<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Developer notes on the next evolution of browsers and search</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firewatching.com/ambient/2008/09/02/developer-notes-on-the-next-evolution-of-browsers-and-search/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firewatching.com/ambient/2008/09/02/developer-notes-on-the-next-evolution-of-browsers-and-search/</link>
	<description>my thoughts on design, technology and culture</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:02:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ray Grieselhuber</title>
		<link>http://firewatching.com/ambient/2008/09/02/developer-notes-on-the-next-evolution-of-browsers-and-search/#comment-6254</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray Grieselhuber</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firewatching.com/ambient/?p=89#comment-6254</guid>
		<description>I should have clarified that my biggest beef is with #1 from his piece:

&lt;blockquote&gt;
1. It uses tabs to alternate between views within the same context (not to navigate to different areas — a common mistake introduced by Amazon.com which has since abandoned this design). 
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

As I wrote, it's not that I have a problem with the theory of what he's proposing. From a purist perspective, it does make sense and should be used wherever possible. 

But, if I understand what he is saying, he doesn't support the use of tabs to separate contexts or applications (in the case of Chrome). The problem is, there just aren't that many useful mechanisms well-known to users today to chunk large amounts of data or functionality within the same application but have clearly different contexts. 

For this reason, IMHO, the benefits of using tabs in ways that he wouldn't approve of outweigh the complaints derived from his more purist approach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should have clarified that my biggest beef is with #1 from his piece:</p>
<blockquote><p>
1. It uses tabs to alternate between views within the same context (not to navigate to different areas — a common mistake introduced by Amazon.com which has since abandoned this design).
</p></blockquote>
<p>As I wrote, it&#8217;s not that I have a problem with the theory of what he&#8217;s proposing. From a purist perspective, it does make sense and should be used wherever possible. </p>
<p>But, if I understand what he is saying, he doesn&#8217;t support the use of tabs to separate contexts or applications (in the case of Chrome). The problem is, there just aren&#8217;t that many useful mechanisms well-known to users today to chunk large amounts of data or functionality within the same application but have clearly different contexts. </p>
<p>For this reason, IMHO, the benefits of using tabs in ways that he wouldn&#8217;t approve of outweigh the complaints derived from his more purist approach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thom Blake</title>
		<link>http://firewatching.com/ambient/2008/09/02/developer-notes-on-the-next-evolution-of-browsers-and-search/#comment-6233</link>
		<dc:creator>Thom Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firewatching.com/ambient/?p=89#comment-6233</guid>
		<description>What exactly is wrong with Nielson's analysis of tabs?  I do think it's interesting that it's one subject where he throws out "should"s but doesn't refer to usability testing results.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What exactly is wrong with Nielson&#8217;s analysis of tabs?  I do think it&#8217;s interesting that it&#8217;s one subject where he throws out &#8220;should&#8221;s but doesn&#8217;t refer to usability testing results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
