Tagged: reply
↪ Replying to @AleGiannini82
@AleGiannini82 Would be possible to scan though :)
discovermagazine.com/mind/fmri-scan…
↪ Replying to @unknown
@MMardahl I had never heard of Ecosia. Cool. How is it financed?
↪ Replying to @CrowsQuartz
@CrowsQuartz @sam_aye_ahm @EziRije You can read it on your mobile if you use the Firefox Focus browser. mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/…
↪ Replying to @beantin
@beantin @d8en @uxpodcast I mean, if you're not accustomed to the name Per you're bound to mishear it. Story of my life. But, apology accepted. 😊
@beantin @d8en @uxpodcast And yes James, that is wrong. 😝
↪ Replying to @unknown
@prefrontal Thank you Craig! 🙏
For some reason this thread really resonated with people. I'm gonna attribute that to the fact that I did not disclose the state of the fish as dead in the first tweet. But further research is obviously needed ;)
↪ Replying to @unknown
@prefrontal @dweinberger Those words, from you, made my day! 😀
↪ Replying to @Feb30Games
@Feb30Games Aren’t we always? 😉 But I would not have believed the size of this one.
↪ Replying to @themitak
@themitak Well yes, real science with a humorous twist. :)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_…
↪ Replying to @unknown
@vareservoir @uxpodcast Thank you for this! I reacted exactly the same way to that "paternalistic" objection.
↪ Replying to @d8en
@d8en @UXTweets Exactly! And that would imply that "lovable" isn't a general requirement from the start 😊
↪ Replying to @d8en
@d8en @UXTweets Maybe, or I was in a weakened state of mind when I read it. 😊 It does remind me of how ”delight” pops up often in UX, while delight is not necessary for something to be useful or valuable. That word has also been extensively debated, as our industry loves to dissect words :)
↪ Replying to @d8en
@d8en @UXTweets I believe MVP is always dangerous territory. As a term it often confuses more than it helps. For myself it relates to making just enough to test a hypothesis and learn from it. So whether or not something needs to be lovable depends on what you’re trying to learn.
@d8en @UXTweets So if there is no intent to learn and/or learning does not happen, there is no MVP. In my mind, ”viable” relates not to robustness but to the ability of learning enough. And it’s possible what you’re trying to learn is if ”lovable” is important for a specific product.
@d8en @UXTweets I’m personally at odds with the definition of MVP that the article seems to put forward so I don’t feel like I’m helping. 🤨 The dating/marriage metaphor didn’t work for me either.
@d8en @UXTweets To sum up, I think if we focus on co-creation and inclusion, we won’t need to assume what ”lovable” entails for someone else. Instead we’ll have a common focus on value-creation, which may or may not include someone’s definition of ”love”.
↪ Replying to @palace
@palace Lite som Consequentialism då? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequen…