Re: [Tails-project] #14559: Have a permanent incentive to do…

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Author: sajolida
To: Public mailing list about the Tails project
Old-Topics: Re: [Tails-project] #14559: Have a permanent incentive to donate on /home
Subject: Re: [Tails-project] #14559: Have a permanent incentive to donate on /home
> I'd rather display this message less often (but perhaps in a more
> flashy way). I think 20% is too much and for people who rely on Tails
> the most and use it every day, it will quickly create something akin
> to popup fatigue; and for folks who have donated already, nagging them
> so often feels like poor taste. If we say 10%, then:
>  - Even a user who uses Tails only once a week will still see this
>    message 5 times a year on average, which I think is plenty.

>  - A user who only starts Tails when there's a new release (I know
>    some people who just keep their Tails up-to-date, don't use it at
>    all, but like our project) will still see this message once a year
>    on average, which feels OK.

>  - Folks who use Tails more often and have already donated are less
>    likely to be pissed off.

Done in 4e109d3e34.

> I'm not convinced the overall effect of underlining "But, not everyone
> can donate" is positive: it attracts my eye and discourages me from
> reading the previous sentence.

I've put an underlined sentence similar messages since our first
campaign, based on learnings from Wikimedia:

Search for "examples of incremental" on:

And it's the first time someone complains to me about it. Maybe because
this one is shorter than usual.

I think that attracting the eye to the section is precisely the point here.

I've removed it from my feature branch but if you feel different about
it now, please let me know or revert 9b5494c1a2.

> I think the "to survive" words have drawbacks and bring little value.
> I would remove them. And the whole sentence could become:
> "Tails needs donations from users like you."
> ("needs" feels more action/future-orientend than "depends" to me and
> here, we want to encourage action, not analysis of a state of things)

I think it's becoming more and more as true as years go by and it adds
some stress to the sentence. But I also removed it for now.

At some point we might have a way of evaluation the impact of such small
changes like Wikimedia does :)

> Finally, having 2 "Donate" buttons on the same page is a bit intense.
> If it's easy to do, perhaps the JS code could hide the "Donate" button
> in the sidebar, when it decides to display the new thing.

Done in f0567a85a8.