<?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: WWW and User Experience</title>
	<atom:link href="http://webdeveloper2.com/2009/05/www-and-user-experience/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://webdeveloper2.com/2009/05/www-and-user-experience/</link>
	<description>Resources for web creators</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:13:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://webdeveloper2.com/2009/05/www-and-user-experience/#comment-215</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 11:28:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webdeveloper2.com/?p=769#comment-215</guid>
		<description>Thanks Ross, it does seem to be case that for many people that the www prefix is expected and implied even if they don&#039;t actually say it out loud when telling somebody the link. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Ross, it does seem to be case that for many people that the www prefix is expected and implied even if they don&#039;t actually say it out loud when telling somebody the link. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: @rossbreadmore</title>
		<link>http://webdeveloper2.com/2009/05/www-and-user-experience/#comment-214</link>
		<dc:creator>@rossbreadmore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 09:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webdeveloper2.com/?p=769#comment-214</guid>
		<description>Interesting question. As a non-techie, my preference would be to stick with www for the majority of sites, particularly those aimed at wide audiences.  
 
Having managed the build of several sites for clients, the only url that ever raised eyebrows was the one without the www. Some asked if the site was hosted on some kind of internal server, and the bounce rate was higher than usual presumably as some users thought they&#039;d clicked a click too far.  
 
Also, our offline design guys prefer the www as it gives the url a more balanced look on press material - they assumed that i&#039;d left the www from the design brief as a personal choice, and re-added it. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting question. As a non-techie, my preference would be to stick with www for the majority of sites, particularly those aimed at wide audiences.  </p>
<p>Having managed the build of several sites for clients, the only url that ever raised eyebrows was the one without the www. Some asked if the site was hosted on some kind of internal server, and the bounce rate was higher than usual presumably as some users thought they&#039;d clicked a click too far.  </p>
<p>Also, our offline design guys prefer the www as it gives the url a more balanced look on press material &#8211; they assumed that i&#039;d left the www from the design brief as a personal choice, and re-added it. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Served from: webdeveloper2.com @ 2012-05-17 19:47:14 by W3 Total Cache -->
