<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: RSS is Push</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cafe.elharo.com/ui/rss-is-push/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/ui/rss-is-push/</link>
	<description>Longer than a blog; shorter than a book</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dustman</title>
		<link>http://cafe.elharo.com/ui/rss-is-push/#comment-382</link>
		<dc:creator>Dustman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 May 2006 16:54:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafe.elharo.com/ui/rss-is-push/#comment-382</guid>
		<description>I'd agree that you shouldn't need to know the specifics of how a client-server interaction takes place in order to label that interaction in a user-meaningful way. This, however, is silly. You assume that the user can't remember what he requested, and that every trip to his inbox and/or aggregator is an excercise in exploration and discovery ("Hey, how'd this stuff get in here?!").

In fact, I'd go so far as to say the opposite, that users sometimes view e-mail as pull. To see why, go ask a common user why some piece of information showed up in their aggregator or inbox. For RSS, the answer is universally "Because I asked for it.", and that pretty much defines "pull" to the user, regardless of the machine-level interaction. For e-mail, some things like mailing lists will elicit a similar answer "Because I signed up for it.".

However, most e-mail would garner the response "Because someone sent it to me.". To users, this defines "push". There is nothing in the delivery mechanism that makes any difference to how they view their reception of the content in question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d agree that you shouldn&#8217;t need to know the specifics of how a client-server interaction takes place in order to label that interaction in a user-meaningful way. This, however, is silly. You assume that the user can&#8217;t remember what he requested, and that every trip to his inbox and/or aggregator is an excercise in exploration and discovery (&#8221;Hey, how&#8217;d this stuff get in here?!&#8221;).</p>
<p>In fact, I&#8217;d go so far as to say the opposite, that users sometimes view e-mail as pull. To see why, go ask a common user why some piece of information showed up in their aggregator or inbox. For RSS, the answer is universally &#8220;Because I asked for it.&#8221;, and that pretty much defines &#8220;pull&#8221; to the user, regardless of the machine-level interaction. For e-mail, some things like mailing lists will elicit a similar answer &#8220;Because I signed up for it.&#8221;.</p>
<p>However, most e-mail would garner the response &#8220;Because someone sent it to me.&#8221;. To users, this defines &#8220;push&#8221;. There is nothing in the delivery mechanism that makes any difference to how they view their reception of the content in question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
