https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Web-Payments-API:-Brand-Analysis
See also: issue 250 additions
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/250
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/wiki/Web-Payments-API:-Brand-Analysis
====
- Just design work
scribe: we'll figure out landing page later
- Any additional audiences that need to be considered/researched (beyond merchants, developers, customers)
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/250#issuecomment-413539787
===
To me the most prominent theme that has emerged from discussion so far involves the balance between "site identity" and "browser identity". I think there are related topics under this theme:
1) Should the sheet include some merchant branding (like a favicon) so that the user feels confident that the experience is being initiated by the merchant?
2) Should the button / identity include some browser branding (or at least imagery associated with the Web or the browser) so that the user recognizes that this experience is not "part of the page" but rather is rooted in the browser (and will be similarly available on other sites)?
====
IJ: Is there a priority of constituents here?
Eiji: My original idea was to
give shared recognition between merchants, payment app
providers, and payment service providers. I was not thinking
about end users at that point, but now hearing the idea of
having identity on button, that makes sense.
... I think that's a prominent part of the purpose of having
the visual identity
ask stpeter
stpeter: It's a complex ecosystem
roy: I think customers are primary. the rest of the audiences will adopt if users' needs are met
[IJ updates the page]
Heath: What other outreach is being used or developed for this?
GitHub provides exposure to other developers.
Slack channel provides a second forum.
IJ: Later we can turn to dev rep groups in companies
Eiji: Laura's point about "contactless payments" logo was interesting. I think that one reason that logo worked was it was adopted by all the relevant parties. I think the same could be useful here. For example, on the Chrome settings page, we could add this visual identity, and that will help users recognize the button identity
====
Include visual identity in the sheet, to connect it in users' minds.
In browser settings pages, include the identity so that users recognize the link to the button
=====
Discussion Point: Any additional competitors whose branding/strategies need to be considered/researched?
IJ: I added "Pay buttons"
<agektmr> This is invitation link to the Web Payments Slack
====
Competition
IJ: Browser chrome as well, perhaps
Eiji: When ecosystem supports
both PR API and PH API, then we can have all payment methods in
a single call
... but for a transition period, there will be a number of
different branded buttons
IJ: Should we emphasize basic card in the short term?
Eiji: The reason I wanted to have this discussion is that we need more payment method developers to be more involved in this effort, and more adoption. I think a logo will help.
Ian: +1
=====
Discussion Point: Has the group considered a motto/tagline?
"Streamlining Web Payments"
(IJ: does not feel strongly)
======
Discussion Point: Is the layman name Web Payments?
Eiji: IN the case of tailoring to
the browser, "Pay with Chrome" or "Pay with Firefox"
... "Web payments" sounds overly broad
... maybe too generic
... and instead something like Open Web Payment
IJ: There is also a question of W3C in the name
Heath: "Web Payments" is clinical sounding. Could we find something friendlier or that would generate more trust?
IJ: +1 to trust as a consideration
I'm Payin' It
Eiji: I would personally like to continue to refer to this as Web Payments
Browser Pay
(Pay with Browser)
E-Z Pay
Click to Pay
Web Pay
[To be continued]
Eiji: I will check in on naming in Mountain View
====
Should the logo provided be 100% customizable or should it be mostly our brand with a smaller portion that provides opportunity for customization?
Heath: May be customizable for
per-browser
... what part is customizable
IJ: I would say as open as
possible. And if used with a browser brand, the rules of the
browser brand apply to that logo
... Maybe we have even two contexts: open policy where used on
its own, other policies when used with browser logos
30 August
====
Outside voices
What are the positive and negative things that can be said about the product by competitors and the average layman user?
- faster checkout times
- negatives: unfamiliar, confusing, or scary since new
scribe: recognized brands not as visible?
Heath: I will continue to look at resources between now and next meeting
IJ: Should we meet next week?