Comments on: Road Rage on the Information Highway http://www.affectivedesign.org/archives/44 Exploring Emotional Design Mon, 02 Aug 2010 01:23:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: trevvg http://www.affectivedesign.org/archives/44/comment-page-1#comment-42 trevvg Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:04:43 +0000 http://www.affectivedesign.org/archives/44#comment-42 You're right. There is no "moral" duty on the part of the store/site/host. None of these entities are obliged to offer a stress free experience for purely moral or legal reasons. In fact, I would argue that many sites are successful because they are engaging. Depending on the context of the site and how you model anxiety and emotion, engagement can be seen as a positive form of stress, I picked that quote from the article because I felt it represented the notion of "duty" as a responsibility. Given the large quantity of information on usability that is available, it would be a responsibility for presenting the content of a site in a simple and easy to understand manner. You’re right. There is no “moral” duty on the part of the store/site/host. None of these entities are obliged to offer a stress free experience for purely moral or legal reasons.

In fact, I would argue that many sites are successful because they are engaging. Depending on the context of the site and how you model anxiety and emotion, engagement can be seen as a positive form of stress,

I picked that quote from the article because I felt it represented the notion of “duty” as a responsibility. Given the large quantity of information on usability that is available, it would be a responsibility for presenting the content of a site in a simple and easy to understand manner.

]]> By: Alan Wexelblat http://www.affectivedesign.org/archives/44/comment-page-1#comment-41 Alan Wexelblat Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:28:35 +0000 http://www.affectivedesign.org/archives/44#comment-41 I don't understand why you think people have a "duty" to do this. It might be good business sense and one of the values of the Web is that it presents a multiplicity of options simply, allowing us to vote with our feet much more easily than we can in the physical world. But none of that equates to any form of moral duty on the part of the offering store/site/host. For example, I blog at copyfight.corante.com The hardware underlying that site is old and slow and subject to attack now and then. It's maintained by donations, grants, and volunteer labor. Readers of the blog are sometimes frustrated by slow response, errors in posting comments, etc. But I reject the notion that I've failed in some moral "duty" because I'm writing in a blog that runs on crap hardware. I don’t understand why you think people have a “duty” to do this. It might be good business sense and one of the values of the Web is that it presents a multiplicity of options simply, allowing us to vote with our feet much more easily than we can in the physical world. But none of that equates to any form of moral duty on the part of the offering store/site/host.

For example, I blog at copyfight.corante.com
The hardware underlying that site is old and slow and subject to attack now and then. It’s maintained by donations, grants, and volunteer labor. Readers of the blog are sometimes frustrated by slow response, errors in posting comments, etc. But I reject the notion that I’ve failed in some moral “duty” because I’m writing in a blog that runs on crap hardware.

]]>