<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Elements of User Experience</title>
	<link>http://www.psychicbunny.com/blog/2007/32/the-elements-of-user-experience/</link>
	<description>Psychic Bunny yaps about whatever.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:26:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.psychicbunny.com/blog/2007/32/the-elements-of-user-experience/#comment-20</link>
		<author>Doug</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:29:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.psychicbunny.com/blog/2007/32/the-elements-of-user-experience/#comment-20</guid>
		<description>Update!  Peter Merholz of Adaptive Path has posted a presentation called &lt;a href="http://www.slideshare.net/gofull/146514/1" rel="nofollow"&gt;The Experience is the Product&lt;/a&gt;, which delves into exactly the issues I'm discussing above – again, focused on interaction design... Garnett, the book's author, is one of the founders of Adaptive Path.

Worth a look!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Update!  Peter Merholz of Adaptive Path has posted a presentation called <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/gofull/146514/1" rel="nofollow">The Experience is the Product</a>, which delves into exactly the issues I&#8217;m discussing above – again, focused on interaction design&#8230; Garnett, the book&#8217;s author, is one of the founders of Adaptive Path.</p>
<p>Worth a look!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.psychicbunny.com/blog/2007/32/the-elements-of-user-experience/#comment-17</link>
		<author>Doug</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.psychicbunny.com/blog/2007/32/the-elements-of-user-experience/#comment-17</guid>
		<description>The real problem is that most of the time people (programmers or not) don't bother to think through the actual effects of their actions for others.  What seems clear, matter-of-fact, or even self-evident to one person is far too often completely obtuse to someone else.

The key is in getting to the difference between assumptions that are safe to make and the lowest common denominator.

Wait, are you saying a robot can't love?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The real problem is that most of the time people (programmers or not) don&#8217;t bother to think through the actual effects of their actions for others.  What seems clear, matter-of-fact, or even self-evident to one person is far too often completely obtuse to someone else.</p>
<p>The key is in getting to the difference between assumptions that are safe to make and the lowest common denominator.</p>
<p>Wait, are you saying a robot can&#8217;t love?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa</title>
		<link>http://www.psychicbunny.com/blog/2007/32/the-elements-of-user-experience/#comment-16</link>
		<author>Lisa</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.psychicbunny.com/blog/2007/32/the-elements-of-user-experience/#comment-16</guid>
		<description>"....programmers could go ahead and build the system in the way that was most technically efficient without regard for what worked best for users… The approach that works best for the computer is almost never the approach that works best for the person who has to use it....."

I found that quote quite interesting. We designed computers to make things more efficient for us and yet originally we weren't so efficient using them because they weren't designed for us....but weren't they? My mind is spinning in circles. It's funny that what works best for the computer doesn't work best for the user....I guess that is what separates man and machine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;.programmers could go ahead and build the system in the way that was most technically efficient without regard for what worked best for users… The approach that works best for the computer is almost never the approach that works best for the person who has to use it&#8230;..&#8221;</p>
<p>I found that quote quite interesting. We designed computers to make things more efficient for us and yet originally we weren&#8217;t so efficient using them because they weren&#8217;t designed for us&#8230;.but weren&#8217;t they? My mind is spinning in circles. It&#8217;s funny that what works best for the computer doesn&#8217;t work best for the user&#8230;.I guess that is what separates man and machine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
