<?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:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UIEtips: Deriving Design Strategy from Market Maturity, Part 1</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2009/06/18/uietipsderivingdesignstrategy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2009/06/18/uietipsderivingdesignstrategy/</link>
	<description>UIE\'s latest insights on the world of design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:11:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: rs</title>
		<link>http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2009/06/18/uietipsderivingdesignstrategy/comment-page-1/#comment-148187</link>
		<dc:creator>rs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/?p=834#comment-148187</guid>
		<description>Love your writing, this is a wonderful tool.  I will always have trouble with the stage names, however, as to me the stage names are not consistent.  As presented, the stages fall out like this:
STAGE		DRIVER		FOCUS	
1-Technology	Initiation		Technology
2-Features		Competition	Features
3-Experience	Experience	Simplicity
4-Commodity	Commodity	Integration

So the first two stages are named for the focus, the second two for the driver.  (Oh look, this is also a demonstration of how helpful charts can be for information architecture.)

Thanks for being the industry spearhead and glue.  You keep usability moving forward.  Keep up the good work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love your writing, this is a wonderful tool.  I will always have trouble with the stage names, however, as to me the stage names are not consistent.  As presented, the stages fall out like this:<br />
STAGE		DRIVER		FOCUS<br />
1-Technology	Initiation		Technology<br />
2-Features		Competition	Features<br />
3-Experience	Experience	Simplicity<br />
4-Commodity	Commodity	Integration</p>
<p>So the first two stages are named for the focus, the second two for the driver.  (Oh look, this is also a demonstration of how helpful charts can be for information architecture.)</p>
<p>Thanks for being the industry spearhead and glue.  You keep usability moving forward.  Keep up the good work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeanne</title>
		<link>http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2009/06/18/uietipsderivingdesignstrategy/comment-page-1/#comment-147072</link>
		<dc:creator>jeanne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/?p=834#comment-147072</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this article, it was timely for me becuase i&#039;m the designer you mentioned in the begining of the article! -Recently I was wondered if anyone had seen any studies out there to describe why IT application builders do not integrate user experience design into their design process. Your comment about market maturity -stage 1 - Technology is Worth the Pain, resonated with me. I work in the government sector, and the notion of no competitors puts it all into perspective for me. For government applications, it&#039;s a service to the public, or internal government employees. Generally there&#039;s no competition products, there&#039;s seems to be no incentive to make it more usable.The Federal government in most cases doesn&#039;t require usability as part of their service level agreement, and their IT life cycle management excludes UX design activities as a requirement, so for the IT contractor building for the government, there seems to be no immediate incentive to build more usable designs. It&#039;s so sad most of federal goverment is in Stage 1, so sad. Hopefully with the new administration that will begin to change.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this article, it was timely for me becuase i&#8217;m the designer you mentioned in the begining of the article! -Recently I was wondered if anyone had seen any studies out there to describe why IT application builders do not integrate user experience design into their design process. Your comment about market maturity -stage 1 &#8211; Technology is Worth the Pain, resonated with me. I work in the government sector, and the notion of no competitors puts it all into perspective for me. For government applications, it&#8217;s a service to the public, or internal government employees. Generally there&#8217;s no competition products, there&#8217;s seems to be no incentive to make it more usable.The Federal government in most cases doesn&#8217;t require usability as part of their service level agreement, and their IT life cycle management excludes UX design activities as a requirement, so for the IT contractor building for the government, there seems to be no immediate incentive to build more usable designs. It&#8217;s so sad most of federal goverment is in Stage 1, so sad. Hopefully with the new administration that will begin to change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

