last updated:17 Jan 2003 13: 05 Webword time, or 17 Jan 2003 18:05 UK time
Click for Webword home page
Webword Statistics - Recent Comments
(Comments added for week ending Sun 12 Jan 2003) | View Other Weeks
Evaluating 25 E-Commerce Search Engines | Sun 12 Jan
(37signals) In this detailed report, 37signals analyzes, reviews, and rates the search engines and search results at 25 popular e-commerce sites. (Comments: $99.)
Sun 12 Jan 20:48 | Zoe Fish | El Sourca Codo: meta name='keywords' content='usability research, search usability, search best practices, usability best practices, white paper, whitepaper, technical report, research report, usability report, nngroup, Jakob Nielsen, 37signals' * * * Jakob Nielsen? Huhhh? Lest they could do is compare there work for Jakobs work!!
Sun 12 Jan 20:57 | John S. Rhodes | 'The 45 page report is distributed in PDF format. It features over 150 screenshots and tests over 1000 search terms. The report is $99, but SVN readers who enter SVN1037 in the coupon code box will save $10. We spent about 3.5 months putting this together and are very proud of it. Any and all feedback (positive and negative) is appreciated. Thanks.' [Emphasis mine.]
Sun 12 Jan 22:52 | Randy | Pretty clever META tags.
Human Factors, Critical Thinking: Toward a Reliable and Valid Usability Testing Methodology: Part 1 | Sun 12 Jan
(Ron Zeno) There is no known usability testing method that is both reliable and valid. End of discussion. Why do people continue to ignore this, when instead we should be doing something about it?
Sun 12 Jan 17:05 | John S. Rhodes | I think Ron's comments are outstanding. I pointed out many problems with usability in Trouble in Paradise: Problems Facing the Usability Community but I didn't give enough space to the issues Ron is talking about. In effect, I think he's politely saying that usability is broken. It is a form of black magic or voodoo that, while based on science, is not scientific. If it was, we'd be able to compare usability studies and we could expect to return reliable results. Here's what I would like folks to consider... 1. I'd like people to consider computational usability. In effect, I wonder if we can create useful models of usability that are described by mathematical functions. I would like some usability functions where I plug in some numbers and get some results that tell me if my method is good. In other cases, I'd like math functions that allow me to actually analyze raw data, easily and effective and reliably. I'd like these functions to be relatively simple, so that they speak louder than any gurus. There is such a thing as Computational Psychology so this isn't a total fantasy. 2. I'd like to see something like a Consumer Reports of Usability. An actual print version of usability issues and resolutions, ranking of best and worst products by usability, usability versus cost analyses, and so forth. I'd love to start something like this if there was some *serious* interest in it. Further, a radio show about usability, with perhaps a humorous slant, could be fun to do once per week. 3. An organization such as the *cough* UPA *cough* ought to put together a repository of usability research, along with an analysis and synthesis of that data. We have the HCI-Bibliography but there should be an organizational effort to generate a high-level summary of useful tactics, methods, and research. I'm kind of tired so these might be insane ideas. Still, I hope they give Ron, and others, some ideas about how to solve this problem. And yes, it is a problem and it deserves attention.
Sun 12 Jan 18:50 | Ron Zeno | Thanks for the feedback, John! You're jumping right into solutions, while I'm still focusing on describing the problem in a way that is well-understood... In response to John's ideas: 1. Computational usability: This is a very long-term solution. While there has been some interesting research published, progress is very slow. 2. Consumer Reports of Usability: This requires a reliable and valid testing method. Same for the various existing initiatives to standardize and/or certify usability. 3. Repository of usability research: Usability.gov is just that. UPA has a working group that is creating a body of knowledge. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Sun 12 Jan 19:04 | daniel szuc | Interesing. See: http://www.stcsig.org/usability/resources/index.html I am currently using an internet connection in a hotel room in Shanghai, has anyone else used a connection in a hotel and what has the user experience been like?
Prognostication Digitalis | Wed 08 Jan
(Boxes and Arrows) What will this year hold for the profession known as “what we do” and its children, information architecture, usability, interaction design, interface design, and graphic design? What will it hold for our favored media, the digital world? Boxes and Arrows asked our authors to hazard a guess. Heres what they came up with.
Wed 08 Jan 21:18 | Blaine | Before going on to read that article I'm guessing that theres going to be an increased awareness of the field along with web standards.
Thu 09 Jan 11:45 | Karnak the Great | I predict the establishment of inexpensive easy-to-set-up database-driven template-based web sites, sending droves of web monkeys to the unemployment line. When a company needs a 'web designer' it will hire an outside agency to develop 2-5 pages that fit the template system. One jack-of-all-trades will remain on staff to occasionally address coding, Photoshop and other issues. OK, so that won't happen this year, but eventually. Designers 'in it' for the creativity are an endangered species. Design is window dressing, or garnish on the dinner plate. Programmers hold the real power in the second era of the Internet.
Thu 09 Jan 17:35 | Chortle the Turtle | I predict that in 2033 a movie will be made in which the main character travels back in time 30 years to 2003. Upon his arrival there will be a brief moment of levity as the audience spies in the scene's background the visage of Bill Gates speaking on a 2-D CRT television about the wondrous advancements that will be made in the realm of smart refrigerator magnets. The audience will laugh at The Boob Gates (that's his nickname in the future).
Thu 09 Jan 20:43 | JEH | Karmak: I'm not sure how in-the-future-there-will-be-no-programming leads to a need for _programmers_ and not designers. :)
Fri 10 Jan 16:58 | John | 'Designers 'in it' for the creativity are an endangered species. Design is window dressing, or garnish on the dinner plate.' Thanks, Karnak. Now I'm depressed. :)
Fri 10 Jan 17:01 | Karnak the Great | JEH, I didn't say there would be no programming in the future. To the contrary, programming will run most things, and so programmers will be in high demand to keep web services running. Someone who only codes pages and makes graphics will be, or perhaps already is, a web monkey. Re-read please.
Sat 11 Jan 08:09 | daniel szuc | Enjoyed Scott Berkun's prediction. 'impact of work' and proven 'improvements' in terms of ROI.
Sun 12 Jan 07:39 | daniel szuc | This is a test posting from Shanghai.
WebWord Comment | Mon 06 Jan
In the left hand navigation of the WebWord home page there is an area where you can submit news. Do you think it should read Who to credit? or Whom to credit? and why do you feel that way? Throw some grammar rules at me!
Mon 06 Jan 23:23 | Adrian Holovaty | Properly, it'd be written 'whom.' A good rule of thumb: Ask the question and answer it with a pronoun. If 'he' is the correct answer, 'who' should be used; likewise, 'him' corresponds with 'whom.' In this case: 'Who/whom should we credit?' Him. Hence, 'whom' should be used. An alternate example: 'Who is my brother?' He is. In that case, 'who' is correct. I should mention many people believe 'whom' has been abused so much that it has lost meaning. So many people use 'who' in place of 'whom' and call it correct.
Mon 06 Jan 23:26 | MadMan | I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It should be 'whom'. When you write 'who to credit', you're actually writing, 'to whom shall I give credit'. If you wrote it as 'who gets credit', then 'who' is appropriate. Since you used the preposition 'to', it's whom. Reference 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 Need more, John? ;)
Tue 07 Jan 00:22 | Mark | Instead of 'Who/Whom to credit', how about a simple 'Credit'?
Tue 07 Jan 07:27 | Bernie Simon | The relative pronoun in the nominative case is 'who'. In the objective case it's 'whom'. 'To credit' is an infinitive whose object is the relative pronoun 'whom'. So 'whom to credit' is correct. Except, the prononoun 'whom' is now considered old fashioned and 'who' is the preferred form for both the nominative and objective cases. So actually both are forms are correct. Use 'who to credit' is you want to sound modern and informal and 'whom to credit' if you want to sound proper and formal.
Tue 07 Jan 11:35 | Frank Lynch | 'Whom' is considered old fashioned? It is? By whom? Before we toss whom out, I'd really like to know the authority, and it had better be someone as credible as Samuel Johnson.
Tue 07 Jan 12:19 | MadMan | 'Old-fashioned' my arse! :) We ain't all Bill 'who do you trust' Clinton. Some of us speak propah British English. And I have the accent to prove it. Actually, I have a range of accents (wanted to be a cartoon voiceover artist) but I digress.
Tue 07 Jan 12:46 | Lydia | 'Whom' is proper, and as far as I know has not yet been antiquated, although I have heard modern linguists say that for conversational speech, 'who' can be interchanged for better comprehension. A good trick, along the lines of the one Adrian suggested, is to rearrange the sentence completely, drop the who/whom, and see what pronoun should be used. (If it is 'him', then use 'whom', and if it is 'he', then use 'who'.) Example: 'Who to credit' rearranges as 'Should I Credit him?' and you know you should be using 'whom' instead. Other examples: 'Who should I say is calling?' rearranges to 'Should I say he is calling?' and you know you are correct, and 'To whom am I speaking?' rearranges to 'Am I speaking to him?' and you know you are correct. Here is a good web page for common mistakes that has a bunch of useful tricks. Even if you know grammar well, it makes for interesting reading!
Tue 07 Jan 20:02 | Bernie Simon | > 'Whom' is considered old fashioned? It is? By whom? See the discussion of the subject at www.dictionary.com.
Tue 07 Jan 20:37 | daniel szuc | Reminds me of the good old - '... we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.' http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml
Tue 07 Jan 21:21 | Frank Lynch | I read the recommended entry at dictionary.com, but only saw a division referring to traditionalists regarding one context, the construction involving a sentence ending in a preposition, such as 'who did you give it to,' ... and while the entry reads 'grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality', I'm not sure that implies that grammarians are unified on that. The American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel (in my edition, anyway...) expresses disagreement over the formality of 'whom.' In written contexts, a 'substantial' proportion insists on whom in its proper uses, with fewer insisting on it in informal situations or in speech.
Wed 08 Jan 00:11 | Dennis G. Jerz | How about 'Who gets credit?' or 'Suggested by...?' Both of those are longer but possibly more informative.
Wed 08 Jan 19:41 | Chad Lundgren | Well, speaking as the fellow with the dubious distinction of having the number one hit for my bad on google, I vote to leave it 'who'. WebWord does not seem formal to me (and that's a good thing). Does anyone believe there should be a Rolling Stones song called 'I Can't Get Any Satisfaction?'
Thu 09 Jan 00:30 | Dennis G. Jerz | 'I Cannot Get Any Satisfaction.' The abbreviation is too informal.
Thu 09 Jan 01:05 | Lyle Kantrovich | Whom cares? Come on John, ain't you gots no bigger fish to fry? Should my site be 'Croc O' Lyle' or 'Crock of Lyle'? Now you got me thinkin'. Of course 'Webword' isn't in any dictionary either... :)
Thu 09 Jan 15:19 | Jenny | Surely, there are other things in this world to argue about? Like, ending sentences with a preposition and whether to use commas to separate the last item in a series.... Humor aside, how about just labeling the field as 'Source'? You're wanting to credit the 'source' of your awareness of the news, right? If so, why complicate things with irrelevant/outmoded grammar?
Thu 09 Jan 18:45 | Lydia | Good idea, Jenny, but 'Source' could be too ambiguous - I can just imagine someone out there thinking, 'But I just gave you the URL!' Best to use plain speech whenever possible, and John did ask to have some grammar rules thrown at him... Personally, I'm not bothered either way. Webword is more informal, and we all write in a conversational style, but I won't stand in the way of someone wanting to increase his knowledge or get a differing opinion.
Sat 11 Jan 23:24 | Chad Lundgren | Dennis: Good call on 'cannot', but what about the 'get' snobs who feel 'get' is not classy enough and should always be gotten away from: I cannot attain any satisifaction. OK, I'll stop now.
How Warchalking Died | Fri 10 Jan
(WebWord) The purpose of this article is to explain how Warchalking has become obsolete. It is being replaced by Wi-Fi Zones that are being fueled by home networks, corporate networks, and even payphones. The internet will be all around you in all places but you wont ever need to care about Warchalking. Lets bury the idea and move along.
Fri 10 Jan 12:17 | Shane | Nice article, John. Thought I'd pass the following Wi-Fi locator links on: 802.11 Hotspots Wi-fi Freespots Wi-fi ZONE Locator
Fri 10 Jan 14:25 | MadMan | How does 'Wireless Network' become 'Wi-Fi'? Oh, you mean like 'Hi-Fi'? Well, that doesn't work, because 'Hi-Fi' stood for 'high fidelity'. Another example of mindless usage.
Fri 10 Jan 16:55 | Mr. Omelette | 'WiFi' stands for 'Wireless Fidelity.' Here's a handkerchief. Wipe that egg off your face.
Sat 11 Jan 12:05 | Karnak the Great | Here's the real reason warchalking died -- Technoboobs never realized the chalk washed away each time it rained. They were convinced there was a massive anti-warchalking effort mobilized against them. Boobs, indeed.
Sat 11 Jan 19:55 | Eric Scheid | No, warchalkers realised very early that it is better to have correct info washed away by the rain than for incorrect info to persist despite best efforts of industrial solvents and elbow grease. You'd rather they used spray paint like other vandals?
Sat 11 Jan 20:45 | Karnak the Great | Your words reveal the truth. '...like other vandals...' You admit that warchalkers are nothing but common criminals, tagging public property with their own brand of graffiti so they can help others steal their neighbor's bandwidth. Good riddance!
Sat 11 Jan 22:59 | Eric Scheid | So you *would* rather they used spray paint? Or was that just a convenient diversion from the rebuttal of your earlier point - that they used chalk because it is environmentally friendly, not because they are unthinking boobs? Point in fact: the choice of chalk was explicit from the start for just that reason. Next time try reading and understanding what you are talking about before shooting your mouth off.
Usability Testing: Myths, Misconceptions and Misuses | Tue 07 Jan
In this article, I identify and try to straighten out some common misconceptions about usability testing. (Comments: Via Ron Zeno.)
Fri 10 Jan 09:03 | daniel szuc | Good read! I am not sure I agree with 'Results of usability tests do not tell how to fix any problems that are detected.' - I think if there is an interface problem that keeps repeating itself, the fix or suggestion for that specific problem can often be very obvious. Think it depends on the task and also depends on the impact the change may have to other parts of the application or flow. What do other usability folks think?
Sat 11 Jan 22:21 | Ron Zeno | the fix or suggestion for that specific problem can often be very obvious Can be obvious, especially in first iterations, when working with poor initial designs, etc. Completely different story when you're working with a well-refined design. And as Daniel implies, it's hard not to introduce new problems with each fix.
Trillian | Tue 07 Jan
With Trillian, all these chat networks are combined into a powerful, easy to use program. Trillian currently supports AIM, ICQ, MSN Messenger, IRC, and now Yahoo Messenger. The program can be skinned and has an easy to use modern interface.
Wed 08 Jan 08:16 | Joshua Kaufman | I used Trillian heavily when I was on Windows. I give it the thumbs up. For Mac users, Proteus and Fire do the same thing. I recommend Proteus although it's still in alpha.
Wed 08 Jan 11:59 | Berna | I used Trillian last year and it was very useful. You get all your IMs from one window. You don't have to have multiple windows open. Though I haven't used it in the last few months, it used to have problems with AIM every now and then and you wouldnt be able to sign on with Trillian. Until Trillian found a way to go around the new ban. It was a never ending battle. But it was well worth it. My 2cents.
Thu 09 Jan 10:22 | daniel szuc | I found the interface on Trillian a little too heavy looking. I am currently enjoying ICQ lite and think applications will begin to move in this direction in terms of providing the just basic features users require.
Fri 10 Jan 01:16 | Nick Finck | I use Trillian on a regular basis. Yes, there has been some problems with connecting to AIM or Yahoo!'s IM... but those are quickly taken care of with a patch... but it's not that often that you have to patch it... to me it's worth it.
Sat 11 Jan 08:00 | MikeAmundsen | Trillian is the only IM tool i use now. I even use it for IRC! love the tool and the team that's working on it.
Book Review: The Elements of User Experience | Wed 08 Jan
(WebWord) I wish that this book and the diagram upon which it is based were available when I first attempted the design of user experiences. It could have saved me from false starts, sub-optimal choices, and other hard-won lessons, and would have made it much easier for me to communicate my ideas to my fellow team members and to the managers for whom I worked. (Comments: Guest article written by Dick Miller.)
Thu 09 Jan 18:51 | Lydia | Good review - I like the emphasis on what type of book this is and who it would typically appeal to. I think many expectations were put on this book that left readers dissapointed. It's a great little book for what it sets out to do, not for what some have expected it to do.
Fri 10 Jan 00:58 | Charlie Xavier | Hey, if you want to read wimpy 'kiss ass' reviews of books, just head over to Digital Web where James McNally writes the most suck-up reviews on this planet. He writes as if he were an adoring puppy. It's sickening to see his gushing praise without even a hint of critical analysis.
Fri 10 Jan 08:51 | Mac | This is a well written book review that makes me want to read more reviews by Dick Miller. Why do I now trust Dick as a book reviewer? I will only ever review books that I like, as I don't want to 'waste' the time on a sub standard book. But as a reader I would probably be more interested in the reviews that gave me some negative view of the book. However, if I had written a book that was unfairly reviewed I would be very hurt and upset. Books reviews can often de-humanise the author in the same way that some usability reviews can de-humanise the designers and the users.
Fri 10 Jan 08:58 | daniel szuc | I am a big fan of the diagram! Think 'user/customer experience' is something I now hear marketing people talk about it and if its something that can further assist promote the idea of usability - thumbs up!
Fri 10 Jan 14:35 | Ron Zeno | Consider three reviews of the book Web Site Usability: A Designer’s Guide by Jared M. Spool (Editor), Tara Scanlon, Will Schroeder, Terri DeAngelo, and Carolyn Snyder (ISBN: 155860569X): Review by Dick Miller We just don't know! ..... Yet! Review by Shirley L. Martin
Fri 10 Jan 23:54 | Wolverine | I don't think I'll trust Dick Miller's reviews any more. Thanks for those links, Mr. Zeno. Some people clearly have too much hero worship going on.
Here ye -- let thine site visitors speak | Tue 07 Jan
(IBM) Web sites often try to categorize visitors, transactions, questions, and more. These categories can be unnatural or limiting to the user as well as annoying. How can online sites please their visitors, while extracting needed information from them?
Wed 08 Jan 00:36 | Dennis G. Jerz | Should be 'Hear Ye -- Let Thy Site Visitors Speak'. If I recall my history of English grammar correctly, 'thine' would be used in the same place where one would use 'mine' or 'yours'. Thus, 'Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory,' but 'Thy kingdom, thy power, thy glory.' But there's really no excuse for 'Here ye'. It's true that spelling wasn't nearly standardized in 'ye olde days', so it's possible that there are historical documents in which the phrase is spelled 'here ye', but it's far more likely that the author of the headline didn't know what he or she was doing. Sheesh -- hire an English major, already! Oh, well, I've probably made a grammatical mistake in this post, and will be justly flamed for it...
Wed 08 Jan 14:14 | Lydia | Dennis, my understanding of 'thine' is similar. What bothered me about the headline is that there's just no reason to use that type of speech. I know that it is trendy to be clever when coming up with headlines, but I think it is a bad idea when the author isn't sure! As far as whether to point it out, it's a tough call. I have a friend who confused an old anti-communist saying with a more modern version about redheads and I had to point it out before it ended up as a t-shirt slogan, which surely would have been an embarrassment. I'm still not sure if I pissed off my friend or not, but I felt I had to say something. I try to research things I'm not familiar with before using them in my writing, but sometimes people think they know something and don't need to research it, so I'm sure some things slip through the cracks.
Wed 08 Jan 18:04 | Dennis G. Jerz | Unrelated to the IBM article, but a follow up to Lydia: A few years ago, students from the English honor society at my school were about to print up sweatshirts that read: 'I'm an English major. Doth thee want fries with that?' I pointed out that, while many people who weren't English majors wouldn't get the joke, the ones who did would likely say, 'Yup, a bunch of students who put THAT on their T-shirt obviously didn't get much out of their English major, and thus would be well suited to working in a fast food joint. I suggested 'Wilst thou have fries with that?' but the students compromised and went with 'Dost thou want fries with that?'
Wed 08 Jan 23:32 | MadMan | Moron! To add to what Dennis said, communication is only successful when the other person understands what you say. All too often on the Web, you find 'cute' headlines using names of songs and lines from American advertising. Why not stick to plain English? Ironically, Peter Seebach writes a column advocating the user experience. I've written him a mail about this.
Thu 09 Jan 00:01 | MadMan | Peter Seebach's response: OW! Right on both counts. However, I do have the convenient dodge that the headline was picked by my editor, and I didn't see it. I emailed her already.
Thu 09 Jan 18:35 | Lydia | Thanks for sharing that one, Dennis! Very good story. What gets me is that it just sounds wrong. I don't know how anyone could say it and think it was OK. But, that's just me. MadMan, I agree - plain English is best when writing for a wide audience. Unfortunately, I'm away from my usual bookmarks, but I have an excellent article saved that talks about how to write to an audience of readers who speak English as a second language - many of those tips apply to writing for an International audience, too. His editor needs a spanking - that is just unforgivable!
Fri 10 Jan 17:08 | Lydia | Here's the article: Writing for a Global Audience
Top 30 tips for the new year | Mon 06 Jan
With the welter of medical advice available, its hard to know what to believe. Roger Dobson reviews the latest research to help you live long and prosper (Comments: Thanks Daniel Szuc.)
Tue 07 Jan 14:35 | Alfred | Light a cigarette and take a deep ... do not be boring.
Tue 07 Jan 15:37 | Ron Zeno | How many disproven health tips can you find in the article? I'm afraid the author did a very poor job of reviewing recent medical findings - some of what he writes has absolutely no backing by any research at all, while some just overgeneralizes and exaggerates. Anyone know what qualifications Roger Dobson has? Too bad he doesn't list the references he used to produce his 'tips'.
Tue 07 Jan 19:02 | Lydia | Well said, Ron. I don't mind most of his suggestions; what bothers me most about this article is that he seems to be intentionally over-selling things, talking about health benefits that only materialize after months or years of consistent use, and making incomplete statements (not all types of wine are considered healthful to imbibe twice a day). I don't like blanket statements such as 'Coffee is Good for You' (it's not the coffee, it's the dose of caffeine) and 'Aspirin is a wonder drug' (last time I checked, people with thin blood didn't like aspirin). Very frustrating, but I guess we can adapt an old axiom from the retail trade when reading advice columns: reader beware.
Tue 07 Jan 21:03 | daniel szuc | Fair comments. Hey Lydia (aka 'Emma Frost'), happy new year :)
Tue 07 Jan 22:33 | Huh | It's curious that masterbating didn't make the list. It's keeps you both happy and healthy.
Wed 08 Jan 04:05 | Alan Fisher | Perhaps so, but it appears to have a detrimental effect on your ability to spell.
Wed 08 Jan 13:57 | Lydia | OK, Alan! That made me laugh out loud, so now my co-workers think I'm crazy. Then I started thinking of 'Meaning of Life' so I had to stop crying and explain to them why I was laughing, which just confused them further. In short, thanks for a good laugh. Hey, Daniel (aka Gamellian)! Happy New Year to you, too!
Fri 10 Jan 09:03 | daniel szuc | Thanks and you betcha!! Flies away swiftly on 'Zoomer'
Experience remote usability testing, Part 1 | Tue 07 Jan
(IBM) The first article provides a context for remote usability testing by detailing and describing the benefits and pitfalls of remote usability evaluations and the application-sharing tools that were evaluated.
Thu 09 Jan 13:19 | Anonymous | I used this technique recently, and they're a little more positive about it than I would be. It did seem to fit their particular needs, but I would not recommend it as 'the future' of usability testing. Huge amount of administrative/setup, can't see respondent's nonverbal cues, respondent must have a high-speed connection, etc.
Safari | Tue 07 Jan
In fact, Safari loads pages more quickly than any other Mac Web browser. But that’s not all. Safari uses the advanced interface technologies underlying Mac OS X to offer you an all-new view of the Web, one that’s much easier to use.
Wed 08 Jan 02:12 | Matt Round | This is bad news for developers. Instead of going with the mature Gecko engine (as used in Mozilla, Netscape 7 etc.) they've chosen Konqueror's engine, which is fast, but somewhat incomplete. Like Opera in the past, it also tries to fool web servers (mentions Gecko in its useragent), which is incredibly unhelpful and irritating, and is likely to evolve in a gradual and unpredictable way. So, as with Opera 5/6, Safari users can marvel at the rendering speed for now, but are going to be rather disappointed when they find many sites don't display correctly, and developers will find it awkward to support until it's fully mature. To me it says a lot about Apple's relationship with Microsoft - they're seemingly worried that MS isn't fully supporting Mac IE and could pull the plug at any time. It'll be interesting to see if they do the same with an office suite at some point in the future (perhaps based on OpenOffice?), although MS has a file format stranglehold in that area and businesses like to stick with their MS Office security blanket.
Wed 08 Jan 08:12 | Joshua Kaufman | My first impression is that it has a lot of potential, but obviously needs a lot of work. The main reason it loads pages so fast is because it displays pages before they're completely rendered, so I'm not taking their claim to speed too seriously. Bookmark organization feature is very neat. Snapback is clever but will take some getting used to. No tabbed browsing! What were they thinking? I expect them to add this by version 2. Googlebar built in, which is way cool, but I would love it to provide a few more options like the Nutshell Toolbar. Feedback is as simple as the pushing the little bug button, so start giving it!
Wed 08 Jan 13:51 | Lydia | I like Safari. I love the Snapback feature, but that is just how I tend to browse, so it may not be for everyone. Of course, built-in Google is cool, and I like the way the 'loading' indicator is in the address window itself - conserving space is very nice. It is just a beta release, so I'm not expecting rock-hard stability, but it performed very well even at my most complicated, IE-crashing regulars. Frankly, I don't care how fast it loads pages, and I honestly didn't notice much of a difference on my slow modem connection. I wanted to use it for the bookmark organization (as well as the Goggle, snap-back, etc.), because I tend to bookmark sites that I want to go back later and look at, so being able to mine them from the History logs is excellent. This browser completely appeals to the type of surfer I am, which is to say, a very non-technical one. I suspect that this will not appeal as much to more high-intensity/technical users. I don't think that is Apple's aim, anyway - they just want to make a suite of applications for their typical 'iLife' user. I didn't notice the bug feedback icon - I'll look for it! Tabbed display would definitely be nice, and I agree that we'll probably be seeing it in the future.
Thu 09 Jan 03:54 | michel binkhorst | also, try and right-click after you've typed in a form-field..does spellchecking in an instant!
putting my job where my mouth is | Mon 06 Jan
(Lawrence Lessig) Here goes: So (a) if a law like the one I propose is passed on a national level, and (b) it does not substantially reduce the level of spam, then (c) I will resign my job. I get to decide whether (a) is true; Declan can decide whether (b) is true. If (a) and (b) are both true, then I’ll do (c) at the end of the following academic year.
Tue 07 Jan 09:34 | Joshua Kaufman | Corrected URL: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/2003_01.shtml#000787
Tue 07 Jan 10:32 | John S. Rhodes | I don't understand the purpose of the corrected URL. Please explain!
Tue 07 Jan 10:36 | Joshua Kaufman | The URL in your original posting goes to Lessig's blog homepage, not the blog entry you cited.
Tue 07 Jan 11:01 | John S. Rhodes | Hmmm. That's strange. It goes to the blog entry for me.
Tue 07 Jan 17:44 | Eric Scheid | Only for as long as the blog entry is still on the home page, and hasn't yet been archived.
Wed 08 Jan 15:40 | John S. Rhodes | I understand. I wasn't thinking about that. Thanks.
Doctor's Strike | Tue 07 Jan
When Detroit makes a car with a gas tank that explodes on impact, they get their asses sued and they redesign their car. When are doctors going to redesign the practice of medicine?
Wed 08 Jan 09:02 | Ron Zeno | First, the doctors aren't going to change - they have no motivation to do so (kind of like usability practitioners). However, the practice of medicine IS changing. There is a complete revolution that has been going on for over a decade now. It's already substantially changed medical education and research. Changes to medical practice are much more gradual, as the new (doctors, methods, and research) gains more and more influence.
WebWord Comment | Mon 06 Jan
The painful server migration is now complete. We did lose some data because the two servers were doing different work for a few days. I apologize for this loss and I will try to get it back. However, dont hold your breath. For what it is worth, I have several good items to post. Ill take care of that later today. Thanks for being patient!
Mon 06 Jan 13:01 | Mac | Is there a problem with the DSN in MT? http://d97967.u27.qwknetllc.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1320
Mon 06 Jan 14:24 | John S. Rhodes | ...something else that I need to fix later today. I need to dig into the bowels of Movable Type and set or reset some code. If I am lucky it will work. If not, I will continue to suffer. This migration has been nasty. I am extremely unhappy that I had to make this change because my hosting provider decided to upgrade their servers. This should *not* be a user problem but that is what happened. In turn, the entire WebWord community is suffering and I look like an inept buffoon. I truly do not enjoy system administration and I fully respect those individuals with skills in this area.
Mon 06 Jan 16:12 | fnord | What about the upgrade meant that you had to change servers? Is not changing servers part of the web development cycle? Web technologies are evolving. We cannot expect servers to stand still, or always be backwards compatible.
Mon 06 Jan 22:29 | John S. Rhodes | Here is the scoop. My web hosting provider decided to upgrade their servers. Bigger, faster, stronger. I have no idea what they really did. It was not my choice. They forced me to move all of my data and all of my scripts and tools (e.g., Movable Type) to an entirely new server. I had to move my own data and completely reconfigure everything to work correctly on the new server, including paths, database conversions, updating DNS entries, etc. It was like moving to a new hosting provider entirely. I don't feel this is something I should have to do. Perhaps I am being too demanding, but it caused me a couple of days of lost work and aggravation.
Mon 06 Jan 23:06 | John S. Rhodes | I think that everything really is fixed now. If you see problems, please let me know!
Mon 06 Jan 23:23 | MadMan | I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It should be 'whom'. When you write 'who to credit', you're actually writing, 'to whom shall I give credit'. If you wrote it as 'who gets credit', then 'who' is appropriate. Since you used the preposition 'to', it's whom. Reference 1 Reference 2 Reference 3 Need more, John? ;)
Mon 06 Jan 23:25 | Anonymous | What the f***? I posted the above comment in response to another entry, not this one. What on earth is going on?
Mon 06 Jan 23:30 | Anonymous | John, I don't understand how your server migration got so screwed up. See, if they simply moved the files to another server and recreated their existing setup, then all your paths should remain the same. As for modifying DNS entries, I suppose your hosting provider provides the nameservers. So how do you have to change DNS entries? Maybe you can post an article about it.
Tue 07 Jan 00:06 | John S. Rhodes | 'See, if they simply moved the files to another server and recreated their existing setup, then all your paths should remain the same.' Exactly. That's what I thought. However, the paths did change. Trust me on that. It caused me major pain. 'So how do you have to change DNS entries?' In my case, I think I was kind of lucky. I have an account with Register.com and that made it easier. I'm not in love with Register.com but it was easy to go to the site, log in, and modify my DNS entries there. This was perhaps the easiest part of the migration. 'Maybe you can post an article about it.' Good idea. I'll think about that. Right now I have two articles in the works and really need to get a WebWord Newsletter sent out. I'm behind. Ack! Also, I've been happy with this hosting provider and I don't want to bash them.
Tue 07 Jan 05:08 | daniel szuc | In terms of domain management Register.com does a pretty good job. Their SafeRenew is a little bit of a worry ... but some of the domain editing an approval process is ok.
Tue 07 Jan 05:11 | daniel szuc | Hey Mac .. thank you for the link on your web site to http://www.whattimeisit.com/ - finally I have found a site that makes time conversion and easy! Well easier ...
Tue 07 Jan 19:59 | MICK | i like directnic.com, if you have multiple urls you can set them all to a default nameserver set and by editing your default setting, all the others will fall inline
Wed 08 Jan 08:17 | Joshua Kaufman | John, the site is working 50% faster for me now! This is great! Has anyone else noticed a speed increase?
Wed 08 Jan 08:22 | daniel szuc | I am using a dial up connection at the moment (worth revisiting this experience for those who have migrated to cable over the years) and the site is performing nicely :)
theBOOM | Tue 07 Jan
theBoom is a unique headphone/microphone solution that uses patented noise cancelling technology to dramatically reduce background noise, enabling you to speak in a normal voice and be heard by the person on the other end of the phone, no matter how loud it is around you. (Comments: Thanks sumoman.)
Wed 08 Jan 01:35 | Jessica | interesting...i've seen some from jabra, but this looks neat...thanks!
Why Corporate Images Die a Slow Death? | Mon 06 Jan
So, are we are out of names? Hell no.
Tue 07 Jan 19:14 | Lydia | This was an interesting article on company name choice playing an important role in branding, but I wish it had been better translated/edited. I wonder if the author is aware that it is so difficult to read?
Spirals | Mon 06 Jan
What is with the current profusion of spiral logotypes of late? Are they being derived from the constant spin control that internet speed companies have to put on their insane valuations? Or is it symbolizing the way technology drains away our time from family and the more important things in life?
Tue 07 Jan 11:37 | Frank Lynch | ...plus Spinsanity...
WebWord Comment | Mon 06 Jan
Check out their guides to writing plain English and the gobbledygook generator.
Mon 06 Jan 23:40 | Morris Cox | What about legal documents? I would really like them to be in 'plain' English. EULAs, those propositions they want you to vote on every year, stuff like that.