Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[mray]

On 07.10.2015 22:41, 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?


@1:
I don't see it as a suppression. To me it is an opportunity we currently
miss but should take. Generally I'm with you. Users need to quickly
grasp "roughly" what it is and be on our side.

@2 + @3:
I agree.




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

Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[Jonathan Roberts]

Sounds like we're on the same page...

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Stephen Michel 
wrote:

>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Jonathan Roberts <
> robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> They might. They might also show a picture of people cleaning up a beach.
> The people are halfway done, and one half of the beach looks pristine while
> the other half, not so much.
>
> I do agree, however, that some element of excitement is necessary to
> convey the sense of "this is why we're doing this," that the current
> version does not convey. Of course, this will be counterbalanced by the
> desire to keep the entire site visually consistent. Which then begs the
> question, if we want the home page to be more vibrant, does that also
> require adjustment of the other pages?
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Aaron Wolf  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
>> >  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 > > > 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 > > > 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/96.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 th

Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[Stephen Michel]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Jonathan Roberts 
 wrote:
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.


They might. They might also show a picture of people cleaning up a 
beach. The people are halfway done, and one half of the beach looks 
pristine while the other half, not so much.


I do agree, however, that some element of excitement is necessary to 
convey the sense of "this is why we're doing this," that the current 
version does not convey. Of course, this will be counterbalanced by the 
desire to keep the entire site visually consistent. Which then begs the 
question, if we want the home page to be more vibrant, does that also 
require adjustment of the other pages?


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Aaron Wolf  
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
>  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  > 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 

> > wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2015 12:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >>
> >> In the context of our recent discussion
> >>
>  

> >> 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
> >> 

Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[Jonathan Roberts]

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  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
> >  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  > > 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  > > 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/96.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

Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[Aaron Wolf]

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
>  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  > 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  > wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2015 12:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> >>
> >> In the context of our recent discussion
> >>   
>  
> 
> >> 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 shoul

Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[Jonathan Roberts]

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 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.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Aaron Wolf  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  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/96.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

Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[Aaron Wolf]

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  wrote:
>> On 10/07/2015 12:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
>>
>> In the context of our recent discussion
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 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 

Re: [Design] Let's Talk about Feedback & Landing Page Goal Discussion

[Stephen Michel]

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  wrote:



On 10/07/2015 12:29 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:

 In the context of our recent discussion
 


 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
 

 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
 
,

 does this better than version 32