Would it make more sense to show the plan price per day in the bottom summary (average of 30 days in a month) and then have a multiplier for the number of days in the timeframe? It’s not perfect, but it would better represent the cost for the currently selected timeframe.
So.
I don’t understand what you mean.
The plan price reflects what you choose, and of course it will be the same every month – it is base plan.
All the information is about the period you’ve chosen before. You can select the base plan and then move forward through the period moth-by-month, or week-by-week, or quarter-by-quarter, etc. to see the calculations.
Or are you expected that the system will automatically divide the chosen period by month?
In both examples, I think it would be better to show the timeframe units, so example 1 is 62 days, example 2 is 7 days, and the plan costs for that unit. It’s not perfect, obviously, but it would be closer than what is currently shown.
Thank you for your suggestion, but we decide to leave it as is.
While we recognize that breaking it down by days might offer a different perspective, we believe that sticking to the monthly model ensures consistency and clarity across various timeframes. This helps maintain simplicity for most users who expect to see their costs reflected on a monthly basis.