But they might show just a really killer nice nature scene on their landing page, to make the viewer feel excited, hopeful and ready to go deeper...a halfway cleaned up scene is just not as inspiring, though I could see later pages showing those in order to communicate more pragmatically what the actual status of a clean up is.
I think the landing page should be mostly about getting the viewer to feel excited to engage more, rather than about getting across a perfectly clean or nuanced metaphor or a deep or complete vision of every facet of a project. On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop> wrote: > > > On 10/07/2015 03:08 PM, Jonathan Roberts wrote: > > I think the primary element that makes the old image effective is the > > timeline: it's showing you the finished project. The huge snowdrift > > beside the cleared road shows it, Mimi and Eunices faces show it, and > > the general vibe is that "The way has been cleared!" rather than > > "everything's still bleak and covered with snow." The surrounding > > atmosphere also confirms all of this; the friendly sun, the plane flying > > by, the vibrant trees. This world is alive and well on it's way to > > positive change, not still stuck in a pre-snowdrift.coop > > <http://pre-snowdrift.coop> malaise. A graphic where everything is still > > covered with snow is just not as exciting, hopeful, or effective in > > getting the metaphor across. > > > > If our metaphor was something having to do with defeating villians, > > would we be showing a graphic with a bunch of villains towaring over the > > hero, or showing the hero just winding up his punch? No! We would be > > showing the villains flying in all directions from the hero's punches, > > or lying defeated in a pile with the hero standing over them! > > > > So ya...to me all this discussion about whether there should or > > shouldn't be trees is like arguing about whether the hero should be > > wearing a cape or not. I think it's irrelevant, and I think the point in > > the timeline we're showing is the actual missing element. > > > > I think the feeling we want is one that says there's good promise, good > progress, but lots to do, and we need to work together to get it done, > *will we do it?*… i.e. a middle-ground in the time-line, partly cleared, > reason for both optimism and concern, much to do still. > > Think of any other political movement like an environmentalist > organization. They wouldn't show *just* images of pollution and horror, > but neither would they just nice nature scenes. > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop > > <mailto:aa...@snowdrift.coop>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 10/07/2015 01:41 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > > > Aside from my particular responses below, I'd really like to focus > > this > > > conversation on one question: What are our goals for the landing > > page? I > > > think once we're all 100% on the same page for that, it'll be much > > > easier to iterate on specifics. > > > > > > - In 1 second, get an arbitrary internet user emotionally invested > in > > > Snowdrift.coop. > > > - "Together, we can uncover this awesome thing that's currently > > being > > > suppressed." > > > - Encourage users to proceed deeper into the site > > > - At the moment, this is by clicking the one big button on the > > front. > > > - Maintain visual consistency with the rest of the site. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Aaron Wolf <aa...@snowdrift.coop > > <mailto:aa...@snowdrift.coop>> wrote: > > >> On 10/07/2015 12:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > > >> > > >> In the context of our recent discussion > > >> > > < > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/pipermail/design/2015-September/000096.html> > > >> about the home page... Here's a pretty common thing that > happens > > >> in communication between a user (Bob) and a designer (Alice). > > >> *Bob's Perspective:* Bob wants to give Alice some feedback > about > > >> an email application he uses. Bob keeps hitting the delete > button > > >> when he means to hit the save button. He wants to give good > > >> feedback, so he brainstorms a bit, and finally tells Alice > > that he > > >> thinks the application would be better if the save button were > > >> bigger. Alice replies, saying she won't make the save button > any > > >> bigger. Bob is frustrated, and argues back with Alice. > *Alice's > > >> Perspective:* Bob emailed Alice with a suggestion to make the > > save > > >> button bigger. However, if Alice did that, it would break the > > >> aesthetic of the application, and moreover, she's not sure if > it > > >> would actually solve Bob's problem! Alice is frustrated, > because > > >> she's arguing with Bob, and because Bob has an unsolved issue. > > >> *Analysis:* When Bob sends Alice only a suggestion, Alice is > left > > >> with only two actionable options: implement (bad because Bob's > > >> suggestion introduces new problems) or not (she can also > > follow up > > >> with Bob, but Bob's still attached to his solution and upset > it > > >> didn't happen). The problem is twofold: in his zeal to provide > > >> good feedback, Bob is actually providing a suggestion -- > > >> essentially, doing design work -- rather than feedback. > However, > > >> he can't be expected to know what would be most helpful > without > > >> Alice letting him know what kind of feedback is helpful. As > > it is, > > >> Alice is stuck trying to work backwards from Bob's suggestion > to > > >> exactly what his problem is. What should really happen, is a > > >> discussion between Alice and Bob to figure out what Bob's > issues > > >> is (for example, the 'save' and 'delete' buttons are too > close to > > >> each other and have icons that are too similar). Then Alice > has > > >> the flexibility to design a solution that fixes Bob's problem > > >> without introducing new issues. It's also worth mentioning > > that if > > >> Bob provides only a suggestion, then even if Alice follows up > > >> with, "I'm not going to implement that particular suggestion > but > > >> let's try to figure out a better one," Bob is still left with > a > > >> sour taste in his mouth because he has a tendency to become > > >> attached to his solution. With that in mind, I'm going to try > to > > >> give a bunch of feedback such that we can have a discussion > about > > >> what should change, rather than arguing about whether the > scene > > >> needs more trees. More indented --> more specific suggestions > --> > > >> more change-able as long as the higher-level stuff doesn't > > change. > > >> --- *I believe that our landing page should provide a 1-second > > >> emotional explanation of why we care (or, why an arbitrary > > >> internet user should care) about Snowdrift.coop.* /"Together, > we > > >> can uncover this awesome thing that's currently being > > >> suppressed."/ - They'll get a longer explanation of why they > > >> should care deeper into the site, but I think this is > > important as > > >> a hook, to get them to be invested immediately and keep them > > >> reading. *Thoughts on how to achieve this.* - I don't think a > > >> sense of "path" is important. - I think a sense of "barren > > >> wasteland" is important to *keep.* - HOWEVER, I also think > there > > >> needs to be a sense of "If we cleared away this snow, it'd be > a > > >> vibrant place!" I think this is the sense of vibrancy that > Aaron > > >> was missing. Unlike Aaron, I don't think it needs to be > explicit. > > >> - I think having something like a streak of green on a tree > could > > >> have this effect. - I think version 27 > > >> > > < > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/older%20exports/export27/landing.png > > > > >> is the worst offender in this regard. It feels like if you > > cleared > > >> away the snow, you'd still be standing in the middle of a > tundra. > > >> - Bonus points if there's a sense of the awesome thing being > > >> communal / a community. - I think the houses in the > background in > > >> version 1 do this well. - I think the latest, version 33 > > >> > > < > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export33/landing.png > >, > > >> does this better than version 32 > > >> > > < > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export30/landing.png > >, > > >> because the mountain in the background is a little more > > prominent. > > >> - I also personally like it because there's less of that blue > > >> strip next to the path. I really don't like that strip of > blue. - > > >> I'm talking about visuals. I think it's supposed to give a > sense > > >> of a snowbank, but only because I've seen previous > iterations. As > > >> it is, it just looks like a flat shape on the ground. It > barely > > >> even gives me a sense of depth. It's really hard for me to > > look at > > >> the picture because it's *SO* flat. v33 does help with this, > but > > >> only a little. Cheers, Stephen > > >> > > >> Thanks for the thoughts, Stephen. While the meta discussion stuff > is > > >> sensible, the issue boils down to making sure we communicate > > productively. > > > > > > Agreed. I was just sharing my prior experience as to what makes for > > > effective communication. > > > > > >> To the point: I agree that without context from seeing previous > > >> iterations, the strip of blue is just not clear enough what that > is, > > >> what's going on. Even with the new version the sense of real deep > > snow > > >> is lacking. It feels just like there's snow on the ground at all. > > >> Ignoring the issues of destination and trees (because each of > these > > >> items is independent), the core issue is that the sense of the > > >> thickness of the snow and the sense of a bank of snow or otherwise > > >> just the immediate visceral clarity of "think snow blocking the > road" > > >> is lacking in the recent iterations. I agree that lots of subtle > > >> things are better from iterations just before to iteration 33. > What I > > >> can say clearly is: > > >> https://snowdrift.coop/static/img/intro/snowdrift.png and the > earlier > > >> iterations from Robert feel more clear visually. Like I can flash > the > > >> image by someone and they get it instantly: there's a road, it's > > >> blocked-by/covered-in heavy snow. The new illustration merely > > achieves > > >> "it's snowy, I guess there's a road or something, not sure what > that > > >> blue strip is." > > > > > > Do you feel that deep snow is really important? In my opinion, the > > > important thing is the feeling of "There's snow preventing us from > > > realizing this awesome thing underneath." If that were achievable > just > > > by whitewashing everything, with little streaks of color poking > > out, I'm > > > all for it. If it's achievable by showing a big snowdrift blocking > the > > > road as per the image you linked, I think we should do that. I > > have too > > > much schoolwork at the moment to dedicate time to iterating myself > > (but > > > maybe I'll be able to squeeze it in here or there), but I'm very > > > interested to see what others come up with. > > > > > > > To answer this one question: I do want "snowdrift" the name to at > least > > be sensible enough. But that's still pretty broad. No, I don't think > the > > key is "deep snow". The key is exactly what you suggested: "This > could > > be great if we could all work together to get this snow cleared" in > > whatever achieves that as long as it is "snowdrift" enough to work > with > > the name. Keep in mind, *the* metaphor from game theory of the > snowdrift > > dilemma is specifically the idea that a snowdrift has blocked the > > road/path… So, I want the metaphor to at least seem reasonably > > connected, but it's the "need to clear this together" that matters > more > > than how we achieve that feeling. > > > > I agree that there's *potential* in the idea of some elements peeking > > out from tall snow, perhaps street signs or trees or whatever. But > I'm > > not sure about that. > > > > I think Robert's clear that this is "we need to clear this together" > > image, and the important point is that the current image, like with > that > > blue streak by the edge of the road, it just isn't visually clear > enough > > to immediately understand as well as it should/could. > > > > > > >> Now, do I know what the solution is? No. My speculations involve > > >> things like better outlines, better shadows, somewhat longer > visible > > >> part of the road… I suspect a harder sense of clear-road up to a > point > > >> where BLAM there's heavy snow in the way… that would help. So > maybe > > >> the point is to show it more partially cleared already — that > could > > >> mean a little longer cleared road and higher snow banks and snow > piles > > >> on the side of the road framing it and indicating some work > already > > >> accomplished, but then you can see there's lots more to do. I'm > not > > >> strictly tied to any particular suggestion, I'm trying to > describe the > > >> inadequacy of the current status, and yes, speculating with some > ideas > > >> about what might help. > > > > > > Robert: is this discussion any more helpful to you than the > previous one? > > > > > >> Cheers, Aaron > > >> -- > > >> Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> > > >> _______________________________________________ Design mailing > list > > >> Design@lists.snowdrift.coop <mailto:Design@lists.snowdrift.coop> > > <mailto:Design@lists.snowdrift.coop > > <mailto:Design@lists.snowdrift.coop>> > > >> https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design > > > > > > ~Stephen > > > > -- > > Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> > > _______________________________________________ > > Design mailing list > > Design@lists.snowdrift.coop <mailto:Design@lists.snowdrift.coop> > > https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design > > > > > > -- > Aaron Wolf Snowdrift.coop <https://snowdrift.coop> >
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
