Disqus - Latest Comments for Matthew Oliphant

Re: Nine Reasons Why I Love the Roomba

Matthew Oliphant — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:41:37 -0000

How has "he" changed your behaviour?

Re: No, that’s not me

Matthew Oliphant — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:58:19 -0000

No comparison.

Re: The Meaning of Friend

Matthew Oliphant — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:56:35 -0000

Frankly Whitney, I love you and want to have your baby.

Re: Group Video Chat: A Usability Evaluation

Matthew Oliphant — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:31:39 -0000

I am up for using whichever service makes me look more handsome. Or, just handsome. Or, at least not so horrible.

Re: UX Bookshelf

Matthew Oliphant — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:50:29 -0000

I am lazy so here's my list.

Re: I Am Not A Woman Blogger

Matthew Oliphant — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:35:36 -0000

I have 2 reactions to this:

1) You are absolutely right. It's not a distinction that needs to be made.

2) Get in the kitchen and make me a turkey pot pie.

Re: UX Bookshelf

Matthew Oliphant — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:02:58 -0000

No, those are all my UX-related books. And I've read most of them, so I keep them at work mostly as reference material.

I've read a couple of the ones on your list. Never have been impressed with Cooper's stuff.

Re: Leaving for Israel

Matthew Oliphant — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:20:32 -0000

Have fun. Be safe. In that order.

Re: I’m going solo

Matthew Oliphant — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:10:33 -0000

Good luck, Whitney. :)

Re: Preparing for the Storm @ Dan Rubin’s SuperfluousBanter

Matthew Oliphant — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:31:03 -0000

Good luck, man. Don't get dead. ;)

Re: Pardon Our Dust @ Dan Rubin’s SuperfluousBanter

Matthew Oliphant — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:08:54 -0000

Hey, at least you're blogging again.

Re: Giving into community pressure

Matthew Oliphant — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:16:04 -0000

I think your reason #2 is reason #1 for me. While I tend to only follow people I have some connection with, I don't consider all of them my friends. If my friends were on Pownce and everyone else stayed on Twitter, I'd be using both services.

One reason I do like Twitter better than Pownce is that Twitter is so simple. Pownce offers more, and even more if you are willing to pay, but you really have to invest. You have to decide what type of content you have to post. You have to upgrade to do what Twitter allows your to do for free. You have to wait for Pownce to deliver features because (see all the reasons on this post) the pickup on the API isn't as expansive as Twitter.

I am comfortable with my events being on Upcoming. I am comfortable with hosting files on my site that I want to share with people. I am comfortable with being succinct on Twitter.

The opportunity to post more than 140 chars on Pownce makes me think it's probably something I should be writing on my own site anyway, then simply linking people.

I think where Pownce could really kick ass is by allowing people to install it on their Intranets. Then it would become a behind-the-firewall Backpack.

Unless Pownce could prove stability with the level of activity Twitter has, and offer SMS access, I think Pownce will remain largely quiet in comparison.

Re: Will Apple sue PodTech.net? (My employer)

Matthew Oliphant — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:14:54 -0000

We could really piss Apple off and start calling both video and audio, "iCast." But I suppose that would just be asking for trouble.

We could start a class action against Apple on behalf of the MacIntosh clan.

We could not worry about what to call them and allow the presentation method, the file format, and the software needed to communicate to the users the medium.

What about broadcasts that focus on growing peas? Did Apple trademark peapods? They're branching out into the vegetable world after trademarking fruit?

The reality is probably that everyone using "pod" in some way needs to start making plans to change to something else. At least initially we likely don't all need to agree on a naming convention; just call it what you want. Audcast, vidcast, broadcast, show, this thing I did... they're all good.

Re: I hate LinkedIn

Matthew Oliphant — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:59:20 -0000

I've been slowly going through my own <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajalar/sets/72157594185119027/
">web2.0 clean-up. I've found LinkedIn handy from time to time, but not in a big way. I haven't got to the point of adding it to the clean up pile though.

The only network I've gotten anything out of is 9rules. Huge benefits, but I suppose that comes from people wanting to be helpful and being organised in such a way where it is very easy to communicate needs.

Social/Professional networking online doesn't suck, I think it just needs to be done at the group level rather than the "society" level that LinkedIn does it.

Re: One thing I hope dies in 2007

Matthew Oliphant — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 09:53:59 -0000

I'll leave essentially the same comment I did on a similar post almost 1 year ago:

The meme spreads because people want to be involved in it. If they don't, they don't.

I guess I don't understand the angst directed at people who are writing what they want to write about on their own sites.

But, it just depends on your point-of-view. Some memes can be helpful. Who wouldn't want site after site talking about the [five] things they love to do with [the site/product/service you support].

Re: Google Reader behind?

Matthew Oliphant — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:25:38 -0000

All the things you mention in this post are things Bloglines does and has done for a long time (with the exception of "load all").

I don't find Google Reader to be better by leaps and bounds over Bloglines, though it is better than it was when I wrote my google reader vs. bloglines post.

When it gets leaps and bounds better I will give it another try. So in that sense keep writing about it so I know when to go back. :)

Re: Did Digg link here?

Matthew Oliphant — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:01:46 -0000

I wasn't nice to Jakob either in my post about his post, er... article. I guess my non-satirical approach got me better comments. But also fewer comments and less traffic too.

I still don't understand how most people came to the conclusion you thought it was all about you. I guess brains don't have to be connected to finger muscles for them to work.

I did go with a completely satirical title though...