<?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: Intuited interfaces: remembering that people don&#8217;t know</title>
	<atom:link href="http://johnnyholland.org/2009/04/intuited-interfaces/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://johnnyholland.org/2009/04/intuited-interfaces/</link>
	<description>It&#039;s all about interaction</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:38:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zeb Reynolds</title>
		<link>http://johnnyholland.org/2009/04/intuited-interfaces/#comment-107212</link>
		<dc:creator>Zeb Reynolds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 22:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnnyholland.org/?p=791#comment-107212</guid>
		<description>I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article Vicky. Thank you!

P.S. (to the editor)
The blockquotes in this article are crying out for more leading. Frankly, it&#039;s painful.
4-5 px would make a world of difference.

Thanks again.

Zeb</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article Vicky. Thank you!</p>
<p>P.S. (to the editor)<br />
The blockquotes in this article are crying out for more leading. Frankly, it&#8217;s painful.<br />
4-5 px would make a world of difference.</p>
<p>Thanks again.</p>
<p>Zeb</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven</title>
		<link>http://johnnyholland.org/2009/04/intuited-interfaces/#comment-107211</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnnyholland.org/?p=791#comment-107211</guid>
		<description>What an interesting find...it reminds me of a debate I prompted with an associate at a large design firm pitching to my employer.  The premise of the debate: The firm, in all its buzz-word glory, touted intuitive and innovative in the same sentence.  To this day, the thought makes me cringe.  In my book, if it&#039;s intuitive...it&#039;s not new.  &#039;Nuff said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What an interesting find&#8230;it reminds me of a debate I prompted with an associate at a large design firm pitching to my employer.  The premise of the debate: The firm, in all its buzz-word glory, touted intuitive and innovative in the same sentence.  To this day, the thought makes me cringe.  In my book, if it&#8217;s intuitive&#8230;it&#8217;s not new.  &#8216;Nuff said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Unintuitive Interfaces &#187; Lone Gunman</title>
		<link>http://johnnyholland.org/2009/04/intuited-interfaces/#comment-107210</link>
		<dc:creator>Unintuitive Interfaces &#187; Lone Gunman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnnyholland.org/?p=791#comment-107210</guid>
		<description>[...] Expanding on Jared Spool&#8217;s thoughts on learning cycles and so-called &#8216;intuitive&#8217; i..., Vicky Teinaki discusses the &#8216;knowledge matrix&#8217; and makes this interesting point that I feel almost embarrassed to have not thought about previously: Digital devices can never be inherently &#8216;intuitive&#8217;, as the fact that they deal in abstraction automatically means that actions must be arbitrary. (An aside: for those who argue that much of gestural and time based interactions are intuitive, remember that this assumes a Western way of looking at space and time. Anthropologists would tell you that there are other ways.) In other words, interfaces aren&#8217;t &#8216;intuitive&#8217;, they&#8217;re &#8216;intuited&#8217;: before that, there&#8217;s nothing &#8216;intuitive&#8217; about them at all. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Expanding on Jared Spool&#8217;s thoughts on learning cycles and so-called &#8216;intuitive&#8217; i&#8230;, Vicky Teinaki discusses the &#8216;knowledge matrix&#8217; and makes this interesting point that I feel almost embarrassed to have not thought about previously: Digital devices can never be inherently &#8216;intuitive&#8217;, as the fact that they deal in abstraction automatically means that actions must be arbitrary. (An aside: for those who argue that much of gestural and time based interactions are intuitive, remember that this assumes a Western way of looking at space and time. Anthropologists would tell you that there are other ways.) In other words, interfaces aren&#8217;t &#8216;intuitive&#8217;, they&#8217;re &#8216;intuited&#8217;: before that, there&#8217;s nothing &#8216;intuitive&#8217; about them at all. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Interface != intuitiv &#8212; topotropic</title>
		<link>http://johnnyholland.org/2009/04/intuited-interfaces/#comment-107209</link>
		<dc:creator>Interface != intuitiv &#8212; topotropic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnnyholland.org/?p=791#comment-107209</guid>
		<description>[...] einem kurzen Artikel auf johnnyholland.org erörtert Vicky Teinaki warum ein Interface nicht grundsätzlich intuitiv sein [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] einem kurzen Artikel auf johnnyholland.org erörtert Vicky Teinaki warum ein Interface nicht grundsätzlich intuitiv sein [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Intuitive Interfaces? No Such Thing &#187; Devan Being Manny</title>
		<link>http://johnnyholland.org/2009/04/intuited-interfaces/#comment-107208</link>
		<dc:creator>Intuitive Interfaces? No Such Thing &#187; Devan Being Manny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:19:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnnyholland.org/?p=791#comment-107208</guid>
		<description>[...] It&#8217;s a good way to get people to know why an interface works well, but it&#8217;s inaccurate. Over on Johnny Holland, Vicky Tenacki writes: Digital devices can never be inherently ‘intuitive’, as the fact that they deal in abstraction [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] It&#8217;s a good way to get people to know why an interface works well, but it&#8217;s inaccurate. Over on Johnny Holland, Vicky Tenacki writes: Digital devices can never be inherently ‘intuitive’, as the fact that they deal in abstraction [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
