<?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: &#8220;Motion Charts are Hard&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.purevisibility.com/2009/04/motion-charts-are-hard/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.purevisibility.com/2009/04/motion-charts-are-hard/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:42:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jhullman</title>
		<link>http://blog.purevisibility.com/2009/04/motion-charts-are-hard/comment-page-1/#comment-1548</link>
		<dc:creator>jhullman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.purevisibility.com/?p=676#comment-1548</guid>
		<description>I find it so interesting that we are still drawn to them, despite their relative &#039;uselessness&#039;. Hazzenhahl, the HCI researcher known for his studies of beauty in design, states that interactive products are judged not only on perceived usability (i.e. pragmatics) but also hedonic attributes (like stimulation, and identification), goodness (satisfaction) and beauty. He says that goodness depends on both perceived usability and hedonic atttributes, but that beauty depends mostly on identification, or how much the product communicates our important personal values to others. 

Motion Charts feel &#039;modern&#039; (relatively, as other web analytics products don&#039;t give you the option) and are definitely stimulating, if not in an effective way.  Their deficiency in usability (our inability to easily get whatever insights we are supposed to from them) may be balanced either by the beauty alone, or maybe our desire to present ourselves as as modern and exciting as the charts seem...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it so interesting that we are still drawn to them, despite their relative &#8216;uselessness&#8217;. Hazzenhahl, the HCI researcher known for his studies of beauty in design, states that interactive products are judged not only on perceived usability (i.e. pragmatics) but also hedonic attributes (like stimulation, and identification), goodness (satisfaction) and beauty. He says that goodness depends on both perceived usability and hedonic atttributes, but that beauty depends mostly on identification, or how much the product communicates our important personal values to others. </p>
<p>Motion Charts feel &#8216;modern&#8217; (relatively, as other web analytics products don&#8217;t give you the option) and are definitely stimulating, if not in an effective way.  Their deficiency in usability (our inability to easily get whatever insights we are supposed to from them) may be balanced either by the beauty alone, or maybe our desire to present ourselves as as modern and exciting as the charts seem&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Gould</title>
		<link>http://blog.purevisibility.com/2009/04/motion-charts-are-hard/comment-page-1/#comment-1544</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Gould</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.purevisibility.com/?p=676#comment-1544</guid>
		<description>Couldn&#039;t agree more.  Motion Charts are useless pretty pictures... But they sure are cool!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more.  Motion Charts are useless pretty pictures&#8230; But they sure are cool!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
