> "We hope you feel your part of this crowdmatching success was worth it
> and the projects you support have shown good progress and good use of
> their funds. So, if you're now comfortable with this pledge being worth
> it, please consider raising your budget, if you can afford to, and
> continue participating as the crowdmatching grows further and makes even
> that much more impact!"

That is the sugar coated version of:
"Hey you actually seem to like spending money with us. If you spend more
you'll probably like that more!  just a reminder "

To which I could reply:
"Yes of course, you set up a system that raises my participation at a
growing speed without me having control over it - no WONDER that I start
get closer to the limit and end up spending money. That is what the
limit is *for*."

I propose to not make a big fuss about approaching the limit at all.
Let's stay completely quiet until we hit it and *then* deal with
consequences. Not having to deal with constantly adjusting the limit to
projects (which you really want to see grow) is a better motivation than
pointing out how crowdmatching works, and that it *kind of* is expected
to behave a certain way (wich is always to give more) just to do the
right thing in general.



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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Bryan Richter]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 01:48:30AM +0200, Robert Martinez (mray) wrote:
> These emails get very long, I wonder if discourse would handle that
> better...

On that note, I would like to point out that if you two don't
summarize these conversations, or designate someone else who should, I
don't think it will get done. :) Maybe on the wiki? Or straight into
Taiga?

Email: public discussion
Wiki: public summary of results
Taiga: public consolidation of projects, tasks, and activity

I've been reading along, but not hanging on every word. I won't
remember much of this discussion when it comes time to start
implementing your ideas.

Thanks!


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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Aaron Wolf]

On 06/26/2016 05:20 PM, mray wrote:
> 
> 

hope to reply separately to some of the other points in previous email


> On 24.06.2016 11:22, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with everything Michael wrote in his reply here. I also
>> find that even right here in this discussion the term "crowdmatching"
>> seems very effective at capturing the nuance. Michael was able to
>> express it as "this is the activity you are doing: crowdmatching" and
>> it's easy to jump to "therefore, you can't just set a fixed hard limit
>> that you stick to (like that you match only the first 4,000 patrons and
>> don't match beyond that) because that would not be fully crowdmatching,
>> of course.
> 
> A valid pledge is valid crowdmatching, always.
> Even if it isn't with one more patron. It then might cease to be
> crowdmatching *then*, but it also isn't a valid pledge *then* anymore
> either.

What I meant is that a pledge of the sort that some people *think* about
but that is *not* a valid pledge in *our* system is not crowdmatching.
In other words, sometimes people say "oh, instead of a $10 budget, how
about I just say 'I'll match the first 2,000 people?'" So, they are
suggesting something where the pledge continues to be marked as active
with 2500 patrons, but they are only matching 2,000 instead of matching
everyone. I was saying that *that* is not valid crowdmatching —
basically this is a nice clean way to quickly explain why our system
*doesn't* work that way. In our system, either you *are* matching the
whole crowd or you're not. There's no option to match part of the crowd.

So, I wasn't proposing a change or anything about alternative approaches
within our system, I was just saying this wording helps clarify what is
or isn't the way Snowdrift.coop works.

> It is just how reaching your limit naturally looks like. The experience
> of reaching a limit should make you proud since you literally went to
> your limits, and it generally means you lifted the stone high enough to
> let stronger people overtake - but also remain ready to help out when
> they may be gone one day. Lets not add stigma to reaching the limit.
> 

I agree reaching a limit should have no stigma. Reaching a limit should
be cause for celebration that the crowdmatching is working!

> We simply can't *know* when people set a $10 limit because they are
> dull, lazy, cowards or just broke.
> 

I think the *vast* majority of pledges will set their limit for none of
those reasons. They will set their limit to be conservative and know
that they system will ask them for permission to go any further.

If people are really broke, we want them to feel minimal obligation to
pledge at all and lots of gratitude for *any* participation.

For most patrons, The initial $10 limit works as "okay, I accept right
now that up to $10 may just happen, but if things go beyond that, I want
to be notified and have a chance to accept or reject the idea of going
beyond $10." Nearly all of them will be able to possibly spend $12 or
$15 or $20 just as easily as they spent $10, but they won't be okay
trying this new system with a high commitment level.

So, we don't want to shame them for not raising their limit, but we *do*
want to say:

"We hope you feel your part of this crowdmatching success was worth it
and the projects you support have shown good progress and good use of
their funds. So, if you're now comfortable with this pledge being worth
it, please consider raising your budget, if you can afford to, and
continue participating as the crowdmatching grows further and makes even
that much more impact!"



> For *our* purposes it should suffice to just globally raise the $0.001
> when people don't reach a critical mass.
> 

Yeah, good point. I agree. It's just a guess minimum anyway, and maybe
it will be the right guess, and we can adjust it globally as needed. I
do think still there are some people who will want to be really generous
at higher levels than average though, but I can accept not having that
considered MVP if that's how everyone else sees it.



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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[mray]

On 24.06.2016 11:22, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> ...
> 
> FWIW, I agree with everything Michael wrote in his reply here. I also
> find that even right here in this discussion the term "crowdmatching"
> seems very effective at capturing the nuance. Michael was able to
> express it as "this is the activity you are doing: crowdmatching" and
> it's easy to jump to "therefore, you can't just set a fixed hard limit
> that you stick to (like that you match only the first 4,000 patrons and
> don't match beyond that) because that would not be fully crowdmatching,
> of course.

A valid pledge is valid crowdmatching, always.
Even if it isn't with one more patron. It then might cease to be
crowdmatching *then*, but it also isn't a valid pledge *then* anymore
either.
It is just how reaching your limit naturally looks like. The experience
of reaching a limit should make you proud since you literally went to
your limits, and it generally means you lifted the stone high enough to
let stronger people overtake - but also remain ready to help out when
they may be gone one day. Lets not add stigma to reaching the limit.

We simply can't *know* when people set a $10 limit because they are
dull, lazy, cowards or just broke.

> 
> I think if we explain all the reasoning, concepts etc. with the idea of
> "crowdmatching", everything will become clear and consistent.
> 
> I'm not actually proposing this, but it occurs to me that an extension
> of the slogan could then be something like "crowdmatching to free the
> commons" or "free the commons with crowdmatching" or even just
> "crowdmatching for the commons" (I don't like that because it implies
> that you could crowdmatch for other purposes, and I want to insist that
> public goods are the *only* legitimate type of thing in which
> crowdmatching makes sense (even if that's debatable, I want us to take
> that position — that crowdmatching for proprietary stuff makes no sense).
> 
> One more point: even though varying per-patron match levels may not
> strictly be the smallest possible way for us to get an operating system,
> it's at least arguable that including it may be necessary for the system
> to start out viable enough to successfully fund the Snowdrift.coop
> project. We don't want it to undo the network effect, but we certainly
> want the 1000 patrons we may get early on to total more than $1,000 per
> month if a portion of those patrons are wealthy and want to be at a more
> generous crowdmatching level. So, I'm not 100% sure that setting higher
> pledge base is not MVP. We need not only for the math and the system to
> work but for it to be a fundraising success enough that people don't
> write it off. My feeling is that having this as a factor to play with,
> maybe test, explore, A/B, research, etc. makes some sense.
>

For *our* purposes it should suffice to just globally raise the $0.001
when people don't reach a critical mass.



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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[mray]

On 11.06.2016 01:39, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 06:36 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 06/09/2016 01:21 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> I've put some revised mockups at
>>> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/ based on recent thoughts
>>> and conversations.  Two new things they include are (a) a
>>> red/yellow/green max status indicator on every page, and (b) the project
>>> pages list three ways it makes a difference to the project whether
>>> you're a patron or not.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to further discussion.
>>>
>> Thanks, Michael! I like this direction in various ways.
>>
>> Main item: if we're keeping the global setting for pledge-base-level,
>> then there are ramifications of that that need to play out in the rest
>> of the mockups.
>>
>> For example, the amount of cost for a given patron *and* the amount of
>> matching in dollars will vary based on this pledge-base variable. A
>> generous pledge base will get less than 1:1 matching and the presence of
>> generous pledge bases from others will result in a minimal patron
>> getting greater than 1:1 matching.
>>
>> It would be ideal if the interface successfully communicates that this
>> is happening and makes the understanding of it clear and
>> self-explanatory… The current mockups all have numbers that are when all
>> patrons are at a minimum. So what happens in other cases? And is it
>> clear enough to people?
>>
>> Otherwise, I like the 3-benefits informative bit.
>>
>> Here's an aspect I've wanted that we had in earliest mockups: In the
>> place where people can change their pledge-base, a message could say
>> "remember, the *best* way to donate more is to promote the project to
>> others and gain new patrons (who you will match)" or something to that
>> effect. It's nice to note that larger pledge-base could itself provide
>> more incentive to others though. My concern here overall is how the
>> interface can successfully justify the variable pledge-base and help
>> people use it effectively and not counter-productively.
> 
> I've made adjustments to all three project mockups to account for
> variable pledge-base-level, using the phrase "average pledge value per
> patron" to indicate that the pledge value is not the same for every patron.

I'd prefer not to reflect this now (not MVP) neither later.

Assuming we had the variable pledge level, I don't think that indicating
the slight tendency of having a "1:1.x" instead of a "1:1" match matters
enough to be underlined. It is the idea of matching itself that matters.
Similarly I don't see how matching a project with 5800 patrons is a
"bigger" motivation for compared to one with 5941 patrons. It is just
not that much of a relevant difference when pledging. It is the *network
effect* that matters, and the promise that it is really a crowd of
people and not some huge entity next to a few "idiots".

> 
> I've also added something inspired by the above about encouraging them
> to spread the word:
> 
> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/project_sufficient.html
> 
> In thinking about that, I thought of a possible word to use
> "crowdmatching" and wondered if Snowdrift has ever considered using
> that?  I searched to see if anyone else was using it and found
> http://makinggoodthingshappen.org/about-crowdmatching-2/ using it in a
> somewhat different way.  For the moment, I've used the phrase "mutual
> matching" in the "spread the word" part of the mockup.
> 


Crowdmatching. I do love that term. :D
Let us use it full steam ahead! In comparison to "network effect" it is
hip, focussing more on the social side, and makes sense even to those
that are not researching the reasons how facebook became so big and its
alternatives stand no chance.



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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[mray]

On 06.06.2016 20:33, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 06/04/2016 03:18 AM, mray wrote:
>> On 04.06.2016 01:02, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>> Keeping project pages focused on project-specific info makes sense to
>>> me.  However, I think it would be good to have a green-yellow-red
>>> "account health" type of indicator that's on all pages when you're
>>> logged in, perhaps as part of the header, linking to the dashboard. When
>>> it's yellow or red, we want to draw people's attention to that even if
>>> they're on a project page.  When it's green, it provides a nice "feel
>>> good" cue and context to whatever you're doing on the site.
>>>
>> I share your view on the good feeling. I just guess I'm already ok with
>> being assured that a non-grayed out pledge button means I can
>> definitively pledge.
>> The buffer plays into that but isn't defined yet. I wonder how to
>> integrate that visually or just have it running in the background checks.
> 
> The good feeling is not just about being able to definitively pledge. 
> It's about knowing that your max can match plenty of new patrons.  I'm
> thinking about ideas for how to display it and word it.  The key is to
> orient people to keeping a healthy buffer between their current total
> pledge value and their monthly max.

I feel pushy about asking people to always raise their limit. Everybody
has a limit and we should not make people feel bad when they reach it.
We should also be fine with having a *HUGE* buffer at the beginning and
with a *close enough* buffer towards the end.
We can't assume where the hard limit of people purses resides.
...What is a "healthy buffer"?

We should take precautions to avoid people permanently getting into some
kind of "You promised to pledge at least 3 months, but it looks like
that won't be possible, please fix that"-dilemma.

> 
> Dashboard:
>
> * I'd like to address what seems to be fear #1 when it comes to the
> financial part: the limit.
 I do not really understand the purpose of showing a number that is
 twice the current limit. It seems pretty arbitrary.

>>> I agree. However, showing the current max on a scale with red, yellow,
>>> and green zones could be helpful I think - kind of like a fuel tank
>>> gauge or something like that.
>>>
>> Actually the scale was an arbitrary choice. The reason I do this is
>> because you need to have some space upwards. If your current limit is
>> the maximum of the scale it isn't obvious that you can/shoukd move it
>> up. So it might be 3x the current value or always be either $10 $100 or
>> $1000 depending on your limit.
> It might be that not displaying any scale would be better.  I'm thinking
> of having a simple 3-state icon type of indicator, representing
> "plenty", "enough, but only just", and "not enough".  Then the actual
> amounts might be expressed numerically, but not on a scale, e.g. in
> terms of % increase in patrons you could match.
> 

I like that idea as it removes unnecessary info. A 3-state icon might
just miss the precision of conveying an the idea of scale. I'd be
interested how things actually look like, at least in proportion.

>>
> * "Status" is only relevant if thinks are not ok, so unless there are
> problems that shouldn't be there
 +1
>>> Good point. However, I'd like to explore ways to do this without
>>> throwing out the table format in my mockups, which I think is helpful,
>>> both because it provides a simple clean layout and because it enables
>>> "Total" and "Reduced total" rows that show that information in clear
>>> visual relationship to the numbers that make up the total and reduced
>>> total.  One simple way would be to put the "Suspended" text after the
>>> project name, so that column would get wider in this case rather than
>>> having a "Status" column that, as mray points out, isn't really relevant
>>> when everything is OK.
>> I guess my main issue is to have a hypothetical problem presented in
>> detail when the solution is already reality: The limit takes care of
>> things not going beyond it. Seeing some equations with crossed out
>> numbers that contain prices higher than my limit makes me feel uneasy.
>> "Total" an "Reduced Total" should not even exist as concepts as by
>> definition the limit explicitly forbids the "Total" in that case.
>> I feel much better with a system that just can't break instead of one
>> that lets me choose how to repair it. Of course this is only about
>> framing the problem.
> 
> I don't see how it's possible to make it so it "can't break" since
> there's an inherent conflict between a monthly max and a set of pledges
> that may exceed that max.  In my view, part of the point of the UI is to
> communicate that conflict when it exists and encourage the user to
> resolve it.  I think "Reduced total" is a valid concept here because it
> represents what you're actually going to donate, within the limit of
> your max, versus what you would donate if your max was 

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Michael Siepmann]

 

On 06/13/2016 09:32 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 06/13/2016 07:37 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> On 06/10/2016 09:19 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2016 04:39 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
 On 06/09/2016 06:36 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 01:21 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> I've put some revised mockups at
>> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/ based on recent thoughts
>> and conversations.  Two new things they include are (a) a
>> red/yellow/green max status indicator on every page, and (b) the project
>> pages list three ways it makes a difference to the project whether
>> you're a patron or not.
>>
>> Looking forward to further discussion.
>>
> Thanks, Michael! I like this direction in various ways.
>
> Main item: if we're keeping the global setting for pledge-base-level,
> then there are ramifications of that that need to play out in the rest
> of the mockups.
>
> For example, the amount of cost for a given patron *and* the amount of
> matching in dollars will vary based on this pledge-base variable. A
> generous pledge base will get less than 1:1 matching and the presence of
> generous pledge bases from others will result in a minimal patron
> getting greater than 1:1 matching.
>
> It would be ideal if the interface successfully communicates that this
> is happening and makes the understanding of it clear and
> self-explanatory… The current mockups all have numbers that are when all
> patrons are at a minimum. So what happens in other cases? And is it
> clear enough to people?
>
> Otherwise, I like the 3-benefits informative bit.
>
> Here's an aspect I've wanted that we had in earliest mockups: In the
> place where people can change their pledge-base, a message could say
> "remember, the *best* way to donate more is to promote the project to
> others and gain new patrons (who you will match)" or something to that
> effect. It's nice to note that larger pledge-base could itself provide
> more incentive to others though. My concern here overall is how the
> interface can successfully justify the variable pledge-base and help
> people use it effectively and not counter-productively.
 I've made adjustments to all three project mockups to account for
 variable pledge-base-level, using the phrase "average pledge value per
 patron" to indicate that the pledge value is not the same for every patron.

>>> Nice. Maybe we should have a mockup of what happens if you hit "change"
>>> for the pledge level in the dashboard.
>> Try the "Change" links for pledge level and monthly max at
>> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/dashboard_sufficient.html
>> . The "Suggest" button also works, suggesting in this case 20x whatever
>> you put in the pledge level multiple field.  The "Change" button doesn't
>> actually make the changes, but the idea is you'd return to the regular
>> dashboard view with the changes in place.  (If the change you made
>> resulted in one or more pledges being suspended, then the dashboard
>> would should that of course, but the idea of the "Suggest" button and
>> associated messaging is to prevent that from happening for the most part.)
>>
> I don't know why I didn't try clicking.
>
> What about using 0.1¢ instead of $0.001 ?
>
> I think some degree of guidance in this case makes sense. I don't find
> the "suggest" button transparent though, like why this is the suggestion.
>
> So, there's this concern about thwarting the matching effect by just
> adjusting pledge base to unreasonably high base. I could imagine more
> clear guidance indicating that 0.1¢ is considered the standard minimum
> default. We could make it more clear that 0.2¢ is a "double pledge" or
> something like that. We could indicate that the *reason* for a higher
> base as an option is for wealthier folks to offer more, or alternately
> stated: because the world is full of wealth inequality so we can't
> pretend that it makes sense for everyone to be at the same level.
>
> *Ideally* we'd be able to tell people who are millionaires that their
> pledge base should be at least 10¢ or something. Basically, some
> guidance for levels.
>
> My preference would be an interface with several clear radio options and
> an "other" field instead of just open-ended. People need some anchors.
> As in https://action.aclu.org/donate-aclu which has $25, $50, $75, $100,
> other.
>
> We discussed this a while back when we were considering "shares" still,
> and I liked: 0.1¢, 0.2¢, 0.3¢, 0.5¢, 1¢, other. (The implication being
> that 1¢ was pretty high generous level, etc) and we tried doing some A/B
> ideas with that vs 0.1¢, 0.2¢, 0.4¢, 0.8¢, 1.6¢, other etc.
>
> Michael, you'd be the right person here to think about the best way to
> research (and the best info from 

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Aaron Wolf]

On 06/10/2016 04:39 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 06:36 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 06/09/2016 01:21 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> I've put some revised mockups at
>>> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/ based on recent thoughts
>>> and conversations.  Two new things they include are (a) a
>>> red/yellow/green max status indicator on every page, and (b) the project
>>> pages list three ways it makes a difference to the project whether
>>> you're a patron or not.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to further discussion.
>>>
>> Thanks, Michael! I like this direction in various ways.
>>
>> Main item: if we're keeping the global setting for pledge-base-level,
>> then there are ramifications of that that need to play out in the rest
>> of the mockups.
>>
>> For example, the amount of cost for a given patron *and* the amount of
>> matching in dollars will vary based on this pledge-base variable. A
>> generous pledge base will get less than 1:1 matching and the presence of
>> generous pledge bases from others will result in a minimal patron
>> getting greater than 1:1 matching.
>>
>> It would be ideal if the interface successfully communicates that this
>> is happening and makes the understanding of it clear and
>> self-explanatory… The current mockups all have numbers that are when all
>> patrons are at a minimum. So what happens in other cases? And is it
>> clear enough to people?
>>
>> Otherwise, I like the 3-benefits informative bit.
>>
>> Here's an aspect I've wanted that we had in earliest mockups: In the
>> place where people can change their pledge-base, a message could say
>> "remember, the *best* way to donate more is to promote the project to
>> others and gain new patrons (who you will match)" or something to that
>> effect. It's nice to note that larger pledge-base could itself provide
>> more incentive to others though. My concern here overall is how the
>> interface can successfully justify the variable pledge-base and help
>> people use it effectively and not counter-productively.
> 
> I've made adjustments to all three project mockups to account for
> variable pledge-base-level, using the phrase "average pledge value per
> patron" to indicate that the pledge value is not the same for every patron.
> 

Nice. Maybe we should have a mockup of what happens if you hit "change"
for the pledge level in the dashboard.

> I've also added something inspired by the above about encouraging them
> to spread the word:
> 
> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/project_sufficient.html
> 

Whether or not it's best, I imagined the "spread the word" message to
show only right upon confirmation of a pledge, like an alert and wasn't
necessarily wanting it to be a permanent fixture on a page of a pledged
project, just for perspective. Maybe more permanent could be good.

> In thinking about that, I thought of a possible word to use
> "crowdmatching" and wondered if Snowdrift has ever considered using
> that?  I searched to see if anyone else was using it and found
> http://makinggoodthingshappen.org/about-crowdmatching-2/ using it in a
> somewhat different way.  For the moment, I've used the phrase "mutual
> matching" in the "spread the word" part of the mockup.
> 

I like the term "crowdmatching", don't *love* it. If we tried it out and
had success using it to explain things, it could be good.





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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Michael Siepmann]

On 06/09/2016 06:36 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 06/09/2016 01:21 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> I've put some revised mockups at
>> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/ based on recent thoughts
>> and conversations.  Two new things they include are (a) a
>> red/yellow/green max status indicator on every page, and (b) the project
>> pages list three ways it makes a difference to the project whether
>> you're a patron or not.
>>
>> Looking forward to further discussion.
>>
> Thanks, Michael! I like this direction in various ways.
>
> Main item: if we're keeping the global setting for pledge-base-level,
> then there are ramifications of that that need to play out in the rest
> of the mockups.
>
> For example, the amount of cost for a given patron *and* the amount of
> matching in dollars will vary based on this pledge-base variable. A
> generous pledge base will get less than 1:1 matching and the presence of
> generous pledge bases from others will result in a minimal patron
> getting greater than 1:1 matching.
>
> It would be ideal if the interface successfully communicates that this
> is happening and makes the understanding of it clear and
> self-explanatory… The current mockups all have numbers that are when all
> patrons are at a minimum. So what happens in other cases? And is it
> clear enough to people?
>
> Otherwise, I like the 3-benefits informative bit.
>
> Here's an aspect I've wanted that we had in earliest mockups: In the
> place where people can change their pledge-base, a message could say
> "remember, the *best* way to donate more is to promote the project to
> others and gain new patrons (who you will match)" or something to that
> effect. It's nice to note that larger pledge-base could itself provide
> more incentive to others though. My concern here overall is how the
> interface can successfully justify the variable pledge-base and help
> people use it effectively and not counter-productively.

I've made adjustments to all three project mockups to account for
variable pledge-base-level, using the phrase "average pledge value per
patron" to indicate that the pledge value is not the same for every patron.

I've also added something inspired by the above about encouraging them
to spread the word:

http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/project_sufficient.html

In thinking about that, I thought of a possible word to use
"crowdmatching" and wondered if Snowdrift has ever considered using
that?  I searched to see if anyone else was using it and found
http://makinggoodthingshappen.org/about-crowdmatching-2/ using it in a
somewhat different way.  For the moment, I've used the phrase "mutual
matching" in the "spread the word" part of the mockup.



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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Michael Siepmann]

I've put some revised mockups at
http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/ based on recent thoughts
and conversations.  Two new things they include are (a) a
red/yellow/green max status indicator on every page, and (b) the project
pages list three ways it makes a difference to the project whether
you're a patron or not.

Looking forward to further discussion.

Best,

Michael

Michael Siepmann, Ph.D.
*The Tech Design Psychologist*™
/Shaping technology to help people flourish/™
303-835-0501   TechDesignPsych.com
   OpenPGP: 6D65A4F7

 




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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[mray]

On 04.06.2016 01:02, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 10:28 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:25 AM, mray  wrote:
>>> On 24.05.2016 19:42, Michael Siepmann wrote:
  I've put slightly revised versions of the interaction design mockups
  some of us looked at via Jitsi Meet yesterday in both the design
 Seafile
  server (snowdrift.sylphs.net) and in browsable form at:

  http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/

  There may be a better way to share them in future, perhaps via git,
 but
  for now I just wanted to make them available for discussion etc.
>>
>>> Project page:
>>>
>>> * A changing pledge level ($0,001) isn't MVP so we can ignore it for now
>>>
>>> * "All your pledges" comes with a lot of data that isn't really tied to
>>> the project page. To me this is an invitation to start comparing,
>>> calculating and weighing things against each other. In fact we want to
>>> avoid that and only raise awareness when problems do arise. We want
>>> people to focus on their binary choice of support, not estimating how
>>> cheap things are on average and "budget" along those thoughts. Things
>>> will evolve, and we need to make people stay with us when projects
>>> "explode".
>>
>> +1 to both. In addition to pushing people in a direction we don't
>> really want, I also found it odd that information about my account was
>> showing up on the project page. I would expect a project page to show
>> information about the project, and my status as a patron of it, but
>> not general account info.
> 
> Agree re MVP.
> 
> Keeping project pages focused on project-specific info makes sense to
> me.  However, I think it would be good to have a green-yellow-red
> "account health" type of indicator that's on all pages when you're
> logged in, perhaps as part of the header, linking to the dashboard. When
> it's yellow or red, we want to draw people's attention to that even if
> they're on a project page.  When it's green, it provides a nice "feel
> good" cue and context to whatever you're doing on the site.
> 

I share your view on the good feeling. I just guess I'm already ok with
being assured that a non-grayed out pledge button means I can
definitively pledge.
The buffer plays into that but isn't defined yet. I wonder how to
integrate that visually or just have it running in the background checks.


>>
>>> Dashboard:
>>>
>>> * I'd like to address what seems to be fear #1 when it comes to the
>>> financial part: the limit.
>>
>> I do not really understand the purpose of showing a number that is
>> twice the current limit. It seems pretty arbitrary.
>>
> I agree. However, showing the current max on a scale with red, yellow,
> and green zones could be helpful I think - kind of like a fuel tank
> gauge or something like that.
> 

Actually the scale was an arbitrary choice. The reason I do this is
because you need to have some space upwards. If your current limit is
the maximum of the scale it isn't obvious that you can/shoukd move it
up. So it might be 3x the current value or always be either $10 $100 or
$1000 depending on your limit.

>>> * "Status" is only relevant if thinks are not ok, so unless there are
>>> problems that shouldn't be there
>>
>> +1
> Good point. However, I'd like to explore ways to do this without
> throwing out the table format in my mockups, which I think is helpful,
> both because it provides a simple clean layout and because it enables
> "Total" and "Reduced total" rows that show that information in clear
> visual relationship to the numbers that make up the total and reduced
> total.  One simple way would be to put the "Suspended" text after the
> project name, so that column would get wider in this case rather than
> having a "Status" column that, as mray points out, isn't really relevant
> when everything is OK.

I guess my main issue is to have a hypothetical problem presented in
detail when the solution is already reality: The limit takes care of
things not going beyond it. Seeing some equations with crossed out
numbers that contain prices higher than my limit makes me feel uneasy.
"Total" an "Reduced Total" should not even exist as concepts as by
definition the limit explicitly forbids the "Total" in that case.
I feel much better with a system that just can't break instead of one
that lets me choose how to repair it. Of course this is only about
framing the problem.
Concerning the table format I share your view on its qualities to cope
with much information that can still be displayed clearly, but my goal
is to get a solution that does not require it in the first place.
Depending on how simple we can stay I'd try to avoid tables.

>>
>>> * "Action" could be integrated a bit more to make this feel less like a
>>> dry listing of numbers
>>
>> I actually like the dry numbers with separate action button more.
> I also prefer the numbers with separate action button.  I think key
> information like the numbers 

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Michael Siepmann]

On 06/02/2016 10:28 AM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:25 AM, mray  wrote:
>> On 24.05.2016 19:42, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>>  I've put slightly revised versions of the interaction design mockups
>>>  some of us looked at via Jitsi Meet yesterday in both the design
>>> Seafile
>>>  server (snowdrift.sylphs.net) and in browsable form at:
>>>
>>>  http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/
>>>
>>>  There may be a better way to share them in future, perhaps via git,
>>> but
>>>  for now I just wanted to make them available for discussion etc.
>
>> Project page:
>>
>> * A changing pledge level ($0,001) isn't MVP so we can ignore it for now
>>
>> * "All your pledges" comes with a lot of data that isn't really tied to
>> the project page. To me this is an invitation to start comparing,
>> calculating and weighing things against each other. In fact we want to
>> avoid that and only raise awareness when problems do arise. We want
>> people to focus on their binary choice of support, not estimating how
>> cheap things are on average and "budget" along those thoughts. Things
>> will evolve, and we need to make people stay with us when projects
>> "explode".
>
> +1 to both. In addition to pushing people in a direction we don't
> really want, I also found it odd that information about my account was
> showing up on the project page. I would expect a project page to show
> information about the project, and my status as a patron of it, but
> not general account info.

Agree re MVP.

Keeping project pages focused on project-specific info makes sense to
me.  However, I think it would be good to have a green-yellow-red
"account health" type of indicator that's on all pages when you're
logged in, perhaps as part of the header, linking to the dashboard. When
it's yellow or red, we want to draw people's attention to that even if
they're on a project page.  When it's green, it provides a nice "feel
good" cue and context to whatever you're doing on the site.

>
>> Dashboard:
>>
>> * I'd like to address what seems to be fear #1 when it comes to the
>> financial part: the limit.
>
> I do not really understand the purpose of showing a number that is
> twice the current limit. It seems pretty arbitrary.
>
I agree. However, showing the current max on a scale with red, yellow,
and green zones could be helpful I think - kind of like a fuel tank
gauge or something like that.

>> * "Status" is only relevant if thinks are not ok, so unless there are
>> problems that shouldn't be there
>
> +1
Good point. However, I'd like to explore ways to do this without
throwing out the table format in my mockups, which I think is helpful,
both because it provides a simple clean layout and because it enables
"Total" and "Reduced total" rows that show that information in clear
visual relationship to the numbers that make up the total and reduced
total.  One simple way would be to put the "Suspended" text after the
project name, so that column would get wider in this case rather than
having a "Status" column that, as mray points out, isn't really relevant
when everything is OK.
>
>> * "Action" could be integrated a bit more to make this feel less like a
>> dry listing of numbers
>
> I actually like the dry numbers with separate action button more.
I also prefer the numbers with separate action button.  I think key
information like the numbers should be as easy to read and understand as
possible, and I think a simple familiar table format achieves this
better than integrating numbers into action buttons.

>
>> https://github.com/jdittrich/quickMockup
>
> That's a cool tool! I'll convert my modifications[1] to Michael's
> mockups to that format / based off yours.
Yes, thanks mray for pointing out this tool. I look forward to trying it.



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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Stephen Michel]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:25 AM, mray  wrote:

On 24.05.2016 19:42, Michael Siepmann wrote:

 I've put slightly revised versions of the interaction design mockups
 some of us looked at via Jitsi Meet yesterday in both the design 
Seafile

 server (snowdrift.sylphs.net) and in browsable form at:

 http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/

 There may be a better way to share them in future, perhaps via git, 
but

 for now I just wanted to make them available for discussion etc.



Project page:

* A changing pledge level ($0,001) isn't MVP so we can ignore it for 
now


* "All your pledges" comes with a lot of data that isn't really tied 
to

the project page. To me this is an invitation to start comparing,
calculating and weighing things against each other. In fact we want to
avoid that and only raise awareness when problems do arise. We want
people to focus on their binary choice of support, not estimating how
cheap things are on average and "budget" along those thoughts. Things
will evolve, and we need to make people stay with us when projects
"explode".


+1 to both. In addition to pushing people in a direction we don't 
really want, I also found it odd that information about my account was 
showing up on the project page. I would expect a project page to show 
information about the project, and my status as a patron of it, but not 
general account info.



Dashboard:

* I'd like to address what seems to be fear #1 when it comes to the
financial part: the limit.


I do not really understand the purpose of showing a number that is 
twice the current limit. It seems pretty arbitrary.



* "Status" is only relevant if thinks are not ok, so unless there are
problems that shouldn't be there


+1

* "Action" could be integrated a bit more to make this feel less like 
a

dry listing of numbers


I actually like the dry numbers with separate action button more.


https://github.com/jdittrich/quickMockup


That's a cool tool! I'll convert my modifications[1] to Michael's 
mockups to that format / based off yours.


[1]:http://stephenmichel.me/mockups-dashboard/

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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Stephen Michel]

I made some additions to Michael's mockups, specifically for choosing a 
payment source. You can see them here: 
http://stephenmichel.me/mockups-dashboard/


You can see my full thoughts in the Taiga user story here: 
https://tree.taiga.io/project/snowdrift/us/384


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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[William Hale]

On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:24:23 -0600
Michael Siepmann  wrote:

> On 05/24/2016 04:13 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> 
> Yes, that all matches what I had in mind anyway.  I think and hope it
> will be obvious enough.  Of course if we find it's not obvious enough,
> we can address that in various ways, but I think starting with
> something simpler like this is better.
> 
> 
> 

These look great, thanks Michael!
___
Design mailing list
Design@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Michael Siepmann]

On 05/24/2016 01:43 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> On 05/24/2016 12:32 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>> I've added a pair of dashboards along those lines:
>>
>> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/ 
>>
> Looks good, looking forward to feedback from others or more nice design
> variations from the visual design folks.
>
> One thought: "reflect your wishes" is a little too generous. Someone
> might wish for things that go beyond the controls we're offering (for
> example, "I wish I could keep donating $2 to that project and not have
> to match anyone any further", which we would respond to as "the matching
> agreement from everyone is what makes this work, without that, or with a
> simple per-project cap, we can't get the widespread cooperation we
> need…" At any rate, getting people to think about their wishes is less
> desired compared to getting them to think about specifically tweaking
> within the "rules of the game" that we've set up.
>
> My inclination for the wording is: "Please consider increasing your
> maximum to reinstate all pledges. Alternatively, you may remove pledges
> or adjust pledge level as desired."
>
> Something like that. In this case, the only max change that will help is
> an increase, so we can say "increase" instead of "change", and I like
> encouraging people to think of that as the suggested action.

I like "Please consider increasing your maximum".  On reflection, and
after experimenting, I'm thinking perhaps that's all we need.  I've
updated both versions of that dashboard with just that for now.





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

Re: [Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Aaron Wolf]

On 05/24/2016 12:32 PM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
> I've added a pair of dashboards along those lines:
> 
> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/ 
> 

Looks good, looking forward to feedback from others or more nice design
variations from the visual design folks.

One thought: "reflect your wishes" is a little too generous. Someone
might wish for things that go beyond the controls we're offering (for
example, "I wish I could keep donating $2 to that project and not have
to match anyone any further", which we would respond to as "the matching
agreement from everyone is what makes this work, without that, or with a
simple per-project cap, we can't get the widespread cooperation we
need…" At any rate, getting people to think about their wishes is less
desired compared to getting them to think about specifically tweaking
within the "rules of the game" that we've set up.

My inclination for the wording is: "Please consider increasing your
maximum to reinstate all pledges. Alternatively, you may remove pledges
or adjust pledge level as desired."

Something like that. In this case, the only max change that will help is
an increase, so we can say "increase" instead of "change", and I like
encouraging people to think of that as the suggested action.

> 
> On 05/24/2016 12:27 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> I like this overall, as I said yesterday.
>>
>> I'd like to see the system-wide approach. The "$0.001 per patron,
>> monthly" should be *above* the table shown as a "your pledge level"
>> (probably with the option to change it).
>>
>> Then, the "your pledge" column from the table can be removed.
>>
>> Maybe change "Donation if charged now" to "current pledge value" and
>> then change "Total pledged" to "Total if charged now"
>>
>> And then remove the "Maximum monthly donation" row and instead just put
>> the sentence "your monthly maximum…" below the table instead of above,
>> and have the change button there.
>>
>> So, total is:
>>
>> "pledge level: X per patron (change)"
>> TABLE w/ name, patron-count, current-value, status, remove button
>> "maximum monthly of Y sufficient to match additional Z pledges (change)"
>>
>> How does that sound? I could fiddle with the HTML to update this myself,
>> but rushing around right now. I'd appreciate if someone could make this
>> variant of the mockup for me.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/24/2016 10:42 AM, Michael Siepmann wrote:
>>> I've put slightly revised versions of the interaction design mockups
>>> some of us looked at via Jitsi Meet yesterday in both the design Seafile
>>> server (snowdrift.sylphs.net) and in browsable form at:
>>>
>>> http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/
>>>
>>> There may be a better way to share them in future, perhaps via git, but
>>> for now I just wanted to make them available for discussion etc.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Michael Siepmann, Ph.D.
>>> *The Tech Design Psychologist*™
>>> /Shaping technology to help people flourish/™
>>> 303-835-0501   TechDesignPsych.com
>>>    OpenPGP: 6D65A4F7
>>> 
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

[Snowdrift-design] Interaction design mockups

[Michael Siepmann]

I've put slightly revised versions of the interaction design mockups
some of us looked at via Jitsi Meet yesterday in both the design Seafile
server (snowdrift.sylphs.net) and in browsable form at:

http://techdesignpsych.com/Temporary/snowdrift/

There may be a better way to share them in future, perhaps via git, but
for now I just wanted to make them available for discussion etc.

Best,

Michael

-- 

Michael Siepmann, Ph.D.
*The Tech Design Psychologist*™
/Shaping technology to help people flourish/™
303-835-0501   TechDesignPsych.com
   OpenPGP: 6D65A4F7

 



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