Should we move/change "How does the process begin"? #5

New Issue

sierrarod7 · 2025-04-21T05:20:58Z

sierrarod7 commented

2025-04-21 05:20:58 +00:00

For Intake Section:

I would move the "How does the process begin?" question to the bottom. It was a bit harsh to start with because I wasn't quite sure what you were saying. Were you saying, How does one file a claim? Or just how does one start the process of creating a protocol? I know it sounds counterintuitive that you would even be asking that, but since it's the first question, it almost felt like I needed to have an answer to that out of the gate instead of establishing what the policy is, and then going into how you would get the policy started.

For Intake Section: - I would move the "How does the process begin?" question to the bottom. It was a bit harsh to start with because I wasn't quite sure what you were saying. Were you saying, How does one file a claim? Or just how does one start the process of creating a protocol? I know it sounds counterintuitive that you would even be asking that, but since it's the first question, it almost felt like I needed to have an answer to that out of the gate instead of establishing what the policy is, and then going into how you would get the policy started.

ntnsndr commented

2025-04-21 18:54:00 +00:00

This is a great question. And it goes to the heart of a basic design question: Do we design around the user's experience in the dispute process, or more from the perspective of the architect of it.

If the questions are supposed to walk a user through the process, putting the beginning at the top makes sense. But I can see how your experience suggests that from a design perspective, it might be helpful to address other questions first.

For now, I want to hold this issue in place and think a bit more about it collectively and see if others have this experience.

This is a great question. And it goes to the heart of a basic design question: Do we design around the user's experience in the dispute process, or more from the perspective of the architect of it. If the questions are supposed to walk a user through the process, putting the beginning at the top makes sense. But I can see how your experience suggests that from a design perspective, it might be helpful to address other questions first. For now, I want to hold this issue in place and think a bit more about it collectively and see if others have this experience.

ntnsndr changed title from ~~How does the process begin?~~ to Should we move/change "How does the process begin"?

2025-04-21 18:54:18 +00:00

ntnsndr commented

2025-05-12 23:29:36 +00:00

The Intake section is now way too large and overwhelming. But also it seems to be missing important things.

Cut back what is currently here
Change the name to something broader like "Basics" or "Starting points"
include the Code of Conduct or ruleset here
Include the community values

Potential solution: Refactor the Intake and Process sections into Basics and Intake, in that order.

The Intake section is now way too large and overwhelming. But also it seems to be missing important things. * Cut back what is currently here * Change the name to something broader like "Basics" or "Starting points" * include the Code of Conduct or ruleset here * Include the community values Potential solution: Refactor the Intake and Process sections into Basics and Intake, in that order.

ntnsndr commented

2025-05-13 16:05:26 +00:00

3ef15444fe

https://git.medlab.host/dispute-protocol/builder-prototype/commit/3ef15444fe1d7152a672df85559444d7428340e2

ntnsndr closed this issue

2025-05-13 16:05:27 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

2 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: dispute-protocol/builder-prototype#5