...
Design #2: The primary difference of Design #2 between the other designs is that it focuses attention on how to tackle specific features to enhance efficiency for add transaction. While the other designs only allow transactions to be posted to a single other counterparty at once, this design handles group-based transactions. Consider, again, the scenario of a group dinner outing with four other people. Instead of having to create 3-4 separate transactions, a single one to split the bill will suffice! Additionally, the ability to individually modify transaction amounts for each given person allows for additional flexibility (if there are uneven splits between a group). However, it lacks the ability to compound transactions based on other users (ie, aggregating all the transactions that I have made with Susie Q) that the other two designs have incorporated.
*Design #3: *The primary distinction between Design #3 and the other two designs is that Design #3 shows a summary of the user’s transactions with one other user. The user can decide to view the details and history of transactions with that one other user by clicking on a button to view details. This makes it so that the user will not have a lot of information presented to them unless they ask for specific information.