Thanks @mray. I’ve put this in the top of the gitlab issue for now, but we need a version that also shows the visual style for the footnotes themselves.
I’m putting an updated version of the table here so I can put a screenshot of it into the git issue:
| Kickstarter | Patreon | OpenCollective | Liberapay | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mutual assurance |  |
|||
| Ongoing support | |
|
|
|
| Specifically for public goods | [1] | |||
| No fees | [2] | |
||
| Non-profit | [3] | |
||
| Co-op | ||||
| FLO itself | |
|
I uploaded the one in the body of your post into the new “Designs” tab, just to play around with it. It looks like one advantage there is that you can comment on a specific location of the picture.
How do I get to that new “Designs” tab?
Just below the top post (ie, the issue itself), there’s 2 tabs: “Discussion” and “Designs”.
Isn’t that just semantics though? Couldn’t you just as easily argue that the checkmarks are “unnecessary”, and leave the X’s instead? Neither are necessary, but you can’t leave both out. It’s the contrast that matters.
I guess what I was saying is that the “steering of framing” (as you put it) is happening anyway. You could say the content “speaking for itself” would be the neutrally-presented table (both Xs and Checks) and your “design should just underline” is exactly what is not happening, to the shortcomings of the platforms in our table…
That said, if this already has consensus, so be it 
1 Appreciation
Just gonna mention that I like the check marks, x’s, and subscripts. That being said, not my domain or interest in putting more than a passing opinion out.
What I like about how @mray has done it is that it’s visually cleaner and easier to scan, and it puts the emphasis on what platforms do have rather than on what they don’t have. I think it’s a simpler message to say “Snowdrift has all these attributes” and show for each attribute which of the other platforms also have that attribute. Adding in Xs to mean “doesn’t have it” makes it more complicated both visually and cognitively.
3 Appreciations
Right, which is pretty much a restatement of the sentiment of @smichel17 and others above, so I guess that puts me in the minority opinion (as I’d rather we do the opposite).
I guess I just worry that this general trend toward timidity (which is probably common among co-ops) will dampen our impact.
technically those versions say the same, yet they are not:
The default gut reaction is to assume “having” is always better than “not having” in a comparison. The second version adds the extra cognitive load of realizing that X negates despite “filling” a slot. Similar to double negations in language this makes parsing harder.
I understand you suggest adding check-marks as well, but the disadvantage having the Xs would stay. And with it a lot of extra visual noise. If the goal is to underline the shortcomings of others the same as the benefits of us we would have to underline everything – and that’s like underlining nothing.
-> not the best solution in my eyes:
3 Appreciations
That makes it really clear. It’s a big deal in the comparison that Kickstarter is the only other mutual-assurance option. The version with the X’s really fails here. It just focuses on what Kickstarter doesn’t have, and it totally obscures the significance.
Your preferred version with only check-marks is clearly superior — I’d say in every way, but especially in keeping the focus on the list of traits.
Thanks for taking the time to express this, though it wasn’t needed since you design folks were already in agreement.
1 Appreciation
to be fair, this was never suggested by anybody. That was just to make a case.
2 Appreciations
Yes - thank you! I like how you’ve aligned the footnotes with the columns of other platforms.
1 Appreciation
Yes, thanks again mray! Since my opinion is increasingly irrelevant, I’ll make this my last post on the subject.
That psychological analysis makes intuitive sense, and I think mine does too, but that doesn’t say much about which one is correct. Indeed, multiple contradictory explanations may make sense. So let’s go further: I find your image with both checks and Xs to not induce additional cognitive load when scanning, because I’m able to gloss over the sea of Xs like they’re not there and the pockets of checkmarks stand out to me. If you’re having trouble seeing it this way, take a look at the image below, which should make that effect happen naturally.
OTOH the blank boxes, while less visually noisy, can be seen as indeed adding cognitive load because it’s not immediately clear what a blank means. Why is it not filled in? For example, one might initially assume the un-filled box means “it’s unknown” or “it’s not applicable”. Both are reasonable (though incorrect) gut reactions.
But they don’t - again they only illustrate your point when we assume the blanks are equivalent to the opposite of the non-blank squares, which is definitely not everyone’s “default gut reaction”.
Think about why that second image is pretty silly (showing only Xs), and as you mentioned, no one suggested it. I know it was an exaggeration to make a visual point, but what’s actually wrong with it? Well, the viewer is supposed to realize that the blanks are a positive, and work around the Xs. My point above is, though arguably to a lesser degree due to convention, the checks-and-blanks version has the exact same issue in reverse.
The disadvantage you describe only applies if we add lots of visual noise, yes. But who says we have to add visual noise? In problem solving we must not stop at identifying the problem, but think of solutions as well, so here’s one:
Assuming you mean “underlining” as a metaphor for “drawing attention to”, then no, that wasn’t part of my goal. In the example above, I don’t think the Xs are underlined at all - yet the goal has been met. Sorry if I was unclear about that earlier!
1 Appreciation
FWIW, I can only report my direct sensations, but I when I look at the versions with X’s (even grey), I feel increased stress. It’s like I have more to deal with. It’s an extra type of symbol to process. I don’t find myself processing the blanks the same way, they feel like white-space to me.
If I were answering the question, “what does Kickstarter have or lack?” and I looked at Kickstarter alone then I’m okay either way. But in this grid, I’m trying to take in the whole thing with the question, “what do the various platforms do or not do compared to Snowdrift.coop?”
In other words, this is less about picking from a set of options and more about seeing how Snowdrift.coop is combining features of all the alternatives.
Taking a plain square and adding a cross mark is just that – in my eyes. 
You seem to be aware of the extra noise and balance by grabbing that opacity slider… why not drag it all the way down 
, its about a binary overview after all!
1 Appreciation
It’s interesting, I’m much more at ease when I look at the greyed out X version. I’m pretty convinced that full opacity X’s is the wrong direction. However, when I look at the blank squares, my brain immediately goes to trying to figure out whether they have that feature or not, or if it’s just an unknown right now…
1 Appreciation
It’s not at all irrelevant. It’s very helpful to have your and everyone’s input! And although I still prefer @mray’s latest version overall, I found your contribution of the version with light gray X’s thought provoking and I appreciated it.
3 Appreciations
Thanks @msiep. I’ll iterate once more, then.
Yikes - you definitely won’t like comparison tables on Wikipedia, then. Let’s see if I can reduce the stress by making the Xs just like whitespace placeholders.
I’m sure you know that’s not how opacity works 
Red at any opacity is still red, not grey. The idea was additional hues = additional noise, so ditch the red.
Good point! Again, problem solving - remove the plain squares, then.
…glad I’m not the only one! 
1 Appreciation