I don’t know how many times I’ve sent an email to the Customer Service of an online retailer or service provider and received a templated customer service email response that does not answer my question.

Just today I emailed a major general merchant about an item I purchased that arrived damaged. I informed them of the damage and asked if they could send a replacement immediately (before receiving my return) because I need the item for a date-sensitive reason. Of course, they replied with their return policy and no answer to my question at all.

Now, I realize that the templating of emails saves a ton of money in regards to costs, but someone should be reviewing these emails before they are sent out to ensure that the templated reply answers the question. If it does not, it wastes time for both the customer and the company (having to answer yet another email when I reply with the same question) and wastes money for the company. Surely, it would cost less to answer the question correctly the first time.

It makes me not even want to use email as a method to deal with CS, which is a real shame because it is much more convenient than using the phone.

I saw a magazine ad for HP’s new touch-screen computer the other day, and it got me wondering how soon we’ll start to see these types of PCs in every home (or, perhaps every home for people who read this blog and are probably early adopters to some extent).

Do you think you will want one soon? I’d like one in my car.

I came across this page on bukowski.net, a site dedicated to the work of Charles Bukowski. The developers use the javascript “history.back()” function on the “Return” link, but because I hadn’t come from the index page, this did not take me there (it should take you back here).

Do you consider user paths from external links when you test your site?

Why do online newspapers and other publications insist on breaking up their articles into multiple pages? Is it some relic of the old dial-up days? A way to generate more ad revenue (via more impressions)?

Either way, it is very annoying from a reader’s perspective. At the very least, they should offer the ability to view the entire article (though it is often available that way by using the “print” button).

Check out how this Boston Herald article breaks up the two “pages” — what a waste!

(BTW, if you’re interested in the hilarious incident described in the article, video is here.)

I used a second-hand, first-generation iPod for some time, then upgraded to the sleek, think video iPod a little over a year ago.

Although the new one is better in many ways, most notably being far thinner and lighter, I’ve always preferred the old “click” wheel over the newer smooth scrolling wheel.

• Although the new “smooth” wheel makes the click-wheel seem klunky, the physical feedback that the clicks gave me made it far easier to scroll to the correct selection. With the new wheel, I commonly go too far with my scrolling and end up with the wrong selection.
• In the winter, when I was wearing gloves, I was unable to use the smooth wheel; I never had this problem with the original. This might seem to be a minor issue, but for me it was major as I typically use my iPod in the car, and during the winter I commonly wore gloves in the car.

Everyone seems to love the iPod design — am I the only one who has gripes? Post thoughts below.

I received an email the other day announcing the redesign of bloomingdales.com, so I figured I would give the new site a little review.