<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Zoomii:  Another Way to Shop Amazon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16342/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16342</link>
	<description>Feel Smart Again</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:20:58 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Higgins</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16342/comment-page-1#comment-83510</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Higgins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16342#comment-83510</guid>
		<description>I think the Zoomii people are primarily in it for the eye candy, frankly.  The one place I found it particularly useful was in search.  On Amazon&#039;s default search (which is good...), I usually expect to find my result in the first one or two items.  If it isn&#039;t there, things seem to get less relevant real fast.  On Zoomii I found that relevant results seemed more clickable (presumably due to the big image thumbnail), and there was less cruft (I guess because it&#039;s a subset of the total Amazon catalog).  But anyway.  Mostly eye candy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the Zoomii people are primarily in it for the eye candy, frankly.  The one place I found it particularly useful was in search.  On Amazon&#8217;s default search (which is good&#8230;), I usually expect to find my result in the first one or two items.  If it isn&#8217;t there, things seem to get less relevant real fast.  On Zoomii I found that relevant results seemed more clickable (presumably due to the big image thumbnail), and there was less cruft (I guess because it&#8217;s a subset of the total Amazon catalog).  But anyway.  Mostly eye candy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Higgins</title>
		<link>http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16342/comment-page-1#comment-83270</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Higgins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/16342#comment-83270</guid>
		<description>So, I love zoomable UIs.  (They go way back, but never really caught on --- the iphone and exposé might be slowly changing that.)  And I love &quot;where it is is what it is&quot; UIs that associate information with &quot;physics.&quot;  But I&#039;m not a fan of slavish devotion to physical metaphors.  I mean, imagine if the Finder were really like a filing cabinet!  You could virtually flip through files looking for your virtual paper!  It would be wonderfully... tedious.

I haven&#039;t played with zoomii enough to know if it&#039;s on the good side or the bad side of the line for this kind of thing, but I wonder what the advantage of it is for an Amazon-like experience?  Amazon already does a pretty good job with serendipity and showing related stuff.  Is it browsing?  Does it feel nice for browsing?  I worry that they&#039;re only in it for the eye candy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, I love zoomable UIs.  (They go way back, but never really caught on &#8212; the iphone and exposé might be slowly changing that.)  And I love &#8220;where it is is what it is&#8221; UIs that associate information with &#8220;physics.&#8221;  But I&#8217;m not a fan of slavish devotion to physical metaphors.  I mean, imagine if the Finder were really like a filing cabinet!  You could virtually flip through files looking for your virtual paper!  It would be wonderfully&#8230; tedious.</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t played with zoomii enough to know if it&#8217;s on the good side or the bad side of the line for this kind of thing, but I wonder what the advantage of it is for an Amazon-like experience?  Amazon already does a pretty good job with serendipity and showing related stuff.  Is it browsing?  Does it feel nice for browsing?  I worry that they&#8217;re only in it for the eye candy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
