<?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 Rohan Sandeep</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/332</link>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:51 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Rohan Sandeep</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;This article is a good read, it just sparked a question in my mind.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I often ask the client the question, do we really need a sitemap. &lt;br /&gt;I tried exploring this out with one of the busiest site i have designed, checking out the probability of any user exploring the sitemap link. It dint happen over 5000 individual hits. I did get a few help links and feedback mails.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;According to me a sitemap has to morph into something better than hierarchial list put together in rectangle boxes. Probably the language has to change, maybe even using the term site &amp;#8211; map has to change.  Maybe it should not be there at all, unless we have reason to place it on a site.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;what say :)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the_lazy_ia_s_guide_to_making_sitemaps#content_2992</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the_lazy_ia_s_guide_to_making_sitemaps#content_2992</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Rohan Sandeep</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="caps"&gt;RIA&lt;/span&gt; is somehow a new ballgame. I remember a time when we first began with websites. We were busy trying to convert print brochures into branding websites. The same was true about designing applications we tried hard to bring desktop functionality to the browser. We failed miserably with the content driven browser functionality of the time.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;We learned the hardway to design and to implement for the browser. Now &lt;span class="caps"&gt;RIA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s are making us rethink a lot on these approaches. From a multi-page metaphor to single screen applications.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;This article is a good starting point to discuss implications of moving from the multi-page view to &lt;span class="caps"&gt;RIA&lt;/span&gt;&amp;#8217;s.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/usability_heuristics_for_rich_internet_applications#content_3407</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/usability_heuristics_for_rich_internet_applications#content_3407</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Rohan Sandeep</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I think the basic flaw in design of an intranet is the comparison it receives with other applications. Intranet is really not one url, its the complete workflow and process enabler for the people (employees). Unlike normal applications that serve lesser number of needs and objectives, Intranet&amp;#8217;s have the huge challenge of &amp;#8220;managing the people experience&amp;#8221; while they get things done.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I guess when we start looking at it as a tool to manage people&amp;#8217;s experience in their 8-10 hour jobs in the company, can we come any close to actually designing it or even rating it.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/idea/view/5898#content_6091</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/idea/view/5898#content_6091</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:58:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Rohan Sandeep</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
