<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"> <html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css"> p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; } </style></head><body style=" font-family:'Monospace'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;"> Hey Alex and Mike, I have tried to digest your feedback and will try to summarize in a few points. Alex, I value your feedback, but it takes me a lot of time to read several mails, esp. when parts are repetitive. Please don't get me wrong! I just don't want to lose too much time in discussion as it pulls me away from work heavily and sucks up all my concentration. Sorry! a) Avatars @Alex First of all I have thought again about avatars. The one valid point/scenario your arguments have imo, is that users will use our tools in a flow with other forums and media, so avatars would allow a quick recognition of peers. The problem is still, that this does not fit our Ui, and it does not fit our Ui, because it does not fit what we try to visualize. While you insist that people from Facebook or other platforms focusing on individual profiling and communication with friends might have a problem, I say: We visualize not individuals but consent. It is central to give an understanding of that, nothing else. This might sound harsh. If our Ui is going to visualize all relevant peers in 120x150 (typical forum size avatar), then nobody will recognize anything (Just imagine the Votespace Ui with only 20 endcandiates...). The mnemonics, while being boring, only take 20x29 px in our Ui (in my browser) and clutter nothing. If you can come up with avatars in that size, that are still meaningful and not only visiglyphs (which btw. are less informative than mnemonics) and more cluttering, than there would at least be a solution. You think you know users, but to turn your own very valid arguments about Ui design against you, we don't know our users yet and you don't either. We need people to use the tools, then we can decide what we can show in the hover widgets or how to redesign the tools. But people need to be interested in consent not in social network buzz, if they aren't then we have nothing to offer (we don't even deploy a discussion medium). An avatar is possible on mouse-hover, if it helps Crossforum browsing. I also would like to know, if you insist that this is design priority for you, which problem it exactly solves? We could allow coloring in mnemonics and peers could use it in their forums as well (maybe as an emblem on their avatar), but I don't know if this works at all and users would really use it. If you want avatars, bring us alpha users (political/... activists), who then prove you right :-p Let's first get the new concepts of our Ui worked out, before we get into visual details. So... b) The TrackStack I have added version 2c (1). It uses a thermometer visual. I don't see how I can visualize progress in there, except overlaying arrows. No mnemonics and no colors, but target and sum are more distinct now. The segments of the thermometer showing the contribution of one of the voters, can have a hover box showing their contribution and maybe any other information for that pledge. We can also highlight a segment on voter selection. But the collective aspect which was in their through the rainbow colors (so they had information, just not for each segment), is now gone. Does this still visualize the collective effort? I feel uncomfortable with it... looks a bit boring. c) Literature Thanks for the article Alex and the book recommendation Michael. I will read the book next. (1) http://whiletaker.homeip.net/mockups/ conseo</body></html>