<?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 mike krivansky</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/8916</link>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:17:59 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by mike krivansky</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I have to say that the term &amp;#8220;rich&amp;#8221; is usually a marketing description and a selling point, not necessarily a term that is readily used in design circles.  I mean, when was the last time that you seriously used the term during a design meeting, other than when you are made to cave in or communicate to a business/non-design team member?&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;Frankly, the analysis is a little pretentious &#8211; the rhetoric of the ui design seems to sounds a little heavy handed.   So is the use of the &amp;#8220;diachronic and synchronic.&amp;#8221;   Let&amp;#8217;s look at Design not in terms of its descriptors but in terms of what it does &#8211; the services it provides, the tools that enable people, etc.  &amp;#8220;Rich&amp;#8221; is a silly term.  Let&amp;#8217;s look at the actual Experience.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/what-does-rich-mean#content_8911</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/what-does-rich-mean#content_8911</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:17:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>mike krivansky</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;its called storyboarding people!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/comics-not-just-for#content_8912</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/comics-not-just-for#content_8912</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:47:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>mike krivansky</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
