<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>BigBear Design &#187; usability</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bigbeardesign.net/blog/category/web-design/usability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bigbeardesign.net/blog</link>
	<description>Websites for Small Businesses</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:52:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Flash Is Not For Websites</title>
		<link>http://bigbeardesign.net/blog/2006/flash-is-not-for-websites/</link>
		<comments>http://bigbeardesign.net/blog/2006/flash-is-not-for-websites/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>emil</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[usability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bigbeardesign.net/blog/flash-is-not-for-websites/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve heard of it countless times before, yet it is a subject that deserves to have at least one article about it in every blog in the Internet: Flash is Evil, or to be specific, Websites That Force Us To Use Flash are Evil. No matter how many Flash sites are made or how many [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve heard of it countless times <a target="_blank" href="http://dack.com/web/flash_evil.html">before</a>, yet it is a subject that deserves to have at least one article about it in every blog in the Internet: Flash is Evil, or to be specific, Websites That Force Us To Use Flash are Evil. No matter how many Flash sites are made or how many awards these sites get, Flash will <strong>never</strong> replace HTML.</p>
<p>Not every visitor that goes to your website is already sold on you. Some would want to read up before they buy your product, contract your services, or subscribe to your feed. Some could&#8217;ve just stumbled upon your website and have no idea who you are. Imagine setting up the layout of your store so a customer can walk in and immediately see the merchandise so they&#8217;ll know what you&#8217;re selling. As <a target="_blank" href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/">Seth Godin</a> nicely puts it in <em>Big Red Fez</em>, having Flash on your site is like &#8220;requiring your customers to put on special goggles to see your store&#8217;s merchandise&#8221;. You&#8217;ve worked hard to get people into your website, <strong>don&#8217;t give them a reason to walk out</strong>.</p>
<p>To be fair, Flash in websites does have its uses and it does them well. The video players for sites like YouTube and Google Videos, for example. I don&#8217;t know why some still use Windows Media Player on their sites, which barely plays anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://bigbeardesign.net/blog/2006/flash-is-not-for-websites/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How wide is your width?</title>
		<link>http://bigbeardesign.net/blog/2006/how-wide-is-your-width/</link>
		<comments>http://bigbeardesign.net/blog/2006/how-wide-is-your-width/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:01:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>emil</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[usability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bigbeardesign.net/blog/?p=5</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recent research shows that the majority of Internet users are using 1024&#215;768 instead of 800&#215;600. Popular sites like Lifehacker and Digg have recently made the switch. So should you also make your website &#8220;optimized for 1024&#215;768&#8243; viewing? Hell no.
Great work on their redesigns, but I hate the width reformat. Even though I am using 1024&#215;768, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recent <a href="http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox43-screen-resolutions.html">research</a> shows that the majority of Internet users are using 1024&#215;768 instead of 800&#215;600. Popular sites like <a href="http://www.lifehacker.com">Lifehacker</a> and <a href="http://www.digg.com">Digg</a> have recently made the switch. So should you also make your website &#8220;optimized for 1024&#215;768&#8243; viewing? Hell no.</p>
<p>Great work on their redesigns, but I hate the width reformat. Even though I <em>am</em> using 1024&#215;768, my browser window is never maximized. As a compulsive multi-tasker I need the space for my other programs, so please don&#8217;t assume you can take up my entire screen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://bigbeardesign.net/blog/2006/how-wide-is-your-width/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
