<?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: In defense of physical media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tomsatwicz.com/defense-physical-media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tomsatwicz.com/defense-physical-media/</link>
	<description>Finding the space where learning meets user experience.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:14:07 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kelly C. Porter</title>
		<link>http://www.tomsatwicz.com/defense-physical-media/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly C. Porter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tomsatwicz.com/?p=88#comment-10</guid>
		<description>Tom, I could not agree with you more. I think, too, that studies on the remarkably different ways that people interact with printed and digital text, for instance, bear out the wisdom of &#039;going analog&#039; in some cases. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;When I was at the Science Museum of London this summer, helping brainstorm for a really exciting new digital contemporary science exhibit, one of my first (and I think my most valuable) assertions was that people react to screens, and especially web-like environments with the behavioral cues of internet browsing. We can ignore and scroll though a remarkable amount of blinking, back-lit data, because that&#039;s what we&#039;re used to doing. But the minute you pull that experience out of the screen, and into a compelling object, like the Centenograph (&lt;a href=&quot;http://bit.ly/luPcR&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://bit.ly/luPcR&lt;/a&gt;) for instance, or installation, like the Watermarks Project (&lt;a href=&quot;http://watermarksproject.org&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://watermarksproject.org&lt;/a&gt;), it is thrice the thing that it would have been on a screen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom, I could not agree with you more. I think, too, that studies on the remarkably different ways that people interact with printed and digital text, for instance, bear out the wisdom of &#39;going analog&#39; in some cases. </p>
<p>When I was at the Science Museum of London this summer, helping brainstorm for a really exciting new digital contemporary science exhibit, one of my first (and I think my most valuable) assertions was that people react to screens, and especially web-like environments with the behavioral cues of internet browsing. We can ignore and scroll though a remarkable amount of blinking, back-lit data, because that&#39;s what we&#39;re used to doing. But the minute you pull that experience out of the screen, and into a compelling object, like the Centenograph (<a href="http://bit.ly/luPcR" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/luPcR</a>) for instance, or installation, like the Watermarks Project (<a href="http://watermarksproject.org" rel="nofollow">http://watermarksproject.org</a>), it is thrice the thing that it would have been on a screen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
