On 18.10.2015 21:18, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>
> On 10/18/2015 12:09 PM, mray wrote:
>>
>> On 18.10.2015 09:47, Jacob Chapman wrote:
>>>
https://img.bi/#/RCmUlLW!XJcF_0gW1TKIEhMR59pFJQwpVPv_6YwlrJSRHI8n
>>>
>>> We really need to emphasize the matching aspect of pledges to
encourage
>>> patrons to pledge.
>>>
>>
>> The problem with the match factor is that it is always the
same, so
>> there is no real benefit in constantly reminding a user what it
is.
>> It also is just an invitation to start calculating in the head
- which
>> I'd like to avoid at all costs.
>>
>
> To be clear: despite your wishes for simplicity, we have not
come to a
> consensus about the idea of removing the ability to pledge lower
or
> higher levels. I recognize that the complexity of people
pledging at
> levels above the minimum is an issue, but I still feel that
there are a
> wide range of levels of wealth and it just does *not* make sense
to
> ignore that and force everyone to only have a single pledge
level. All
> other patronage models that people will compare to have
different levels
> of donation for wealthier or less wealthy patrons.
>
> If we accept, as I still feel we should, that the pledge is X
per patron
> rather than everyone at the identical minimum pledge, then the
amount of
> matching *isn't* absolutely fixed. Wealthier pledges mean more
matching
> for new patrons.
My point is that even with a changing match factor your interaction
remains binary: either you pledge (your amount X) or you don't.
>
>> We should not make people calculate.
>>
>> They should see what is happening and what the results of their
possible
>> action would be, and formulas don't really lend themselves
neither to
>> emphasize nor to encourage (at least the vast majority).
>>
>
> I agree that we should have no formulas and calculation factors.
We
> should just show that you pledging means $Y more for the project
and
> costs you $X. In other words, it's a *big* deal to actually
learn that
> at this lower cost, you are effectively getting this *specific*
higher
> amount of funds to the project.
I don't see a particular benefit from this. there is just not
enough
variation. The information starts being relevant only in cases
where
people substantially diverge from the average. For everybody else
it
will always turn out to be: What you give gets doubled by the
community.
>
> We want people to think is "I get the project $15 more dollars,
and I
> only had to chip in $6! Thanks everyone, all you 2,470 others!
I'm so
> glad we're all working together to support this!"
I don't think we want that at all. This makes it sound as if this
is a
big bragain. This fallacious good feeling is entirely based on the
naive
idea that you will never be asked to give more yourself - maybe way
beyond $15 dollar.
We should never even play with the idea to appear as if there are
some
interesting bargains! At the contrary: we need to make clear that
people
should feel great to be able to pay more for their project since
it is
guaranteed to be part of a true difference, rather than a nice
gesture.
>
> None of that includes doing calculations, it's merely: "I'm
chipping in,
> others are chipping in *because* they're happy I'm included, and
all of
> us together are helping."
I totally agree on this notion.
>
>> I do share your concern that the current illustration isn't
good enough.
>> Displaying each donor via an icon does not clarify each one
matches the
>> other.
>> I'm going to try alternatives.
>>
>>> Also I suggest we use /mo rather than /mth.
>>
>> Ok. It didn't occur to me that there was an inconsistency.
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jacob
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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