@taurean and I did a two-hour design jam to create an MVP plan for the Creditor based on the Deep Work prototype and the Creditor Design Sprint of last week.
For this first step, we tackled the Contribution card from the All Contributions view, tweaking it to match our needs and aligning it more with our values.
This update incorporates some of the considerations and concerns raised by participants of the sprint, people who tested the DW prototype thereafter, and my and Taurean’s own design considerations and thoughts.
First, a look at the new Contribution Card for the overview page (Creditor home):
Some key points we addressed:
- Emphasize the contributors of a contribution, not who logged it in the Creditor;
- Change voting labels to impact-oriented ones matching SourceCred brand & language;
- Shuffle content order to encourage reading the contribution’s Why & What, before voting
- Distinguish between Project Tags (#Creditor) and Disciplines*
We also removed the Abstain Voting action because it seems unscalable, plus, participants should not be expected to pay attention to every single contribution.
Vote weighting and scoring
We also spent a good chunk of the two hours discussing voting weight & activity concerns. While we (obviously) did not come to any conclusive decisions on the mechanics, from a user consideration perspective we wanted to Keep It Simple:
- participants are not confronted with vote weights or counts (for conviction-style voting) beyond the four labeled options;
- a fibonacci score system is used behind the scenes, with:
- 1 = Common
- 3 = Significant
- 5 = Major
- 8 = Invaluable
- Voting has a time-scoped allotment, e.g. one month, and each fibonacci weight serves as a percentage of all your votes that month, e.g. one Invaluable vote counts for 8%
- Once a user passes the 100% threshold with voting within a month, all their votes are shrunk in ‘size’ (%) to keep the total amount at 100%. Explained with example:
- A participant makes 10 Invaluable votes, amounting to 80% of their allotment;
- They also add 4 Major votes, of 5% each
- They are now at 100% and all their votes count their default weight
- The user adds another 20 Major votes, diluting their vote total
- Their vote total would now be 200%, and so each of their votes becomes halved, i.e. all their Invaluable votes count for 4, and all their Major votes count for 2.5
( * branches / trunks / domains of expertise / departments; this would clearly be an editable label per instance)
@Creditor Contribution entry (simulation)
Title: Created an MVP-oriented version of Contribution Card
Who: @KuraFire (
66%), @taurean (
What & Why:
Incorporating user, engineering, and design feedback on the Deep Work-delivered prototype design for Creditor Contribution Cards, further aligning content and interface elements to SourceCred’s needs and branding.
(no votes yet)
Taurean and I arrived at consensus about our breakdown (66% / 34%) due to my taking notes and providing lots of context and explanations.
Work / time breakdown
- Design Jam: 2 hours for 2 people (4 person-hours)
- Refine Card design to adjustable & reusable components: 4 hours
- Writing this post & itemizing changes (incl. above visual): 2 hours