Page comparing Snowdrift.coop to other platforms

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:
image

:slightly_smiling_face:

3 Appreciations

@msiep like this?

1 Appreciation

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:

snowdrift compare subtle

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. :thinking:

You seem to be aware of the extra noise and balance by grabbing that opacity slider… why not drag it all the way down :hugs:, 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 :smile: 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.

snowdrift compare more subtle

…glad I’m not the only one! :grin:

1 Appreciation

Reminder that this is one of the situations where we can’t logic our way to the best choice, since it’s about emotional response to imagery. All of us will just feel differently no matter what.

The only way to gather evidence would be to do user surveys, and even then, we would be making statistical choices.

Just to increase the data a little bit, I’ll add a report of my emotional reaction:

mray’s version is my favorite. The one thing I might change is to put a title on the chart, like “Features”.

2 Appreciations

I had a thought after reflecting on the quip that (A) startups always show this comparison chart claiming how they are everything where other platforms are incomplete and (B) this be-everything idea is in contrast to the narrow focus that startups generally need to get launched.

We could add “paywall-service” (or similar) to the chart and not check it for us. So, there’s a feature people use and sometimes expect that Kickstarter and Patreon both do: donors get special access. We do not do that. We might ever support such things for rivalrous specials, but that’s not now or necessarily planned. And it’s fine for us to point out that we have a focus and aren’t everything, especially when we’re critical of a feature being a good thing!

Bad idea: we don’t want to mix in anti-features as a mini game for people trying to parse whether check-mark means good or bad. It would defeat the whole purpose of getting a clear overview.

Having all marks checked isn’t bragging, it is making clear what we think matters and how well others score on it. If you want to have the honest outlier you could add “has thousands of active patrons” to it :wink:

1 Appreciation

I could imagine a separate chart of “things we’re not”, which avoids mixing implications for check marks. I’m not currently proposing we do this; I’m having trouble thinking of what other antifeatures we’d put on it, and I don’t fancy spending effort brainstorming for the sake of having a chart that I’m not yet sure we need.

Yeah. But it’s interesting to reflect on this: The idea likely came to mind (unconsciously) after Mozilla’s presentation had a list of “important steps to celebrate in your startup progress” that included “add a paywall” as though that was just a positive feature.

So, stepping back to whoever might look at the comparison, many projects looking for what platform to use are specifically seeking paywall-service features. And the objective statement would be “you can get that at Patreon, but not here”.

But all I’m saying now is that it was interesting to try on that idea for a moment. I agree that we don’t actually want to even subtly suggest that paywalls are desirable. And you’re right that including the item in the comparison would be seen that way.

Yeah, I agree there’s no real call for such a thing at this time. I like how in our values/mission etc. we’ve moved to focus on celebrating the positive. I have indeed had a tendency to emphasize the bad things of the status quo and that we’re different. There’s something to that, but I wasn’t wanting to open up any new ideas in that direction.

It is all a matter of Framing. What you consider to be an interesting thought could as well apply to suddenly “sell” our “Zero-Cut” feature as something that others are asking for, but we don’t.

The difference is that my example is obviously a benefit for the patron and the project, while “no paywall” could be interpreted as “not even rewards waiting” –OR– “we’re not mean to poor people”. It is very tedious to paint paywalls as a bad thing while at the same time bragging we don’t have them.

It just does not lend itself as an easily digestible obvious benefit. Because we are asking people to sign up and pay, we are not giving away stuff for free.

1 Appreciation

Just in case I wasn’t as clear as I should be initially: I wasn’t that confident in the first place, and your first reply convinced me completely already. Thanks