Tagged: reply

Per Axbom reply Twitter

↪ Replying to @elou

@elou Oh man that brought me back. I remember winning a Palm III at the Builder.com conference in New Orleans In 1998. Same year I saw the 1st Google logo. 4 years laters we had to fire people at a startup when the bubble burst. Guessing 10-15% ?

@elou And that preview is totally non-related. Though obviously one could possibly trace domain ownership of that builder domain which could be cool if you're a certain type of geek, which of course I am.

@elou Couldn't ignore my sidetrack: "Builder-com" was a CNet conference. In 2001 CNet purchased the online trade publication Tech Republic. In 2008 CBS acquired CNet. The fact that the domain name has been active, and renewed, inside the company for this long is very impressive.

🔗 Originally posted on Twitter

Per Axbom reply Twitter

↪ Replying to @davecalleja

@davecalleja Thank you! Feedback is exactly what I want. I need to think about this some more, but I hope the n/a users would be covered by ”non-participants”. The unwanted section I want to encourage conscious design of adding friction to ”protect”.

@davecalleja Or, in fact: it does cover non-applicable users in the sense that those people would potentially be harmed by spending unnecessary time on/in the solution, hence we need to make them more aware of why they shouldn’t sign up.

@davecalleja I have an example of this but now need to get out of bed and ready for day 3 of #IxD18 😀

🔗 Originally posted on Twitter