<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pownce.com Bought Some Pretty Dumb Computers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers</link>
	<description>Minnesota's Interaction Design, Information Architecture, and User Experience Design Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:21:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: bex</title>
		<link>http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/comment-page-1#comment-13401</link>
		<dc:creator>bex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:33:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/#comment-13401</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;I agree with Garrick. The Pownce interface is stupid.&lt;/b&gt;

I see no reason why I should click a button to add a date. Once it notices I&#039;m typing a date, it should pop up the little box (to the side) to allow me to add more metadata (if needed).

It should improve upon the Google &#039;quick add&#039; feature, not be a step backward...

Links, tho, should be pretty damn obvious. No need for the button at all. If it on its own line, put it in a special link box. Otherwise, treat it as inline.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>I agree with Garrick. The Pownce interface is stupid.</b></p>
<p>I see no reason why I should click a button to add a date. Once it notices I&#8217;m typing a date, it should pop up the little box (to the side) to allow me to add more metadata (if needed).</p>
<p>It should improve upon the Google &#8216;quick add&#8217; feature, not be a step backward&#8230;</p>
<p>Links, tho, should be pretty damn obvious. No need for the button at all. If it on its own line, put it in a special link box. Otherwise, treat it as inline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel Austin</title>
		<link>http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/comment-page-1#comment-13395</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel Austin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/#comment-13395</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not totally convinced by Gruber&#039;s post, either.

Yes, the more steps it takes to do something, and the more complex the interface, likely the more annoying it is.

But the same can be said for the opposite as well. One can oversimplify an interface as well, leaving to little information to easily intuit what to do.

In the end, I don&#039;t think one can simply say &#039;fewer clicks are better&#039; or &#039;fewer widgets&#039; are better as any sort of absolute rule. Yes, in general, that&#039;s usually the case, but it&#039;s really a task-by-task issue.

The best example is navigation. We&#039;ve all be trained to use fewer options than more, but that often leads to people just giving up as they can&#039;t find the particular task they need.

Take the Office 2007 interface. I&#039;m sure it was done in the name of simplifying tasks, but why did it then take me a half hour to figure out how to print a file the first time I used it? ;o)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not totally convinced by Gruber&#8217;s post, either.</p>
<p>Yes, the more steps it takes to do something, and the more complex the interface, likely the more annoying it is.</p>
<p>But the same can be said for the opposite as well. One can oversimplify an interface as well, leaving to little information to easily intuit what to do.</p>
<p>In the end, I don&#8217;t think one can simply say &#8216;fewer clicks are better&#8217; or &#8216;fewer widgets&#8217; are better as any sort of absolute rule. Yes, in general, that&#8217;s usually the case, but it&#8217;s really a task-by-task issue.</p>
<p>The best example is navigation. We&#8217;ve all be trained to use fewer options than more, but that often leads to people just giving up as they can&#8217;t find the particular task they need.</p>
<p>Take the Office 2007 interface. I&#8217;m sure it was done in the name of simplifying tasks, but why did it then take me a half hour to figure out how to print a file the first time I used it? ;o)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrel Austin</title>
		<link>http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/comment-page-1#comment-13394</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrel Austin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:57:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/#comment-13394</guid>
		<description>I just don&#039;t get these new services.

&quot;Pownce is a way to send messages, files, links, and events to your friends.&quot;

So, it&#039;s a replacement for email? Wait. Doesn&#039;t email still work? Oh, it&#039;s like Twitter! Wait. What is twitter for? 

Oh! Twitter let&#039;s people know what I&#039;m doing. Cool. Er...wait a minute...why does anyone care what I&#039;m doing? 

Sigh...I&#039;m turning into a web curmudgeon...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just don&#8217;t get these new services.</p>
<p>&#8220;Pownce is a way to send messages, files, links, and events to your friends.&#8221;</p>
<p>So, it&#8217;s a replacement for email? Wait. Doesn&#8217;t email still work? Oh, it&#8217;s like Twitter! Wait. What is twitter for? </p>
<p>Oh! Twitter let&#8217;s people know what I&#8217;m doing. Cool. Er&#8230;wait a minute&#8230;why does anyone care what I&#8217;m doing? </p>
<p>Sigh&#8230;I&#8217;m turning into a web curmudgeon&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Garrick Van Buren</title>
		<link>http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/comment-page-1#comment-13379</link>
		<dc:creator>Garrick Van Buren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/#comment-13379</guid>
		<description>I think Pownce should aim higher than to be a clumsier, less useful Twitter.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Pownce should aim higher than to be a clumsier, less useful Twitter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/comment-page-1#comment-13380</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mnteractive.com/archive/powncecom-bought-some-pretty-dumb-computers/#comment-13380</guid>
		<description>It doesn&#039;t hurt to lead your users a little bit, does it? Not everyone uses &quot;http://&quot; or uses urls that begin with &quot;www&quot; or writes their dates and times the same way. A funny point comes up though out of this: if Pownce did it as you suggested then there&#039;d be virtually no difference between it and Twitter.

As a joke:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://flickr.com/photos/s4xton/909928158/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1202/909928158_5b06684b4f_o_d.jpg&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It doesn&#8217;t hurt to lead your users a little bit, does it? Not everyone uses &quot;<a href="http://&#038;quot" rel="nofollow">http://&#038;quot</a>; or uses urls that begin with &quot;www&quot; or writes their dates and times the same way. A funny point comes up though out of this: if Pownce did it as you suggested then there&#8217;d be virtually no difference between it and Twitter.</p>
<p>As a joke:</p>
<p><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/s4xton/909928158/" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1202/909928158_5b06684b4f_o_d.jpg" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

