<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>A UX State of Mind &#187; theory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brianpagan.net/tag/theory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brianpagan.net</link>
	<description>Brian Pagán&#039;s take on User Experience</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:14:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Science Thinking for Design: Validity</title>
		<link>http://brianpagan.net/2011/science-thinking-for-design-validity/</link>
		<comments>http://brianpagan.net/2011/science-thinking-for-design-validity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[UX Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[questioning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[techniques]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brianpagan.net/?p=323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In science, experiments are judged on two types of validity. We designers could judge our own work along the same lines. Validity in Science Scientists conduct experiments to measure something. They do the measuring, because they want to learn more &#8230; <a href="http://brianpagan.net/2011/science-thinking-for-design-validity/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brianpagan.net/2011/science-thinking-for-design-validity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Human Attention: Can We Multitask?</title>
		<link>http://brianpagan.net/2011/human-attention-can-we-multitask/</link>
		<comments>http://brianpagan.net/2011/human-attention-can-we-multitask/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 May 2011 12:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[UX Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brianpagan.net/?p=299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The question of human multitasking remains hotly debated. Some sources, like this article by Jon Hamilton, tell us that multitasking does not exist, but is a function of us switching quickly between multiple tasks. However, a recent study by Roberto Arrighi, Roy Lunardi, &#8230; <a href="http://brianpagan.net/2011/human-attention-can-we-multitask/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brianpagan.net/2011/human-attention-can-we-multitask/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UX is Not Your Savior</title>
		<link>http://brianpagan.net/2011/ux-is-not-your-savior/</link>
		<comments>http://brianpagan.net/2011/ux-is-not-your-savior/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jan 2011 12:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[UX Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big picture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hess]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[norman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perspective]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ux]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brianpagan.net/?p=205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Discussion A while back, Don Norman wrote a controversial article in which he basically states that user research stifles innovation and that pure technology is what drives it. Tech first, UX second. Along a similar vein, Whitney Hess published &#8230; <a href="http://brianpagan.net/2011/ux-is-not-your-savior/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brianpagan.net/2011/ux-is-not-your-savior/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I Don&#8217;t Know What A Browser Is, but I&#8217;ve got 500 Friends Online</title>
		<link>http://brianpagan.net/2010/i-dont-know-what-a-browser-is-but-ive-got-500-friends-online/</link>
		<comments>http://brianpagan.net/2010/i-dont-know-what-a-browser-is-but-ive-got-500-friends-online/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:13:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[UX Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thought]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[user experience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[users]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ux]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brianpagan.net/?p=158</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Users of computing technology used to be categorizable into either the elite bourgeoisie of programmers and tech enthusiasts who built their own computers or the mainstream proletariat whose computer literacy was just enough to type e-mails and use some basic spreadsheet &#8230; <a href="http://brianpagan.net/2010/i-dont-know-what-a-browser-is-but-ive-got-500-friends-online/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brianpagan.net/2010/i-dont-know-what-a-browser-is-but-ive-got-500-friends-online/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First Do No Harm: Toward a Hippocratic Oath for Designers</title>
		<link>http://brianpagan.net/2010/first-do-no-harm-towards-a-hippocratic-oath-for-designers/</link>
		<comments>http://brianpagan.net/2010/first-do-no-harm-towards-a-hippocratic-oath-for-designers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[UX Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hippocratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oath]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overdesign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[simplicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tradeoffs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.brianpagan.net/?p=60</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Primum non nocere First, do no harm. This phrase represents the concept of non-maleficence in medicine, purporting that it is sometimes better to do nothing than to do something harmful. It is a core tenet of medical ethics, taught to &#8230; <a href="http://brianpagan.net/2010/first-do-no-harm-towards-a-hippocratic-oath-for-designers/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://brianpagan.net/2010/first-do-no-harm-towards-a-hippocratic-oath-for-designers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

