I like it. Gets right to the point. However, the wording is weasely: e.g.-
"averaging about $15". I would vote to have it say "$18" and omit the
redunantly redundant weasely "averaging about", then put a button for
$1.50, recurring monthly. That will hit the $18. I am not sure why y'alls
say
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:35 AM, geni wrote:
> On 14 November 2017 at 22:12, Samuel Patton wrote:
> > If you have thoughts on this design, please share them here. There will
> be
> > more opportunities for you to weigh in if this banner variant looks
>
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Samuel Patton
wrote:
>- Petr Kadlec, this work-in-progress banner is using some copy written
>in English, as well as a couple translation templates; the final version
>will all be hardcoded English. However, your bug
On 14 November 2017 at 22:12, Samuel Patton wrote:
> If you have thoughts on this design, please share them here. There will be
> more opportunities for you to weigh in if this banner variant looks
> promising enough to keep testing.
>
> Regards and sincere thanks for all
I want to thank everyone for this robust discussion! We appreciate the
feedback very much. I want to recognize the role that Joseph Seddon has
played in encouraging us to share more results with this email list; he's
the #1 reason that I started this thread.
I also want to thank Peter Coombe, my
What kind of reasonably new device has that kind of resolution?
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 12:41 PM, wrote:
> Patrik, try it on a 640x480 screen. :P
>
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:06 pajz wrote:
>
> > >
> > > This test would run for 1 to 2 hours, and then we'd
Patrik, try it on a 640x480 screen. :P
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:06 pajz wrote:
> >
> > This test would run for 1 to 2 hours, and then we'd evaluate results to
> see
> > if it's worth spending any more time on the concept. For now, we're
> simply
> > hiding the banner all
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Samuel Patton
wrote:
> If you have thoughts on this design, please share them here. There will be
> more opportunities for you to weigh in if this banner variant looks
> promising enough to keep testing.
>
A slightly different
>
> This test would run for 1 to 2 hours, and then we'd evaluate results to see
> if it's worth spending any more time on the concept. For now, we're simply
> hiding the banner all together below 920px, as at smaller viewports it
> begins to interfere with site navigation elements.
It is truly
Well, I'm not skilled in marketing, but maybe being ugly and annoyingly
large is part of the "pay attention" driving force.
Regarding the format, as said I'm not sikilled in the domain, so my
opinion surely doesn't worth much. The good old vertical banner is
definitely simpler, so it might be
both are equally ugly, they should much more smaller, current banner should
1/10 or 1/8th of a page not half of it.
Mardetanha
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
> I like it too, actually better than the earlier one. Looks good on the
> tablet;
Hello,
I like it too, actually better than the earlier one. Looks good on the
tablet; can be clicked away (the X seems to be a little fable).
Kind regards,
Ziko
Peter Southwood schrieb am Mi. 15. Nov. 2017
um 08:16:
> The sidebar version is less offensive than the
The sidebar version is less offensive than the top banner on my widescreen
desktop. The message and text sizing is also better in the sidebar version
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Samuel Patton
Sent:
I like it! as it doesn't cover up the article I came to read. Contrary to
Liam, it worked well for me in Linux/Firefox and Linux/Chrome.
Regards, Richard.
On 15 November 2017 at 09:12, Samuel Patton wrote:
> Hi all, it's Sam from the online fundraising team. I wanted to
Sam, Thanks for the heads up! Is there any measure of the negative impact
of a banner (in distraction, self-reported annoyance, abandoned sessions),
separate from its fundraising impact? I imagine some very noticeable
banners will have high positives as well as negatives; then the question
would
Hi Samuel,
thanks for being circumspect about the new banner design!
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Samuel Patton
wrote:
> If you have thoughts on this design, please share them here. There will be
> more opportunities for you to weigh in if this banner variant looks
>
16 matches
Mail list logo