<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Will Evans</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/17142</link>
    <pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:20:11 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Will Evans</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Praveen &amp;#8211; actually two column is addressed in the book &amp;#8211; look at Chapter 3: Paths to Completion &amp;#8211; specifically, look at page 53. There are numerous reasons why 2 column layout is not a great idea for form design. The first is scan-lines. A single column means the user can scan right down the form. Two columns adds cognitive load because, depending on layout &amp;#8211; they may go down one column, jump up and to the right for the second column &amp;#8211; somewhat jarring, or go across left to right, down to the left &amp;#8211; over to the right in a zig-zag. Users that tab from field to field will find either experience nasty. &lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#8217;t agree that the right side white space is an issue &amp;#8211; and if the want to use it &amp;#8211; use it for contextual help &amp;#8211; or tips. You can also use it for validation messages&amp;#8230;. if you are going to make people fill out a form &amp;#8211; tell them why the information is needed, and make it easy to correct problems through the use of that space. With 2 column layouts &amp;#8211; you lose that real estate to the form. Thats my 2 cents at least.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/calling-in-the-big#content_26580</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/calling-in-the-big#content_26580</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:20:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Will Evans</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Very interesting, but I think your article, while the title didn&amp;#8217;t imply it, focused mostly on the use of rating systems in mitigating risk for e-commerce sites, for instance, but not for social media sites. I can understand, and it seems rather easy &amp;#8211; when anonymous, or even named, users, are rating on something relatively objective &amp;#8211; a movie, or an artist, or a song or a book. What about user-generated content, when authors/users trade reputation and ratings for friendship, thus skewing effective use of ratings at all &amp;#8211; if I publish an article, and all my friends rate it a 10 on a scale of 1-10, and every other article gets a 10, 10 has no meaning. &lt;br /&gt;I notice a number of IAs out there designing rating systems for social media systems, social networks, and user generated media, and are either completely ignorant of the psycho-social aspects, or willfully ignoring the sociology and psychology of &amp;#8216;members&amp;#8217; using social media tools to mediate conversations and create content.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/on-a-scale-of-1-to-5#content_26879</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/on-a-scale-of-1-to-5#content_26879</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:11:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Will Evans</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
