On 11/04/2015 05:20 PM, Stephen Michel wrote:
> How do we feel about "co-patron"?
>
> In the latest project page mockup, 'co-donor' works very well, in my
> opinion.
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export37/project.png
>
> I think it
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:03 AM, mray wrote:
On 02.11.2015 15:53, Stephen Michel wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Aaron Wolf
wrote:
On 11/01/2015 05:54 PM, mray wrote:
Hello Everybody,
based on the discussions in IRC about responsive/mobile-first
implementation of snow
How do we feel about "co-patron"?
In the latest project page mockup, 'co-donor' works very well, in my
opinion.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mray/Snowdrift-Design/master/mray%20website%20mockups%20/export37/project.png
I think it gets across pretty much everything we want. The only
downs
This terminology makes sense to me. I see the possible colloquial and
historical problems with "patron," but I think most users will let the term
be defined by the site rather than by the word's potential baggage.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>
> On 11/03/2015 12:00 PM, B
> I agree that the arrangement of numbers (and the quantity ther of) does
> not feel right.
>
> If there are any ideas about how to tackle this: send me real quick
> scribbles of how this could work!
> Here are the numbers I think need to be covered:
>
> 1. projected total monthly income
> 2. cu
On 11/03/2015 12:00 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 10:08:07AM +0100, mray wrote:
>>
>> On 02.11.2015 03:32, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>>
>>> [Do] you have a real problem with the word "patron"? We went
>>> around discussing this a long while back and felt that term was
>>> the cleare
