[website] Add Charts to the pricing table #38680
Conversation
alexfauquette
added
website
Netlify deploy previewhttps://deploy-preview-38680--material-ui.netlify.app/ Bundle size report |
alexfauquette
requested review from
joserodolfofreitas,
oliviertassinari and
flaviendelangle
danilo-leal
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the feature split:
- MIT vs. paid: It looks great. We match the feature set of chart.js and recharts which is enough for them to be the most dominant open-source charts. Also enough for the data grid integration.
- Pro vs. Premium: It looks great. We cover with Pro the longer tail of features in less popular open-source libraries, it gives us room to over-execute. And with Premium, we go after specialized offerings: https://www.highcharts.com/products/stock/, https://www.fusioncharts.com/fusiontime, https://bryntum.com/products/gantt/, https://www.highcharts.com/products/gantt/.
Maybe only one question: are we sure we already want to display these Premium features? I mean, I'm considering managing the expectations of visitors on when we will tackle these.
|
From a meeting with @joserodolfofreitas, I'm not sold that we should attempt at "Advanced Gantt" or "Candlestick". These are relative niches, I think we lack data to say we will build these. Maybe a rich text editor would be a much better vertical to go into once we cover the most common Chart Pro features. So, the thought was we could either display these as greyed with a request to upvote on GitHub or not display them at all. |
|
I only see one issue with not having "Advanced Gantt" in the pricing table: not informing user that some feature could be restricted to premium. But if we never develop them before year, it should be ok to add premium plan latter for them |
| 'charts/funnel': pending, | ||
| 'charts/sankey': pending, | ||
| 'charts/gantt': pending, | ||
| 'charts/gantt-advanced': pending, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To avoid creating the commitment to building these features in the short-medium term, we can change from "pending" to "TBD".
If possible, bellow the "TBD" text we could have something like "Interested?" as a link.
The link sends the user to a Google form where they can confirm and expand on their expectations for these premium features.
We could also consider having the TBD text itself as a link, if we see it's getting to noisy.
| 'charts/gantt-advanced': pending, | |
| 'charts/gantt-advanced': TBD, |
Wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why using a Google form instead of a github issue?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe people would be more compelled to share their use cases (and it'd probably feel less intimidating for the non-technical audience), but I suppose we can also create GitHub issue and make the questions pop up on the description. It's also a good thing that we can redirect each "TBD" to a different issue.
|
@joserodolfofreitas I think we are good with design now
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking great, @alexfauquette! Thank you!
I'm happy to see this going live.
| const toBeDefined = ( | ||
| <Typography | ||
| component={Link} | ||
| href="https://forms.gle/19vN87eBvmXPjBVp6" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems that I can't access this form (https://forms.gle/19vN87eBvmXPjBVp6).
Can we share access to this Google Form with [email protected] with write access? (or at minimum view and [email protected] with write access) Thanks.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the first pricing for charts, to answer questions such as mui/mui-x#10137.
I only put charts that might be developed this year.
Preview: https://deploy-preview-38680--material-ui.netlify.app/pricing/