<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for NeuroExperience</title>
	<atom:link href="http://neuroexperience.net/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://neuroexperience.net</link>
	<description>Experience As It Happens</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:48:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Real invention makes a difference to humanity by Simon Johnson</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2009/12/10/real-invention-makes-a-difference-to-humanity/#comment-71</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:48:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuroexperience.net/?p=338#comment-71</guid>
		<description>Surely both articles are valid? To me Norman is talking about how things were, but you are discussing how they should be?

Norman seems to be looking at products being born out of the inventor&#039;s enthusiasm for an emergent technology, rather than being based on examining people&#039;s needs.

He might have a point; Plenty of things have been invented for the amusement of doing so, then they fail in the market place, not because they are too early, but because they they came into existence to please the inventor. Only after decades of adaptation have they then become useful to a wider audience. I am sure that this is broadly true in the past.

However, that doesn&#039;t mean that things need to continue in that way. As Markus points out, there are innumerable benefits from identifying needs and then applying technology to meet those needs.

In fact, Norman&#039;s argument that development has largely been an inefficient model of technology for technology&#039;s sake is exactly why we NEED design research if we are to intelligently adapt new technologies to actual needs.

Having said that we should also remember that product adoption is contingent upon a myriad of economic, social and financial factors which all muddy the water.

The book &#039;Crossing the Chasm&#039; deals with &#039;diffusion of innovations theory&#039; from Everett Rogers, and argues there is a chasm between the early adopters of the product (the technology enthusiasts and visionaries) and the early majority (the pragmatists). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely both articles are valid? To me Norman is talking about how things were, but you are discussing how they should be?</p>
<p>Norman seems to be looking at products being born out of the inventor&#8217;s enthusiasm for an emergent technology, rather than being based on examining people&#8217;s needs.</p>
<p>He might have a point; Plenty of things have been invented for the amusement of doing so, then they fail in the market place, not because they are too early, but because they they came into existence to please the inventor. Only after decades of adaptation have they then become useful to a wider audience. I am sure that this is broadly true in the past.</p>
<p>However, that doesn&#8217;t mean that things need to continue in that way. As Markus points out, there are innumerable benefits from identifying needs and then applying technology to meet those needs.</p>
<p>In fact, Norman&#8217;s argument that development has largely been an inefficient model of technology for technology&#8217;s sake is exactly why we NEED design research if we are to intelligently adapt new technologies to actual needs.</p>
<p>Having said that we should also remember that product adoption is contingent upon a myriad of economic, social and financial factors which all muddy the water.</p>
<p>The book &#8216;Crossing the Chasm&#8217; deals with &#8216;diffusion of innovations theory&#8217; from Everett Rogers, and argues there is a chasm between the early adopters of the product (the technology enthusiasts and visionaries) and the early majority (the pragmatists). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How design talks to customers&#8230; by Bhuva</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2009/08/07/how-design-talks-to-customers/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Bhuva</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuroexperience.net/?p=280#comment-55</guid>
		<description>LOL! That conversation sounds like the one with the toaster from Red Dwarf!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LOL! That conversation sounds like the one with the toaster from Red Dwarf!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How design talks to customers&#8230; by uxarchitecture</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2009/08/07/how-design-talks-to-customers/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>uxarchitecture</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuroexperience.net/?p=280#comment-54</guid>
		<description>This is a nice, concrete  way of thinking about the pychological connection between user and artefact.  Reminds me of Schon&#039;s ideas about design as a conversation with materials.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a nice, concrete  way of thinking about the pychological connection between user and artefact.  Reminds me of Schon&#8217;s ideas about design as a conversation with materials.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Market personas versus human behaviour personas by Markus</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2009/07/23/market-personas-versus-design-led-human-behaviour-personas/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Markus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuroexperience.net/?p=218#comment-52</guid>
		<description>Am glad - it&#039;s a slippery fish of a subject and most people just don&#039;t see the value in visualising your thinking through these types of tools...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Am glad &#8211; it&#8217;s a slippery fish of a subject and most people just don&#8217;t see the value in visualising your thinking through these types of tools&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Market personas versus human behaviour personas by Badgerboy69</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2009/07/23/market-personas-versus-design-led-human-behaviour-personas/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>Badgerboy69</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:19:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuroexperience.net/?p=218#comment-51</guid>
		<description>I mostly agree. I think. I do believe that market segmentation has value as it helps us to understand attitude, and attitude helps inform persona development.

May main concern, however, is why the jug picture at the bottom of the post appears to be full of urine? Have you been caught short in the night again?

Also the combination of napkins and coloured liquids causes me to think of sanitary towel advertisements.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mostly agree. I think. I do believe that market segmentation has value as it helps us to understand attitude, and attitude helps inform persona development.</p>
<p>May main concern, however, is why the jug picture at the bottom of the post appears to be full of urine? Have you been caught short in the night again?</p>
<p>Also the combination of napkins and coloured liquids causes me to think of sanitary towel advertisements.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Market personas versus human behaviour personas by Michael Etgen</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2009/07/23/market-personas-versus-design-led-human-behaviour-personas/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Etgen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:44:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuroexperience.net/?p=218#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Excellent post, that last paragraph really sums it all up.  I frequently contend with the belief in product development that the marketing persona is &quot;good enough&quot;, and we don&#039;t need to do the hard work required to nail behavioral personas.  

This will make a good reference/example to which I can point those folks who don&#039;t get it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent post, that last paragraph really sums it all up.  I frequently contend with the belief in product development that the marketing persona is &#8220;good enough&#8221;, and we don&#8217;t need to do the hard work required to nail behavioral personas.  </p>
<p>This will make a good reference/example to which I can point those folks who don&#8217;t get it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Market personas versus human behaviour personas by Simon Johnson</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2009/07/23/market-personas-versus-design-led-human-behaviour-personas/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://neuroexperience.net/?p=218#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Nice napkins Markus.

Are marketing personas not dead yet? Is anyone still using them? I can&#039;t imagine in what context they are a superior model for seeding innovation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice napkins Markus.</p>
<p>Are marketing personas not dead yet? Is anyone still using them? I can&#8217;t imagine in what context they are a superior model for seeding innovation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Are You Having the Right Conversation With Your Customers? by Markus</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2008/06/07/are-you-having-the-right-conversation-with-your-customers/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Markus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://creatingcustomerexperiences.wordpress.com/?p=30#comment-26</guid>
		<description>Note - embedding has been removed i.e. Honda must have asked Youtube to not allow its&#039; ad to be embedded outside of Youtube... 

Doesn&#039;t that defeat the whole object of social media?

Am feeling decidedly less fuzzy towards Honda.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Note &#8211; embedding has been removed i.e. Honda must have asked Youtube to not allow its&#8217; ad to be embedded outside of Youtube&#8230; </p>
<p>Doesn&#8217;t that defeat the whole object of social media?</p>
<p>Am feeling decidedly less fuzzy towards Honda.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Are You Having the Right Conversation With Your Customers? by Markus</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2008/06/07/are-you-having-the-right-conversation-with-your-customers/#comment-20</link>
		<dc:creator>Markus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://creatingcustomerexperiences.wordpress.com/?p=30#comment-20</guid>
		<description>Just to point out - this ad was made for YouTube before being aired as a polished TV ad.  The two are different...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to point out &#8211; this ad was made for YouTube before being aired as a polished TV ad.  The two are different&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What is Good Design? Nature or Nurture? by Markus</title>
		<link>http://neuroexperience.net/2008/09/01/good-design-nature-or-nurture/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Markus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://creatingcustomerexperiences.wordpress.com/?p=48#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Someone mentioned the following point &quot;Design is not art because design is meant to solve problems.&quot;

This idea is central to the need for good design process; that is fully inclusive process that brings to bear the people using the product, those building it and the people conceptualising and creating the solution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone mentioned the following point &#8220;Design is not art because design is meant to solve problems.&#8221;</p>
<p>This idea is central to the need for good design process; that is fully inclusive process that brings to bear the people using the product, those building it and the people conceptualising and creating the solution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
