On 06/04/2016 03:18 AM, mray wrote: > On 04.06.2016 01:02, Michael Siepmann wrote: >> <snip> >> >> 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. >>>> 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. > >>>> * "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 sufficient to fund all of your pledges. > 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. I think our info for the dashboard naturally falls into a table format. The mockup at http://codepen.io/anon/pen/WxbPwr is basically a 3 row x 4 column table, just without headers. (Columns being project name, # patrons, action, and current pledge value.) > >>>> * "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. >> > My reasons to chose the particular button design are to stay simple and > consistent with the interaction on the project pages. The toggle that > controls your choice of support should look as familiar/identical as > possible everywhere. Importantly that also affects the display of > problems with pledging over limit. It feels strange to have different > representations of a simple and important interaction. > Also, the toggle incorporates the most relevant information at the > moment of choice (current price) while saving an extra column. > > Again, I'm not categorically against a table, but if we can boil it down > to a really simple layout and a toggle I'd like to avoid tables and the > resulting inconsistency among project & dashboard pledging. I completely agree about getting the layout as simple as possible, as long as the type of simplicity doesn't compromise ease of understanding, reading, scanning for key info, etc. One specific reason I don't think having button labels like "Pledge $3.99/month*" will work is that you're not actually pledging $3.99/month, you're pledging $0.001/patron/month. Having to consult the footnote that the asterisk points to is too complicated. That's why I prefer just "Pledge" or "Add" or some other simple action label that doesn't try to convey more information than can really fit in that context.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
