<?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: Tirade on Stupid User Interfaces</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2005/01/tirade-on-stupid-user-interfaces.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2005/01/tirade-on-stupid-user-interfaces.html</link>
	<description>Management, especially good management, is hard to do. This blog is for people who want to think about how they manage people, projects, and risk.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:45:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pat Moore</title>
		<link>http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2005/01/tirade-on-stupid-user-interfaces.html#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:06:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=8189#comment-52</guid>
		<description>Old discussion, but to me as a customer, browser indeference means they are indeferent to me as a customer. I use Firefox because I want to. If I have a website that makes me use IE, I simply don't use the web site period. The company can just send me paper statements and I will pay by check. If they insist even more, I cancel the account. Usually, browser indeference means a lousy web experience anyhow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Old discussion, but to me as a customer, browser indeference means they are indeferent to me as a customer. I use Firefox because I want to. If I have a website that makes me use IE, I simply don&#8217;t use the web site period. The company can just send me paper statements and I will pay by check. If they insist even more, I cancel the account. Usually, browser indeference means a lousy web experience anyhow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Norris</title>
		<link>http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2005/01/tirade-on-stupid-user-interfaces.html#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Norris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=8189#comment-51</guid>
		<description>I'm a Java programmer, and I have to say that your comment about multiple browser being the cause for Java is incorrect.  Java programs run on web servers and serve up web pages for you to look at and interact with.  Java does nothing for different browsers.  The interoperability of Java has to do with what machines you run Java programs on, not what browsers the people using those programs have.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a Java programmer, and I have to say that your comment about multiple browser being the cause for Java is incorrect.  Java programs run on web servers and serve up web pages for you to look at and interact with.  Java does nothing for different browsers.  The interoperability of Java has to do with what machines you run Java programs on, not what browsers the people using those programs have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ilya Alberton</title>
		<link>http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2005/01/tirade-on-stupid-user-interfaces.html#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Ilya Alberton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:28:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=8189#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Frankly, that's a bull. There is 90% of IE used on the market, why would I even care for accomodating the rest 10% of browsers? I'd rather display a download link to IE page and invest the saved cach into transferring my entire web application to a flash platform. It's amazing how easy it's to shoot oneslf in the foot while blaming the rest of the world for stupidity.
P.S. You are not losing those 10% of customers in case you wonder - most of those have IE installed on their machine anyways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frankly, that&#8217;s a bull. There is 90% of IE used on the market, why would I even care for accomodating the rest 10% of browsers? I&#8217;d rather display a download link to IE page and invest the saved cach into transferring my entire web application to a flash platform. It&#8217;s amazing how easy it&#8217;s to shoot oneslf in the foot while blaming the rest of the world for stupidity.<br />
P.S. You are not losing those 10% of customers in case you wonder - most of those have IE installed on their machine anyways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Oliver</title>
		<link>http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2005/01/tirade-on-stupid-user-interfaces.html#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>David Oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:30:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=8189#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Couldn't agree more! This is a pet hate of mine as well.
The problem as I see it is standards! Everyone is using different standards.
Agreed there are so many browsers, but there are also so many style-sheets, versions of Java and thats just for starters.
And to cap it all, I'm finding that many web-pages are now being designed by marketing departments and NOT developers, they just now do the plumbing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t agree more! This is a pet hate of mine as well.<br />
The problem as I see it is standards! Everyone is using different standards.<br />
Agreed there are so many browsers, but there are also so many style-sheets, versions of Java and thats just for starters.<br />
And to cap it all, I&#8217;m finding that many web-pages are now being designed by marketing departments and NOT developers, they just now do the plumbing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
