On 01.09.2016 16:38, Michael Siepmann wrote: > > > On 08/31/2016 11:48 PM, Bryan Richter wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 09:32:12AM -0600, Michael Siepmann wrote: >>> >>> On 08/31/2016 05:57 AM, Bryan Richter wrote: >>>> There are three classes of information: >>>> >>>> 1. Current pledge information >>>> 2. Historic payment information >>>> 3. Historic pledge information >>>> >>>> These forms of information should be made available as separate >>>> pages, with the given ordering being used as implementation >>>> priority. >>> This approach sounds fine to me from a prioritization perspective. >>> However, as soon as we're aiming to support more than a small number >>> of "insider" users, I think we will need an effective explanation >>> of *why* the historic payments were what they were, which means >>> showing how historic payment information relates to historic pledge >>> information, including edge case complexities where a month's payment >>> was not the same as that month's pledge total. >> To be clear, I am saying that we should use both Robert's and Michael's >> visions, but on separate pages. Robert's "Where did my money go?" is >> payment history. If we allow a page to be JUST payment history, that >> page can be as simple as we please. It can skip months and provide >> opaque totals. It does not need to carefully explain each month's >> pledge/crowdmatch activity. It has just one purpose. >> >> With that out of the way, we can provide a more robust pledge history, >> which is Michael's "effective explanation of *why* history payments >> were what they were". Pledge history will *include* payment history. >> But the user won't be forced to parse payment history out of pledge >> history. Payment history information will be separately available in >> unambiguous simplicity. This will allow that information to FACILITATE >> the explanation of pledge history, rather than be dependent on it. >> >> I agree with mray that we need a simple, clear, unambiguous description >> of payment history, and I agree with Msiep that such information is not >> sufficient for selling Snowdrift to the world at large — and the whole >> is greater than the sum of its parts. > > Sounds good to me. > >
Sounds good to me, too. I'm just somewhat confused what this means in terms of a decision. If MVP is a vague term - what exactly needs mockups *now*?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/design
