Phil’s notes on draft 4.3, and what we’ll do

I find this transition a little bit weird. Parts of it I really, really like. So I love the bit where the data feeds over to the table. The problem I have is the black area here basically moves to the left and then it moves to the right again. It would make more sense, I feel, for the black to go from the full screen width size down to the track size. I don't think it's worth showing this information, especially when the actual title called track isn't one of these actual tabs here. So you're seeing a quick flash up of this sidebar, and viewers are going to be like, oh, did I miss something there? And you're animating the white area past where you're then going to eventually extend it out to.

What he asks for

• The black goes straight from full screen to the side panel's width, in one move, while the data flows into the table (which he loves).
• No flash of the portal's own sidebar: its tabs don't include "Track", so it reads as something missed.
• Don't reveal page that the panel then covers again.

We’ll do: The title card's black collapses straight into the side panel in one move, as the short's does, while the spreadsheet flows into the table. No sidebar flash.

The short already opens this way (its title card folds straight into the side panel).

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:01.1 Hey, so I find this transition a little bit weird. Parts of it I really, really like. So I love the bit where like this bit where the data feeds over to the table. The problem I have with this part of this transition is the black area here basically spans over to it moves to the left and then it moves to the right again.

0:28.6 And if I scroll it, it does it so to show, cool, this is what your actual like dashboard is going to look like and your profile is going to look like. But the issue I have is it's so quick to transition from this width to reveal the track width that it feels counterintuitive.

0:53.6 It would make more sense, I feel, for the black to go from the full screen width size down to the track size and the data to be.

1:04.6 I love that how the data spilled over from the table into the app. But I just I don't think it's worth showing this information, especially when the actual type title called track isn't one of these actual these tabs here.

1:23.3 So you're seeing a quick flash up of this sidebar. And it's almost like you're like because it's so quick users are going to be like, oh, did I or view watches are going to be like, oh, did I miss something there? Because the transaction transition is too quick to actually see what was being shown.

1:40.4 And it's also kind of you're animating the white area past where you're actually then going to eventually extend it out to. And the transition just seems a bit convoluted.

I do feel like there's maybe a bit many of them. I'm wondering if it would be better if we showed a little bit less of them and showed more how value gets accumulated each month and then they get paid each month at the end of the month. You've only got one value saying paid to date. Would it be worthwhile showing next payment value and paid to date? So this value over here be next payment, and then another value over here called paid to date. Every single month this ticks up, and whenever they're paid, this one resets to zero. But this number is always permanently going up. Just an idea.

What he asks for

• Fewer months on the wall.
• "Next payment" top left: it climbs through each month and resets to zero when the month is paid.
• "Paid to date" to its right: it only ever goes up.
• The build reads as a cycle: trades build up during a month, then it is paid at the end of it.

We’ll do: Two rows of months, from August 2025, each building up and paid with the portal's Paid chip. "Paid to date" (top right) only ever goes up: it starts from what was paid before August 2025, adds each month as it is paid, and ends on the portal's total. "Next payout" (top left, the portal's own wording, kept) is always the next payout itself: it climbs from zero as the first month lands to 3,432.56 GBP as September is scheduled, never reset month by month (Stevan, 12 Oct, after the first preview: resetting it for every month was too much to keep up with). Same wall in the partner film and the social cut.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:03.0 I think this transition is great showing the actual like months they were paid. I do feel like there's maybe a bit many of them. I'm actually wondering if it would actually be better if we showed a little bit less of them and just showed more something along the lines of how value gets accumulated each month and then they get paid each month at the end of the month.

0:32.0 So, you know, trades coming in and then, you know, they're there. The interesting thing here is you've only got one value saying paid to date. Now, I was wondering, would it be worthwhile showing next payment value and paid to date? So this value over here be next payment and then this being having another value over here called paid to date.

0:57.2 And it's almost like every single month, this ticks, you know, show less months, this ticks up. And whenever they're paid, this one resets to zero.

1:06.4 But this number is always permanently going up and it's like paid, paid, paid. Just an idea.

I personally think we should change the way this status paid is rendered. I would recommend using the same style we use over here for when it's paid. I can notice that the centering is a bit off on this example, but it doesn't matter too much. I'm fine with it also being larger, but I think the styling of the actual box should match the actual status that we show throughout the app, just for continuity.

What he asks for

• The wall's PAID mark styled like the portal's "Paid" status chip: upright, light orange fill, orange text, no outline, no tilt. Larger than in the app is fine.

We’ll do: The PAID mark becomes the portal's own "Paid" status chip (as on the Track page): upright, light orange fill, orange text. Larger than in the app.

His "centering is a bit off" is about the portal's own chip in the tray; he says it doesn't matter much.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:00.5 I personally think we should change the way this status paid is rendered or the style on it. I would recommend using the same style we use over here for when it's paid. I can notice that the centering is a bit off on this example, but it doesn't matter too much.

0:23.7 I'm fine with it also being larger than, you know, obviously this is larger than what's shown over in the other locations, but I think the styling of the actual box should match kind of the actual status that we show throughout the app, just for continuity. So have the paid changed to that for here.

When the months are finished animating in, I think there's a bit too much of a long pause. I do like the fact that they speed up as they come in, but when you have a pause before the next month and current month starts coming in, it's a bit long, a few seconds extra. I think the pause at the end is fine.

What he asks for

• Shorten the 3.6 s gap between the last paid month landing and the next payout arriving. He likes the speed-up; the hold at the end is fine.

We’ll do: A shorter pause between the last paid month and the next payout: quicker, not rushed.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:01.5 I think this is a bit of a timing thing. I think when the months are finished actually animating in, I think there's a bit too much of a long pause. I do like the fact that they speed up as they come in, but when you have a pause before the next month and current month starts coming in, it's a bit long, a few seconds extra.

0:23.6 So for example, long pause there, and then we get those two. I think the pause at the end is fine, but the pause between the accumulation and then the next one's already scheduled, I think there's a bit too much of a long pause there.

I find the values along the bottom here a bit weird. You've got December 2024 and then 2026 all the way over here. I would actually recommend scrapping off December 2024, maybe start 2025. I'd put a little line indicator to show where 2026 is starting and 2025 is starting. I would even maybe put in quarterly dividers and have Q1, Q2, Q4. That also makes it very business related.

What he asks for

• He says "Y-axis" but means the dates along the bottom.
• Drop December 2024 and start in 2025.
• Mark where 2025 and 2026 begin; possibly quarter dividers (Q1 to Q4).

We’ll do: No December 2024. Quarter dividers (Q1 to Q4) along the date axis, with 2025 and 2026 marked where they begin. The chart covers the same months as the wall.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:01.2 Um, not really an animation thing, but, um, I find this, uh, the Y-axis values along the bottom here a bit weird. You've got December 2024 and then 2026 all the way over here. I would actually recommend scrapping off December 2024, maybe start 2025. And, um, you know, you could leave it as much as that.

0:25.6 But again, the other thing I'd say is like, I put a little kind of line indicator to show where maybe 2026 is starting and 2025 is starting because at the moment I just feel like that's, uh, the graph looks a little bit more ambiguous. I would even maybe, um, to make it look, uh, a little bit, uh, more detailed and a little bit have more value, maybe put in quarterly dividers and have Q1, Q2, Q4.

0:56.2 Um, that also makes it very kind of like a business related. Um, so yeah, I, I, I think the Y-axis could do with some attention on these.

Is there a reason why the values are so similar between their share lifetime and your share lifetime? You're calling these partners, but they're also a partner. I wonder if these should be like referrals or referred clients? It makes it a little bit confusing that they're a partner and then these are also partners. Now I understand this. These are super partners, and these are just their affiliates, shall we say. I don't even know if you need to say lifetime. Why are these numbers so similar? They're only off by a couple of pence. Is it going to be a 50-50 split? Numbers just seem a bit random to me.

What he asks for

• The pairs a penny apart look random (is it a 50/50 split?).
• Calling the manager's introducers "partners" when the manager is a partner too is confusing; he floats "referrals" or "referred clients", then "super partners" and "affiliates".
• He questions whether "lifetime" is needed in the headers.

We’ll do: No change. The pairs stay a penny or two apart; it's "partner manager" and "partners" (not affiliates or super partners); and "lifetime" stays, because without it the figure could be read as this month's or this year's.

All three were earlier calls: the 15/15 split stays (your decision 3), "Partners" is Ingrid's word (decision 1), and "lifetime" came in with #5722 to fix her 12-month confusion.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:01.6 Sorry, eating lunch while I do this. Is there a reason why the values are so similar between their share lifetime and your share lifetime? See whatever a partner earns. I mean, I imagine this is when you're a, I think this is a little bit of a confusion, what I was saying about narrative previously. You're calling these partners, but they're also a partner.

0:29.2 I wonder if these should be like referrals or something along those kind of lines or like referred clients or what? I feel like there's a bit of a kind of like terminology, not inconsistency, but like it makes it a little bit confusing that they're a partner and then these are also partners.

0:50.8 Now I understand this. These are super partners. They're almost like super partners and these are just their affiliates, shall we say. Anyway. Yeah, I think their share lifetime and your share lifetime. I don't think you need to say.

1:13.0 I don't even know if you need to say lifetime. But the other thing I question is why are these numbers so similar? They're only off by like a couple of pence. Is it going to be a 50-50 split? Yeah. Numbers just seem a bit random to me.

I would change the name of Kingsley Rowe Chartered Accountants. It's forcing a two-line row element, and although that's fine inside the app, when highlighting this information I think we can just go with a cleaner company name, so every single one is on its own single line.

What he asks for

• A shorter demo partner name (for example "Kingsley & Rowe") so every row is one line.

We’ll do: The demo partner becomes "Kingsley & Rowe", so every row fits on one line.

It's a change to the demo data, and it shows in every film that lists the partners.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:00.6 I would change the name of Kingsley Row Chartered Accountants. It's forcing a two-line row element, and although that's fine for actually inside the app, I think when highlighting this information, I think we can just go with a cleaner company name or partner or affiliate name to make sure that every single one is on its own single line.

The orange border is a little bit close to the actual icons. I would extend it out slightly so there's a bit of padding. The bottom element has a kind of total and it looks like a summary of what's above, and that's not actually what this is representing. Suggestion would be either add some other statuses in here, like signed up, maybe one's activated, or even the stages it goes through: signed up, activated, approved, paid. Or making transfers. We've got a mix of data in here: this is funnel and this is commission payout, and because there's only one of these in this list, it's confusing.

What he asks for

• More room between the highlight and the icons.
• The paid statement at the bottom (3,183.60 GBP) reads as a total of the sign-ups above it.
• Show one kind of thing: a client moving through its stages (signed up, activated, approved, trading), rather than three sign-ups and a payout.

We’ll do: The tray shows one kind of thing: clients moving through their stages (signed up, in review, activated, trading), with no payout in the list. More room between the highlight and the icons.

The tray must be refilled anyway: it only shows the last 7 days and today it's empty. So we can choose what appears in it.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:01.2 I think the data in this slide is a little bit confusing. It could be slightly more cleaned up. Also, the orange border is a little bit close to the actual icons. I would actually extend it out slightly so there's a bit of padding on that line.

0:15.2 Anyway, the reason why I think this is a bit confusing is because the bottom element has a kind of total and it looks like a summary of what's above and that's not actually what this is representing.

0:28.3 It's just showing you get up-to-date notifications and this does look like the notification train more than anything else because you've got statements being paid alongside clients being notified.

0:44.0 So updated in real time, it looks like the fourth line item is actually a summary of the four or three things above it, which isn't quite correct.

0:56.8 Suggestion would be either add some actual trading, like other statuses in here, like so signed up, maybe one's activated or maybe it could even be like you're seeing the kind of registration process or the stages it goes through from signed up, activated, approved, activated, paid.

1:24.8 Yeah, but or making transfers because again, we've got a bit of a mix of data in here.

1:33.2 This is information about kind of like the actual client, what's going on in the application and then this is paying out as well.

1:40.4 So this is funnel and this is comms payout and because it's only one version of this in this list, I feel like it's a bit confusing.

I don't actually understand this same figures both sides slide. I understand from this slide that that's the total of everything underneath here. But we focus in on that value and switch to this is what your partner sees. There's not enough wait time between the transition to show what's being shown on the partner side. And then we switch to when your next payout is coming. Technically I understand that's this value up here. When we transition between data, it makes what we're actually showing them a little bit confusing.

What he asks for

• "You keep · 3,432.56" at the top of the breakdown reads as the total of the rows below it.
• Not enough time on "Same figures, both sides." before it moves to Brightwater's page.
• The cut to your own 3,432.56 doesn't connect back to that "You keep" row.

We’ll do: A longer hold on "Same figures, both sides." before the move to Brightwater's page. Before the cut to your own payout, the "You keep" row is lit, so 3,432.56 connects back to it and no longer reads as a total.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:00.8 I don't actually understand this same figures both side slide. We basically have, you know, it's actually, I understand from this slide that that's the total of everything underneath here. And that makes sense. But we focus in on that value and switch to this is what your partner sees.

0:24.0 And then when we actually switch over to figures are the same, you know, is it a case of you're saying this figure here is what they see their side? I guess so.

0:38.6 But I would say there's not enough time when this changes to same figure here, figures same both side.

0:47.2 There's there's not enough like wait time between the transition to show then what's being what's shown over on on the part like the partner side.

0:58.5 And then we switch to know when your your payout, when your next payout is coming.

1:05.4 And technically, obviously, I understand that that's this value up here.

1:09.2 But I feel like how much.

1:13.8 Yeah, when we transition between data makes the kind of like what we're actually showing them a little bit confusing.

1:21.4 So, you know, I think that's amazing.

The video shows the person clicks copy and it's copied. But then there's no follow-up of what they're going to do with that copied text. And this is a recommendation for inside the app: should we also have a share link? We should be able to create a WhatsApp link that doesn't have a telephone number in it, so when they click share it opens their WhatsApp and asks them who to send it to. In that regard, I feel like we shouldn't start with that message first. Start with the options, and then go into the pre-prepared messages. It should be introduction link first, then direct messages.

What he asks for

• Swap the order: the link, QR code and "just your name" beat first, then the ready-made messages.
• For the app (not the film): a WhatsApp "Share" button beside Copy that opens WhatsApp without a number, so the partner picks who to send it to.

We’ll do: The link, QR code and "just your name" beat comes first, then the ready-made messages, with a new opening to suit. The social cut takes the same order, so the two stay consistent. The WhatsApp share button is a suggestion for the portal team.

The film opens on the message bubble gliding into the templates page, so the opening changes too. The social cut has the same order (Ingrid's table).

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:00.5 Might be an unpopular thing for you here. And I noticed it just from this video. The video shows the person clicks copy and it's copied. But then there's no follow up of what they're actually going to do with that copied text. Now, I'm wondering, along with, and this is a recommendation for inside the app for this, should we also have a share link? And how that share link would work is they click on this.

0:28.3 We should be able to create a WhatsApp link that doesn't have a telephone number in it. So when they do click share, it then opens their WhatsApp on their computer or on their phone. And it then asks them to select who to send it to.

0:43.4 In that regards, I kind of feel like we shouldn't actually start with that message being first. I almost feel like we start with this being the options. And then we can also go into, oh, yeah, pre-prepared messages.

0:59.0 So I feel like we've potentially switch these around. It should be introduction link first. And then we go into, you can also do direct messages as a method of like introduction, introducing and introductions.

1:21.4 Yeah.

In other videos we call this part track. I would recommend we change this from watch every step to track every step. Do a line return here, so "we" isn't up on its own line. So it's "Track every step. We handle onboarding." The "we handle onboarding" is fine.

What he asks for

• "Track every step." then a line break, then "We handle onboarding."

We’ll do: "Track every step." then a line break, then "We handle onboarding." In the partner film and the social cut.

"Watch every step. We handle onboarding." is Ingrid's line, also used in the social cut.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:00.9 In other videos, we call this this part kind of track. I would recommend, yeah, we change this to from watch every step to track every step. Do a line return here. So we isn't up on its own line. So it's track every step. We handle onboarding.

0:20.6 I feel like the we handle onboarding is just like, I get that it's basically trying to say hand, like onboarding for them is completely hands off. I think it's fine. Just put a line return there and maybe change watch to track because we use the word track in other locations and other videos.

I feel like this is a bit of a needless transition. We've got track and then one introduction, Northwind Media. This slides off and it shows half the side panel. I would recommend we leave this track element here and this whole element slides over. The sidebar stays open and the content in it updates to illustrate what's being highlighted: earned this amount. "Yours" can stay connected to the value. There's a lot of unnecessary transitions that means there's a lot for the viewer to follow.

What he asks for

• Keep the "/// Track" panel up; the page pans to the earnings; the panel's line changes to "£5,997.87 earned." The "Yours" tab stays on the figure.

We’ll do: The "/// Track" panel stays up while the page moves to Northwind's earnings; its line changes to "£5,997.87 earned."; the "Yours" tab stays on the figure.

The "half the side panel" he sees is the portal's own sidebar showing when our panel leaves: a known flaw since 4.2. His version removes it.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:01.1 I feel like this is a bit of a needless transition here. So you'll notice we've got track here and then one introduction, Northwest Media. So if you watch the animation first, this slides off and it shows half the side panel. I mean, the side panel should obviously continue to the bottom if we want to show that, but I don't think it's necessary.

0:28.8 I would actually even recommend that we actually leave this track element here and this whole element slides over. And so what happens is we've got this thing that just says earned this amount. Maybe just highlight this. This shouldn't push over as far as this.

0:47.5 The sidebar here, as I mentioned, stays open and the content in this updates to illustrate what's being highlighted over here.

0:59.1 So the, this, earned this amount and it's yours. Yours can, can stay connected to the actual value. That's fine. But just highlight this in that sidebar that's there.

1:11.1 I feel like there's a lot of unnecessary transitions that means there's a lot for the user to kind of follow.

1:20.2 Yeah.

1:21.6 Yeah.

You have a screen where it shows off the platform very briefly. It's there only for a second. Either it's not on long enough to be of much value, especially with how much content is on here, or this is a statement, looking at the transactions inside a payment, and there's no continuity that that's the case. I'm wondering if it would make more sense to show the payout stage of this page and show that these are being paid out: new line items come in being paid, paid, paid. Either remove this stage or animate this process in that stage to give it better context.

What he asks for

• Either cut the statement page that flashes up before the ending,
• or show payments arriving there ("paid, paid, paid") so it explains itself.

We’ll do: The statement page that flashes up goes. The ending starts with the new build from M2 instead: money building up during each month, then paid at its end.

With the new wall from M2 (accrue during the month, paid at its end), the second option could be that build.

The film as it is now

His full recording, transcribed

0:01.4 So, with this, you'll notice you have a screen where it shows off the platform that shows up very briefly. It's on there for like two seconds. Yeah, it starts animating out at 0.53 and it arrives at 0.52. I mean, it's there only for a second.

0:25.6 I would either say that it's not on there long enough to actually be of that much value, especially how much content's on here. Or, I would argue that this is actually a statement. This is looking inside the statement at the transactions that's inside a payment.

0:51.7 I'm, there's no kind of continuity that that's the case. Obviously, I only know this because I know the application.

0:58.3 I'm wondering if it would make more sense to show the payout stage of this page and then slightly different to the other videos, you actually show that these are being paid out.

1:09.6 Um, on this, on this stage where like new line items come in being like paid, paid, paid, paid, um, uh, rather than showing it in this table format, you can still do the accumulating and in review and everything like that.

1:27.1 And that's, um, at the top of the next ones that come in, but, um, yeah, uh, either I would recommend just removing this stage or animating this process in that stage to give it more, uh, better context.

1:41.6 But at the moment, this screen shows up for far too little time for it to be that useful. Um, if I scroll through anything else, I've mentioned that. So that's it for this video.