Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Here is the wireframe version open for feedback.
Please have a look.
Overall, it's great! So much better than the current experience!
I especially like:
When we will be able to see the screens for after they click the "open source" option at the start? I think there are some issues to sort out there, like:
Great progress, this is brilliant. Two comments:
Page 9: should be People not Peoples
Page 11: Account holder should be bank account holder, otherwise it's confusing with the holder of the open collective account (owner of the profile)
Thanks for this extended review @alanna ! :-)
The idea is to make sure that after the creation process flow you know and you can already share:
The goal is to make a more fancy "please accept the terms and conditions" and share the general values in plain English.
Those should be values that can apply to all collectives. Do you want to take a stab at suggesting what those should be?
If one shares code on Github, they share the value of "transparency", "anyone can contribute" (which doesn't mean that all contributions are accepted), etc.
That might be true for the OSC because collectives haven't had any financial contribution/transaction before creating an open collective. And their goal when creating an open collective is to collect money.
For self hosted collectives, the priority should be given to the budget (and manually recording transactions).
Updates should be the first thing returning users see on a collective page, in the same way that when you open facebook, their first show you "new things you haven't seen yet".
You can only select an organization that you are an admin of.
Out of scope, but yes, I would totally love to add that. This design makes it easy to do so in the future.
That's a great point.
However, it is indeed very possible that some people may apply before providing all that info.
That would be indeed great. But yes, I'd keep that for another project.
There is one default / recommended host where they can just apply and then they end up in the screen where they can edit their tiers.
If it's not one of the recommended hosts, they can click on it to know more about them.
Yes. By default, most people don't want to bother with someone else's collective. They will start by hosting their own, maybe a second one where they are also involved. It's a much more advanced feature to start hosting other people's collectives.
I like that.
Yes, just added that in the flow. If you select "manually", it goes to the default flow for creating a new collective and the default host that will be recommended if you want a fiscal host will be the OSC.
This is fixed with the link below the "connect with Github" so that it gives a way for people to skip that flow (see screenshot above).
@znarf We cannot address all issues at once. What issues in particular do you think that we should address in this first iteration in regard to that "Recommended fiscal sponsor".
@xdamman The magic recommendation with one host based on tag and currency is just wrong and should be absolutely re-considered.
I would recommend to not try to filter by tag and currency, display a full list of hosts open for applications, with an highlight on "OSC / Europe / UK / Brussels / Paris" on top.
For what I've been reading, it seems that this "Fiscal Host Application" needs to be designed as an individual experience and connect with different parts of the platform like this flow. Still, I imagine that this is a future project.
Thanks @xdamman ! Responses below....
Personally I would still put adding contributors alongside all the other actions to expand your Collective after the initial creation, because lowering the barrier to initial creation is such an important goal of this redesign. As long as one admin at least (the creator) is getting the messages, it will be fine. If it's a priority for them to add people, they can do that first thing after creation.
I support the impulse to make this interaction more human and warm, since accepting Tc&Cs is so cold usually. However, due to the importance of simplification in this project, I suggest leaving this out for now. There are too many variables to get right and also if we're changing it here we should change it every time we ask someone to accept the terms. Let's treat this as a seperate project for the future.
Collectives using our system for manual expense recording, including self-hosted ones, are extremely rare. The vast majority some to us specifically for the financial features, namely enabling contributions. Until we have any other evidence, I think we have to respect how people actually use the platform. I understand you're trying to shift that with this redesign and I support that effort, but we still need to make sure the most common use cases can easily find what they are looking for.
Maybe trying to solve this with section order is the wrong approach, however. Upon initial creation there could be some kind of banner or helpful guide bubbles or something to help users understand all the actions they can take at that point to expand their Collective, regardless of which they want to focus on first. I have seen this in other apps and it seems to work well.
I don't think this is the way to go, because it puts up a big barrier to the flow if someone is creating a new Collective and applying to an existing host. Instead, if they choose the fiscal host option can we just require them to fill out their "about" section as part of the flow? I'm wondering if we should actually ask all Collectives to fill that out as part of creation - you say you want them to be able to share their link immediately, so don't they need at least a basic description from the start? The other main field I'd suggest requiring in setup is website (they can leave it blank if they don't have one, but if they do have one it's the key info for fiscal host consideration).
Yeah I think this would be good, to keep them in the flow. It's important users check out the details of the host acceptance criteria, but they can click into their page to see that if they need to.
I still am not clear on how these flows will work for different cases. Can you create screens for:
@znarf ok - on it
@alanna I see. What about this:
Then the "continue" button. If people just click on it, the default will be the collective email will forward only to the creator of the collective.
We anyway need a step to accept those. So let's get something simple done here.
I took note of your input and I'll make sure it will be working great for the OSC.
Good idea. Let's make sure we ask them for a description and url if they haven't provided one yet.
Whenever they will want to activate financial contributions, they will be given the classic options of self host or find a fiscal sponsor.
But following @znarf's comment, we will redesign that screen to not recommend one host in particular but just surface all the hosts with a way to filter them by tag.
Ok sounds good @xdamman
I still think people are going to trip up trying to escape Github validation. To further improve the experience, I request the following: