<?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>Whislr</title>
	<atom:link href="http://whislr.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://whislr.com</link>
	<description>Random thoughts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:22:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Bill Buxton and design</title>
		<link>http://whislr.com/2010/07/04/bill-buxton-and-design/</link>
		<comments>http://whislr.com/2010/07/04/bill-buxton-and-design/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2010 06:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ujjal Pathak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whislr.com/?p=50</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;A design isn&#8217;t finished when there&#8217;s nothing more to add; it&#8217;s finished when there&#8217;s nothing left to take out.&#8221;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>&#8220;A design isn&#8217;t finished when there&#8217;s nothing more to add; it&#8217;s finished when there&#8217;s nothing left to take out.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://whislr.com/2010/07/04/bill-buxton-and-design/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bad design</title>
		<link>http://whislr.com/2010/05/23/bad-design/</link>
		<comments>http://whislr.com/2010/05/23/bad-design/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 05:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ujjal Pathak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whislr.com/?p=48</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A few days ago, I bought a $100 Ikea chest kit of four drawers. As I was cautiously assembling the parts while browsing through the instruction manual, I realized that a few hinges and screws were missing. I checked the wrapping material, the room floor etc. but I couldn&#8217;t find them anywhere. I started to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few days ago, I bought a $100 Ikea chest kit of four drawers. As I was  cautiously assembling the parts while browsing through the instruction  manual, I realized that a few hinges and screws were missing. I checked  the wrapping material, the room floor etc. but I couldn&#8217;t find them  anywhere. I started to blame myself for &#8220;accidentally losing&#8221; certain  important parts of the chest. Frustrated at myself, I then did a  detailed sweep of my room. Still no luck. In the end, I somehow managed  to make the chest stand on its feet and operational. But the fact of the  matter is: those hinges and screws were not even included in the  package in the first place! But there I was blaming and getting  pissed-off at myself.</p>
<p>When a users blames him/her-self when a  product under-delivers or misbehaves, then the real fault lies  with the product, not the user. It&#8217;s a badly designed product to begin with!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://whislr.com/2010/05/23/bad-design/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Everyday good design that gets unnoticed</title>
		<link>http://whislr.com/2010/05/14/everyday-good-design-that-gets-unnoticed/</link>
		<comments>http://whislr.com/2010/05/14/everyday-good-design-that-gets-unnoticed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 07:03:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ujjal Pathak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whislr.com/?p=42</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I recently bought a &#8220;bathroom&#8221; digital weighing scale from Target to weigh my two massive upright wheeled suitcases that were filled with clothes etc. to the brim as I was preparing for my flight to San Jose. I was worried about crossing the 50 lb  limit requirement per bag as  my suitcases were extremely heavy. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently bought a &#8220;bathroom&#8221; digital weighing scale from Target to weigh my two massive upright wheeled suitcases that were filled with clothes etc. to the brim as I was preparing for my flight to San Jose. I was worried about crossing the 50 lb  limit requirement per bag as  my suitcases were extremely heavy. While trying to weigh them on the scale, I noticed how they each entirely dwarfed the scale&#8217;s surface thereby leaving no space for checking the final readout. Luckily, unlike other digital or analog scales, this scale kept on displaying the final measurement for a few extra seconds thus allowing me to peacefully take my suitcase off the scale and see the final reading. This is a good designed scale in my book.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://whislr.com/2010/05/14/everyday-good-design-that-gets-unnoticed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The steam iron</title>
		<link>http://whislr.com/2010/05/05/the-steam-iron/</link>
		<comments>http://whislr.com/2010/05/05/the-steam-iron/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 10:35:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ujjal Pathak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whislr.com/?p=38</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The steam iron is the most hated of all appliances. No matter how many design trade-offs are made, you just can&#8217;t make steam iron fundamentally any better for people. Even the Jonathan Ives of the world would fail to make it better and more likeable. The fact is: people simply hate ironing. Anthony Mello once [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The steam iron is the most hated of all appliances. No matter how many  design trade-offs are made, you just can&#8217;t make steam iron fundamentally  any better for people. Even the Jonathan Ives of the world would fail  to make it better and more likeable. The fact is: people simply hate  ironing.</p>
<p>Anthony Mello once said, &#8220;we see things not as they  are, but as we are.&#8221; What this means for us PMs, designers, entrepreneurs etc. is that  people are more important than things. Anthropology is more important  than technology.</p>
<div id="nh6o"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/throughtheloops/3092907762/"><img src="http://docs.google.com/File?id=dwqp5k6_369fjkr67g2_b" alt="" /></a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://whislr.com/2010/05/05/the-steam-iron/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A different approach to building dating sites</title>
		<link>http://whislr.com/2010/04/20/a-different-approach-to-building-dating-sites/</link>
		<comments>http://whislr.com/2010/04/20/a-different-approach-to-building-dating-sites/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ujjal Pathak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whislr.com/?p=25</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are plenty of reasons why Paul Graham is interested in funding a different approach to the entire online dating scene. However, I don&#8217;t know (publicly) if anyone has yet tried to define and approach this problem space from a fundamentally different perspective (I found dating/meeting service ideas/approaches here, here and here somewhat insipid and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a title="There are plenty of reasons why online dating sites  suck." href="http://www.google.com/search?q=what%27s+wrong+with+online+dating+sites">There  are plenty of reasons</a> why Paul Graham is <a title="interested" href="http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html">interested</a> in funding a  different approach to the entire online dating scene. However, I don&#8217;t know  (publicly) if anyone has yet tried to define and approach this problem space  from a fundamentally different perspective (I found dating/meeting service  ideas/approaches <a title="here" href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1190974">here</a>, <a title="here" href="http://hn.whyslow.net/item?id=534089">here</a> and <a title="here" href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=321925">here</a> somewhat insipid  and garden-variety). I personally think that entrepreneurs are missing the huge  market potential offered by the LinkedIn et al. professional crowd. Let&#8217;s face  it: professionals don&#8217;t have time to register on <a title="Match etc." href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_dating_websites">Match et  al.</a>, add/search people, do surveys for a &#8220;good match&#8221;, write blogs, send  &#8220;winks,&#8221; juggle between various subscription models etc. to find the right  person &#8211; no matter how &#8220;fun&#8221; the process may be. And then you have Facebook, but  I wouldn&#8217;t consider it an appropiate platform (how many really oblige to random  stranger friend requests?). The other day, I was day dreaming about this topic  and decided to jot down a few notes:</p>
<p><strong>Practicality:</strong> My interest in the professional crowd space is  purely based on one dictum: they are very practical people (I&#8217;ll leave the ageist  undertones up to you for interpretations) and always look for simpler, coherent  solutions to all kinds of problems. They are successful, financially and  mentally stable, looking for genuine long-term relationships and wouldn&#8217;t mind  shelling out a few extra $$ to find their soulmate <em>the simplest way  possible.</em> I&#8217;d initially focus on one niche age group (25-30) and restrict  the registration (just like the earlier iterations of Facebook) to Fortune 1000  and start-up professionals. This is the crowd where most don&#8217;t have a problem  dating anyone between ages 25 and 30 (yes, I just made that up!)</p>
<p><strong>Privity:</strong> Dating, finding your true love or whatever you want  to call it is everyone&#8217;s <em>personal business.</em> And that&#8217;s what most dating  sites don&#8217;t &#8220;get.&#8221; I don&#8217;t want a friend/date list, awards, badges or gifts. I  don&#8217;t want to be advertised or my profile displayed on the search list. I don&#8217;t  want to answer random questions to find a match. I just want to talk to that one  person who could be my soulmate/the one I&#8217;ve been always dreaming about WITHOUT  going through the hassles of all that extra bells and whistles. So, when I say  it&#8217;s everyone&#8217;s personal business, it should be personal all the way and not  just limited to private messages.</p>
<p><strong>Believability:</strong> Customers want to believe in your product. To  me, <a title="Match etc." href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_dating_websites">Match et  al.</a> are like non-OEM chargers or batteries that sometime work but most of  the time fails. You buy one of those non-OEM products because they are cheap and  widely available (i.e. quantity over quality). But in the end, you end up buying  an OEM version any way. <a title="Match etc." href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_dating_websites">Match et  al.</a>&#8216;s primary value proposition is their user base. They are basically  delivering you a list of people and leaving it up to you to pick and choose (and  that&#8217;s why many people register and then never return after a first failed  attempt). I don&#8217;t think the professional crowd has the time and patience for  that. A better value proposition would be to just <em>deliver </em>the customer  his/her future partner.</p>
<p><strong>Curiosity: </strong>PG says that it&#8217;s important &#8220;to overcome the huge  chicken and egg problem every dating site faces&#8221; i.e. bring enough people  onboard for sustenance. No doubt analytics is important. I believe a good  execution of an interesting idea will always bring new people over vs. SEO-ing  the hell out of the site. One way to bring new people all the time would be to  focus on the primary value proposition: find your potential partner in a simple,  anonymous and fun way (see below).</p>
<p><strong>Here&#8217;s an example execution of the above notes:</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Adam registers on the site with the following personal information: name,  position title, date of birth, company email id (for one-time verification),  personal email id and phone number</li>
<li>He&#8217;s asked just one Y/N question: &#8220;Does age matter to you?&#8221; (Yes= he&#8217;s  looking for someone of his age)</li>
<li>He agrees to an agreement that explains that he can&#8217;t reveal his name or  contact information (plus, no links, pictures or videos allowed) to the other  person or otherwise it&#8217;s an immediate block/ban based on the company email id.  Algorithm will be smart enough to find any discrepancies including clever ways  such as &#8220;a-d am at geemail.com&#8221; etc.</li>
<li>Based on the answer to the age question, he is immediately assigned to a  potential soulmate, Mary. (Mary followed the same registration routine as  Adam)</li>
<li>All they see is a message/email box with no names. It&#8217;s totally anonymous.  And there&#8217;s no friend&#8217;s list, no bells and whistles.</li>
<li>They message each other anonymously for a few weeks/months, develop a strong  connection. If they really like each other, they can opt out of this site  successfully buy paying a one-time $X00. Either Adam or Mary can pick the tab.  The actual contact information will then be displayed and they can then  communicate on their own, exchange pictures etc.</li>
<li>But if they fail to develop an intimate relationship within a few  days/weeks/months, they can disable their present connection and either leave  the site or pay $Xx0 for a new connection after a few days of break (just as IRL  so to speak)</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>So, how does the above execution provide value?</strong></p>
<p>- It&#8217;s simple. You join and immediately get connected to someone based on  your age question.<br />
- You are intimate with only one person from the very  beginning, so more quality and less effort to impress a range of people.<br />
-  You are both professional and successful. Time matters to both of you and thus  somewhat pressured to communicate frequently because of &#8220;either now or never&#8221;  thought of finding a soulmate.<br />
- The anonymous environment allows you to  focus on the thoughts, character and personality of the other person over looks  etc.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://whislr.com/2010/04/20/a-different-approach-to-building-dating-sites/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)

Served from: whislr.com @ 2012-02-06 22:00:38 -->
