<?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: The White House blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html</link>
	<description>Stopdesign is the creative outlet of Douglas Bowman.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:37:07 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: eric</title>
		<link>http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html#comment-4327</link>
		<dc:creator>eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:44:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html#comment-4327</guid>
		<description>Love your design. Thanks for the inspirations.

Just a quick comment on the White House Blog, while I think it is fantastic that the White House now has an active blog, I do not believe an &quot;isn&#039;t it about time&quot; is an appropriate comment.

Blogs are relatively new and I don&#039;t now about you but I would rather the White House &amp; staff not worry so much about the latest internet information technology, they have other more improtant things to deal with.

I am not saying the current administration isn&#039;t right to focus on communication, but they arrived WITH blogs, if in 4 years they are introducing communication with the latest &quot;twitter&quot; type innovation I would worry a bit about their priorities.

If blogs and todays communiation tools were avaliable when Bush was elected in 2000 then I would have expected more at that time.

Lets not pile on where piling on isn&#039;t needed.

It&#039;s AWESOME to be certain, but not &quot;about time&quot;. There is a big difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love your design. Thanks for the inspirations.</p>
<p>Just a quick comment on the White House Blog, while I think it is fantastic that the White House now has an active blog, I do not believe an &#8220;isn&#8217;t it about time&#8221; is an appropriate comment.</p>
<p>Blogs are relatively new and I don&#8217;t now about you but I would rather the White House &amp; staff not worry so much about the latest internet information technology, they have other more improtant things to deal with.</p>
<p>I am not saying the current administration isn&#8217;t right to focus on communication, but they arrived WITH blogs, if in 4 years they are introducing communication with the latest &#8220;twitter&#8221; type innovation I would worry a bit about their priorities.</p>
<p>If blogs and todays communiation tools were avaliable when Bush was elected in 2000 then I would have expected more at that time.</p>
<p>Lets not pile on where piling on isn&#8217;t needed.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s AWESOME to be certain, but not &#8220;about time&#8221;. There is a big difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Robin</title>
		<link>http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html#comment-4326</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Robin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:35:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html#comment-4326</guid>
		<description>Andrew: I got that too (the title in my feed reader taking me to the link instead of the article) and it threw me for a moment! It&#039;s different from what I was expecting it to do, and now that I know the &#039;archive link&#039; is for the site article, it shouldn&#039;t be too much of a problem IMO.

Doug: Yeah, it&#039;s a bit more involving than previous administrations, long may it last!  I&#039;m less convinced the blog items are particularly insightful though, more like a feed from the press team...but better than nothing ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew: I got that too (the title in my feed reader taking me to the link instead of the article) and it threw me for a moment! It&#8217;s different from what I was expecting it to do, and now that I know the &#8216;archive link&#8217; is for the site article, it shouldn&#8217;t be too much of a problem IMO.</p>
<p>Doug: Yeah, it&#8217;s a bit more involving than previous administrations, long may it last!  I&#8217;m less convinced the blog items are particularly insightful though, more like a feed from the press team&#8230;but better than nothing ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Douglas Bowman</title>
		<link>http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html#comment-4325</link>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Bowman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html#comment-4325</guid>
		<description>Andrew - making the title point directly to the URL I&#039;m linking was a deliberate decision. In fact, it took a little bit of extra PHP work to make it happen, as opposed to the WP default behavior of linking to the permalink of the &quot;entry&quot;. In the case of Links, when much less is written on this site, my expectation is to be taken off-site to the URL. Since this is the most common action, I didn&#039;t want to require people to click through to a page on my site, then click another link to actually visit the other site. More rationale: the title is the title of what I&#039;m linking to, not of my own commentary. Sometimes, I won&#039;t add any commentary. Or certainly not enough that deserves as prominent of a link as the title.

I guess I could insert a &#039;visit link&#039; link somewhere in the entry. But I actually think it&#039;s more helpful if (for the links category) the title still points to the external site, and something else in my entry (currently the hash - #) points to the page that hosts just that link. Maybe I could just make that hash link more obvious. I just modified my feeds last night to include this line at the end of every link entry:

- archive link -

Perhaps something similar here on the site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew &#8211; making the title point directly to the URL I&#8217;m linking was a deliberate decision. In fact, it took a little bit of extra PHP work to make it happen, as opposed to the WP default behavior of linking to the permalink of the &#8220;entry&#8221;. In the case of Links, when much less is written on this site, my expectation is to be taken off-site to the URL. Since this is the most common action, I didn&#8217;t want to require people to click through to a page on my site, then click another link to actually visit the other site. More rationale: the title is the title of what I&#8217;m linking to, not of my own commentary. Sometimes, I won&#8217;t add any commentary. Or certainly not enough that deserves as prominent of a link as the title.</p>
<p>I guess I could insert a &#8216;visit link&#8217; link somewhere in the entry. But I actually think it&#8217;s more helpful if (for the links category) the title still points to the external site, and something else in my entry (currently the hash &#8211; #) points to the page that hosts just that link. Maybe I could just make that hash link more obvious. I just modified my feeds last night to include this line at the end of every link entry:</p>
<p>- archive link -</p>
<p>Perhaps something similar here on the site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html#comment-4324</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/01/26/the-white-house-blog.html#comment-4324</guid>
		<description>I agree.  It&#039;s a great bit of insight, and I hope they are able to keep it up over the long term.

But I noticed something that&#039;s bothering me about your new site with this post: I go to click on what I thought was the title of the article in order to comment, and I was taken right to the whitehouse blog.  It seems a little non intuitive and difficult to get to a specific blog entry in case I want to share the link with friends.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree.  It&#8217;s a great bit of insight, and I hope they are able to keep it up over the long term.</p>
<p>But I noticed something that&#8217;s bothering me about your new site with this post: I go to click on what I thought was the title of the article in order to comment, and I was taken right to the whitehouse blog.  It seems a little non intuitive and difficult to get to a specific blog entry in case I want to share the link with friends.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
