<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Usability on Graeme Pietersz</title>
		<link>http://localhost:1313/tags/usability/</link>
		<description>Recent content in Usability on Graeme Pietersz</description>
		<generator>Hugo</generator>
		<language>en-gb</language>
		
		
		
		
			<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:52:11 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		
			<atom:link href="http://localhost:1313/tags/usability/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			<item>
				<title>What determines success and failure on the web?</title>
				<link>http://localhost:1313/posts/web-success-failure/</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:52:11 +0100</pubDate>
				<guid>http://localhost:1313/posts/web-success-failure/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;What makes a web site (or a web app) a success or a failure? Having seen a lot of successes and failures I find there are a few common types of business website that have different risks and determinants of success:&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Why your website should be ugly</title>
				<link>http://localhost:1313/posts/ugly-website/</link>
				<pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:35:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>http://localhost:1313/posts/ugly-website/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;Most people (out side the industry anyway) assume that web sites should look good, and an aesthetically good website will produce better results than an ugly one. This is not true, and many of the things that make a website look good will tend to make it worse for users.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
