Webword Statistics - Recent Comments

last updated:21 Oct 2002 13: 26 Webword time, or 21 Oct 2002 18:26 UK time

Webword Statistics - Recent Comments
(Comments added for week ending Sun 20 Oct 2002) | View Other Weeks

Usability must die? (SIGIA-L) | Sun 20 Oct

I think the fact that s/he cant count not to mention spell or capitalize properly says volumes about the rest of the observations., says Cinnamon. ...ironically, Chris uses Jakobs own dogmatic and extreme titling style, say Jess McMullin. Probably not much argument from our little fenced-in garden here at SIGIA on this point. Too bad usabilitymustdie.com doesnt allow comments., says Andrew Otwell. All these comments were made on the SIGIA-L mailing list about UsabilityMustDie.com, run by Chris McEvoy (Mac to us Webworders). (MadMan comments: Since Macs site doesnt allow comments, Im creating this entry so the SIGIA-l folk can post them here.)

Sun 20 Oct 10:21 | Mac | I am happy to defend/answer any questions on my views presented in UMD. Just on the 'missing P' question, there is a link at the bottom of the page about the missing P, which is not a broken link, but links to this page. Most people who see this page 'see' a 404 error page because it follows a standard 404 design. I was trying to make the point that many people don't read the pages they see (me included). As to my inCorrect capitalisation and poor grammar, I plead guilty. But I offer the fact that I spend most of my day writing code as a mitigating factor.

Sun 20 Oct 13:13 | Mac | A bit of background to my cynicism. A while ago Ron Zeno made the following statement about UMD: > It's humorous, but easily dismissed. Here is my reply with guilty names removed: Easily dismissed ? I guess the answer to that is yes, but.... I created the site out of a sense of frustration after my experiences with usability. After years of promoting usability and UCD it appeared like our small band were finally making some progress. Our company XXXXXXX were going to make a commitment to usability and give it their full support. But then they went and blew it by spending a lot of money on a purpose built usability lab in an off-site location that had a full time staff who have managed to make usability at XXXXXXX a laughing stock (in my personal opinion). They set themselves up as new high priests and seemed to spend most of their time showing executives around their expensive wendy house. The usability advocates in XXXXXXXX either jumped on the official band wagon or went to hide under a rock. I spent months trying to argue that they needed to do something to bring usability closer to the designers and developers as well as having their 'show lab'. I was no longer able to carry out any 'unofficial' usability testing as it all had to go through the lab. All of the reports that have come out of the lab have been very weak and all of the teams using the lab just treat it as a tick on their check list, before they go live. In the end I boycotted their lab and carried on with my guerilla usability work. I felt cheated that the so called 'usability professionals' had stabbed us developers in the back and left us worse of than before. So I created UMD to vent some of my rage. I have had made over 30 contacts from the site, and whilst some of them have been downright hateful ('setting usability back 10 years' etc etc) most have been along the lines of 'I like your site and agree with some of what you have said but.....'. I have made a few new friends so it has been a postive thing, for me at least. It shows that there are some of us who are very unhappy with 'official usability' and we're not willing just to buy the reports or watch videos from the lab. At the end of the day UMD is 'a bit' negative, but I think it makes a very small contribution to the ongoing debate.

WebWord Comment | Thu 17 Oct

Im facing a dilemma. Jack Schonchin used to post comments on WebWord all of the time. Then he stopped posting. However, he does spend time here. Unfortunately, it looks like someone is posting comments using the name Jack with Schonchin as part of the (apparently bogus) email address. Someone, presumably the real Jack Schonchin, posted this comment today: John, I still read this site, but I do not post. Please remove the above post that I did not author and any future posts made by a Jack using my yahoo.com address. Thanks. So, here are the problems. First, I can tell from the IP addresses that the two postings are coming from different machines or devices. But, does that really mean that these are two different people? Second, how can I easily set up Movable Type to prevent this issue in the future? Is it even possible? And easy? Third, do you think I should eliminate the posting because someone is (sort of) using Jack Schonchins information? Does he have this right? If yes, how do I really know I am really serving the true Jack Schonchin? Fourth, have you seen identity theft issues before? In blogs? If so, provide references. I need help figuring out this puzzle. All input and feedback is appreciated. One last thing. This might be worth talking to other people about. If you would like to write up an article on identity theft and blogs, let me know. Thanks!

Thu 17 Oct 23:11 | Aaron | Just passing through but ... why don't you take advantage of Movable Type's nifty IP Blocking tool?

Thu 17 Oct 23:20 | John S. Rhodes | Aaron, that is a good point. However, why should I block a particular IP? Which IP? I would need a concrete mechanism to check an IP against a valid email account or user profile. Movable Type doesn't provide anything that, from what I can tell. Further, when someone complains, should I simply block an IP? My answer: Nope, especially since no one did anything truly offensive. Right now I am thinking I need a more robust content management system. (Grumble, grumble.) One more comment. This is blog, not a major web site or corporate portal. How important is this issue? What is the true scope? Is this a tempest in a teapot? If yes, doesn't it at least get you thinking about identity theft in general?

Thu 17 Oct 23:42 | Jack Schonchin | I am uncomfortable with my identity abuse being a point of whimsical discussion on a site you own and control instead of it being taken seriously. If you have to even ponder the issue, it's clear it's time to kill this persona. The next one I'll only use on responsible web sites with site owners willing to address improper conduct. Thanks, John.

Fri 18 Oct 00:12 | John S. Rhodes | 'I am uncomfortable with my identity abuse being a point of whimsical discussion on a site you own and control instead of it being taken seriously.' Whimsical? Hardly. This is a very serious issue. And, I think it is fair to discuss openly how to address this issue. Socially, technically, and personally. The problem is that I really don't know who is who. If I start removing postings, where does it end? If people post as each other, and if they use fake information, how will I know the truth? Seems like a slippery slope and I am not sure how to handle the situation. That is why I have not (yet?) removed the 'fake' posting. 'If you have to even ponder the issue, it's clear it's time to kill this persona.' I'm sorry Jack, but I really do need to ponder the issue. It isn't because I am neglecting your request, or that I don't take it very seriously. I do take it seriously, which means I need to think about the next steps. This issue forces me to think in drastic terms. I might need to stop all postings. I might need to install a more robust content management system. These kinds of actions will probably cost me time and money. Taking the wrong action could also mean a loss of respect. If I act slowly, it looks like I don't care. If I act swiftly, it sends the message that I censor WebWord. None of this is trivial.

Fri 18 Oct 00:25 | daniel szuc | Well done John. Like and SUPPORT your approach! Have always admired the way you facilitate webword. *Cringes as he says this* ... but perhaps a login/account is required on webword. Would this assist in terms of accuracy and validation of those posting?

Fri 18 Oct 00:30 | John S. Rhodes | '...but perhaps a login/account is required on webword.' This raises a usability barrier, but it protects people. Certainly seems like the right thing to do. And yes, I definitely think it would help with getting a handle on the accuracy and validation of postings. I think the main issue is implementation; time, energy and money.

Fri 18 Oct 00:38 | daniel szuc | Agree, there would be an initial barrier. If you can create a scenario where the site can keep the session alive without requiring a re-login everytime you boot up the PC ... that would be super! Appreciate the time and money factor. Guess the intial registration should also not be too scary *long and complex* Would people be willing to pay a small yearly subscription? *opens up can of worms* This may assist fund a small development effort? *rattles coin can*

Fri 18 Oct 00:42 | dix | this is a hard issue. anybody who has ever moderated a blog, discussion board, or email list knows that making these kind of decisions is diffuclt, and most moderators i know take the issues very seriously. i see no indication of any difference here. the complication, i believe, goes beyond the 'who's telling the truth?' issue, although that's part of it. i think it goes to what makes any kind of online community interesting and dynamic; one component of that is the personality (read: identity) of active community members. frequent posters become known to others who are part of the community, and their reputation begins to have some value, based on their contributions. it appears at first blush that the new poster is hitching onto the jack's reputation, and thus compromising the meaning and value. hence, jack's strong response: it's like something is being taken from him. not his identity exactly. i don't imagine anybody's entire identity is tied to a blog. but still, something. on a gut level, this doesn't 'feel' right. with a system like movable type, it doesn't seem too easy to avoid this (though i'm not mt expert). i think if it's possible to avoid through technology, that's a reasonable solution. i certainly can't say what the 'right' thing to do would be. i would be inclinded personally to use the email address from the post in question to get a verification of who it goes to, and maybe let folks know that if you use an invalid email address, your posts are subject to removal. i think that not using someone's name and email to post should be a no-brainer, and i wouldn't have any personal qualms about removing such a post...

Fri 18 Oct 00:48 | MadMan | Was that the real Jack or the fake Jack posting? :) I find it mildly amusing that a person who has previously admitted that Jack Schonchin is not his real name is now cribbing about identity theft. What identity? If Jack Schonchin is a fake name, where is the question of the theft in the first place? (Hell, technically Jack's 'Yahoo address' isn't even valid, and keeps changing all the time.) Here are some issues: 1) IP banning works only if the person is using a fixed IP. Almost all dial-up accounts have randomly assigned IPs. 2) User registration is NOT supported by MT. John will have to hack the code to create his own system. 3) If Jack says he won't post any more comments on Webword, then we'll just assume that future 'Jack' posts are not from him. 4) Delete posts only if they are offensive, porn, or defamatory. If it's on-topic, leave it. People post under all kinds of names here.

Fri 18 Oct 06:38 | daniel szuc | Post comments based on your real identity and contact OR if you dont want to be identified post anonymously. Agree Madman, dont *winge* about a posting when you have been posting under a fake name anyways.

Fri 18 Oct 11:15 | JB | I think identity theft is a very important issue - irrespective of the level of theft. In this case it is not only Jacks persona but his reputation that are at stake. Fake postings can have the impact of damaging Jacks reputation not only on this blog, but in the wider industry. As you link to other sites, other link to you, and potentially Jacks comments. As nasty as it may be, login maybe the way to go. you could run a general anyone can comment area and then a login area as well. See which gets the most interaction. I for one don't mind the 10 second inconvenience to log in and I would think that the regulars here would be the same. I’d be pissed if someone used my persona to post comments – admittedly they may be a positive to my reputation, but hat is not the point….I have a right to be as dumb as I want to be and can be ;-) Remember - identify theft is about reputations.

Fri 18 Oct 11:55 | Kirk | Oy, identity theft. I had this problem at http://loveblender.com/ , a site I've been running as an open forum for romantic poetry for about 6 or 7 years now. It's all homebrew Perl. For a long time it had a system a lot like the comments here, just enter your name. Eventually I had to set up a simple account system, where people had to enter a legitimate e-mail address to complete the registration process. (I took the time to add some side benefits to, like someone can click on an author's name and see all the works they've submitted to the site) Another problem I then had...what I call 'near identity theft', where someone takes a name confusingly similar to an existing name, and then pretends to be that person (e.g. 'Just Some Guy' for an already existing 'Just-Some-Guy' user.) These accounts I unceremoniously close as they come up...usually they're formed with some cheap disposable hotmail account, so the e-mail registration isn't perfect, but it is useful enough in eliminating truly trivial account creation... I have no idea how any of this ties into movable type. And people will bitch about having to set up an account to post, but hey.

Fri 18 Oct 12:01 | Kirk | Oh yeah...I don't think there's any need for a proper 'login' with sessions for this. That's only needed if people post to a *lot* of discussions in a short time (as far as I can tell, that's not how WW is usually used.) or if you need to track what people are reading. I've found a simple 'enter your username and password above the comment' works fine...in fact, that's one less text box than the current system (though I just noticed the 'Remember your personal information' checkbox...with similar cookies, you could remember someone's username and even their password, trading some security for convenience, with the idea that the imposter doesn't have access to the 'real user's' PC.)

Fri 18 Oct 13:46 | Lydia | This is a difficult issue, and it is good to see John taking it seriously. Since WebWord is a community, it makes sense to ask everyone and get a well-rounded point of view. Ultimately, the decision is John's. Login would be cool in that it would protect the identity someone has set up within WebWord by requiring a password in order to use the name. People could continue to use nicknames as desired, but they would be somewhat protected. Until you have a system like that, you really can't ensure anyone's identity integrity, so MadMan's guidelines about what to delete seem the most straightforward. Unfortunately, that leaves Jack feeling like you haven't addressed his concerns, but there is only so much you can do.

Fri 18 Oct 14:59 | Jeff | John, I'm for one glad that you've asked for community comments on the next move - not only does it respect the community nature of the blog (one of the reasons I frequent), but it allows us each to take a moment to consider the issues before we're facing a similar event (either in having an identity stolen or having sites we run effected). As for recourse, I can only think of a few ideas (and am not sure which ones would be allowed by Movable Type) - 1) Use the IP block feature - as other posters have said, this really doesn't stop someone but rather inconveniences them slightly. Also, you may accidentally lock out valid participants by locking out a group firewall IP or a serious of rotated dynamic IP's. 2) Login for each participant - certainly an option which we've seen elsewhere, but would inconvenience people when implemented 3) Institute some kind of editorial validation process - not sure how this might work technically, but I could imagine a process where the site sends out a copy of the post to the email provided, allowing the participant to go online and validate their entry. This wouldn't cover confusion of nicknames, but it would ensure that the email given is truly the correct email - 'un'validated posts would not appear to the public 4) Most drastically, stop having people comment on articles in the blog. I'm assuming that this is probably too drastic for all of us, but it does remove the issue entirely. I'd probably opt for instituting a login if I were choosing - while it might institute some initial inconvenience, I think it's a convention users would recognize and accept. Everything else seems to be either too bulky to implement or too restrictive.

Fri 18 Oct 16:47 | Matt Round | I reckon the best solution would be to have an optional registration process, so that regular commenters can protect their identity while casual visitors aren't put off commenting occasionally. Posts made by registered users would have slightly different formatting (perhaps put the name in bold with an icon signifying they're registered?), and I don't think it would seem too elitist/cliquey.

Fri 18 Oct 20:09 | MadMan | All fine suggestions, but remember that John is no programmer, and I'm not sure if he can hack MT to set up a registration system. He has to work within the confines of what he's got. Maybe someone should suggest user registration as a feature for the next version of MT. If you stop comments on the site, you might as well kiss the community goodbye. I come here more to read what others have to say than for the articles. JB says: 'Fake postings can have the impact of damaging Jacks reputation not only on this blog, but in the wider industry.' I don't think it can affect his reputation in the industry, unless he continues to use the pseudonym in his real workplace too. I use a nickname as well but it's linked to my site, from where you can see my real name. Jack does no such thing.

Fri 18 Oct 21:09 | Anonymous | Ya, who cares about write or wrong. If it can't hold up in court, it must be OK.

Fri 18 Oct 21:26 | John S. Rhodes | I think it is great that Movable Type captures IP addresses! Oh wait, why on Earth would I made that comment? ;-)

Fri 18 Oct 21:39 | daniel szuc | Is there a way to keep up with postings without having to *pogo stick* into each separate article log?

Fri 18 Oct 22:08 | John S. Rhodes | Daniel, If you poke around here, you might find some good stuff. However, there really isn't an easy way to see what you have and have not read. At least not without a registration system.

Fri 18 Oct 22:21 | daniel szuc | Thanks John. Bring on registration, user profiles, login & subscriptions (i.e. receive postings via email) ;)

Fri 18 Oct 23:55 | Dennis G. Jerz | As I recall my (over)reaction to the 'Austin Powers' takeover-by-proxy of my website back in July, I can certainly understand Jack's concern. At the same time, if Jack freely admits he's using a persona, that doesn't seem to be identity theft at all. I gather that there is more than one person in the world who's named 'Jack,' anyway. If you do manage to overcome the technical hurdles and instigate a password system, I think it would probably be useful to permit anonymous posting.

Sat 19 Oct 10:13 | pez | I don't think it was so much the name 'Jack,' but that the faker also reproduced his e-mail address.

Sat 19 Oct 10:35 | pez | Actually, from the standpoint, it doesn't matter whether the real Jack is really named Jack. Someone other than the owner of a certain e-mail address is impersonating the owner of that address. It should be really easy to verify by contacting the owner of the e-mail address. Why is this a gray issue?

Sat 19 Oct 10:40 | daniel szuc | Pez - what if the email details are also fake?

Sun 20 Oct 05:27 | David Sim | I guess without too much work you could make the email address a mandatory field and send a copy of the posting to the email address with a note to contact you if they didn't actually make the posting?

Google Compute | Fri 18 Oct

Google would like to request your help on Google Compute, a new feature for the Google Toolbar. By turning on this feature, you can allow your computer to work on complex scientific problems when it would otherwise be idle. The work it does is automatically sent via the Internet to researchers who combine it with information sent by thousands of other users. (Comments: So I started up my browser and look what I saw, a link to Google Compute. Sounds like SETI@home and distributed.net.)

Fri 18 Oct 20:13 | MikeC | I was about to sign up when I learned that it's merely a proxy to the Folding@Home project. I'd graciously help Google perform searches, or something to that effect, but I have no more motivation to help the Folding@Home project. I was moderately excited, too...

Sat 19 Oct 16:32 | Matt Round | Maybe I should sign up for it, all the extra heat generated by my PC's Athlon processor working constantly might help keep this flat warm through winter.

HCI Fun | Thu 17 Oct

The aim of this project is to describe to the public how science investigates making information technology more usable. It will also explain why technology is sometimes unusable and why this is not the users fault. There are a wide range of HCI techniques we could explain...

Thu 17 Oct 19:12 | Lydia | Er... is this a best of type of thing?

Fri 18 Oct 04:22 | sherlock_yoda | I remember the film 'The Opposite of Sex'...this site is kinda similar: 'The Opposite Of Fun'. Sorry, but I don't think this is doing the community any good at all. Sherlock

Fri 18 Oct 08:36 | Mike Boyink | I stared at the home page for good minute. It wasn't fun. I didn't see anything that remotely looked like it might lead to fun. In that amount of time I didn't even really get 'the point'. The most fun I had was clicking the Back button.

Sat 19 Oct 10:37 | pez | i liked the dancing clowns best.

WebWord Comment | Wed 16 Oct

Think about how stupid this sounds: Ive been on the internet for seven years. Many people use the Ive been on the internet for... statement, but I think that it is really stupid. It is like saying that youve been on the telephone for x years. Or that youve been on TV or on radio for x years.

Wed 16 Oct 07:45 | daniel szuc | Yes, perhaps closely related to the *coolness* or *buzz* factor. The more years you have been on the internet the *more hip* you are? ... mmmm ... Don't think the children growing up or being born into the Internet Age say this, as its probably just another extended service for them like water, electricity, TV, radio etc.

Wed 16 Oct 08:57 | Contrarian | I'm so old I witnessed the birth of the Internet. It came out head-first with the umbilical cord wrapped around its neck. My pappy handled delivery perfectly and we ate placenta stew afterward.

Wed 16 Oct 09:01 | Mike Boyink | Can't you imagine the life change brought about by running water, electricity, TV and Radio? Haven't you heard stories about people going to neighbors houses because they had color TV? I'll wager that the 'early adopters' of every example given talked about them in the same way for a good number of years.

Wed 16 Oct 09:16 | Rikard Linde | Most times people use the phrase they probably just want to show off but isn't the phrase used in the same fashion as 'I've had a drivers license for seven years'? Although it doesn't take much to surf the web, using it for seven years does mean you understand the medium in a way that only comes with experience.

Wed 16 Oct 10:03 | Frank Lynch | I think you're over-reacting, and a bit too late, at that. While some statements of duration usually don't imply that the activity ceased at any point (I've been a New Yorker for 20 years now), others always have. I've been playing the guitar for 37 years. I've been playing the recorder for 30 years. I've been playing the mandolin for 3 years. And yet, I am only 45. So, I don't think 'I've been on the Internet for 9 years' sounds ridiculous. However, I have been working on the railroad all the live long day.

Wed 16 Oct 10:22 | Mark | Your last counter-examples actually support the statement you're criticising, and raise a cogent point. Saying that you've been on the internet for seven years is a lot like saying that you've been on [the] radio for seven years -- if you work in radio, that's a perfectly valid statement. That people should use similar language about the internet underlines the sense of the net as a participatory space, rather than as a consumed service like telephone or television. I'm glad to hear language like that -- it means that people experience the internet in a deeply personal way.

Wed 16 Oct 10:40 | Kirk | Yeah, I agree that this is kind of a silly observation. Most of the technologies you mentioned have been around since before people were born, so the # of years is probably their age - a few years. And it is probably a point of pride to be an early adopter of the Internet...for a lot of people that might've happened in an Academic setting.

Wed 16 Oct 11:10 | Contrarian | Early Internet adopters are computer nerds. Years-of-use is a point of pride because this geeky activity has hit the mainstream. When someone says, 'I've been on the Internet for seven years,' they are secretly thinking to themselves, 'Aha! Not so geeky after all, huh! Have fun dancing at the night club you attractive, popular person you! Excuse me, I have to get back to my MUD.'

Wed 16 Oct 11:36 | John S. Rhodes | Part One - Two Camps So, the fundamental issue is about the nature of the internet. It is about how you use it, how others use it, and what it means to everyone in various contexts. To wit, if it is like electricity or consumable media, then talking about being 'on' is kind of silly. The value is low. The analogy is that no one cares that you have been watching TV for 23 years, or that you have been experiencing running water since you were born. However, if the internet is a participatory space, then stating how long you have been 'on' might tell others something about your position in that space, and your commitment to it. It indicates you have background and knowledge associated with the internet that only years of exposure and interaction can provide. Part Two - The Internet Blob Given all of this, I have the feeling that the internet is still very much a blob that is not well understood, even by people that have been 'on' since the beginning. Email is the internet. The web is the internet. IRC is the internet. Chat is the internet. This makes me think it is more like electricity. Yet, at the same time the internet infrastructure still isn't defined. There is another point to consider. Electricity really isn't electricity. Electricity, as the term is normally used, is electric content running over wires. But, the wire itself, the infrastructure, is also electricity. You've got two parts: electricity the content and electricity the infrastructure. The internet blob is similar, except I think there are three parts: hardware layer, infrastructure layer (protocols mostly), and content layer. (I'm sure this has been covered before; I'm not trying to be original here.) So, I'd venture that most people don't care about the hardware layer when they say they have been 'on' the internet. It is a moot point. But, some geeks would be very interested in saying they have been using internet protocols and the infrastructure (e.g., 'MUDs rule and I love USEnet!'). I'm guessing that vast majority of people that saying that 'I've been on for...' are talking about the media or content layer. Part Three - Making Sense of the Rambling Mess I've Made All of this rambling leads me to my final point: I think you are lame if you talk about being 'on' if you are talking about consuming internet media. On the other hand, you are offering something important if you are an internet producer. Example: If you only shop and read articles, but you tell me you have been 'on' for years, you are being lame. But, if you tell me you have been 'on' for years and you blog, write articles, and more, that is cool. If you have been on and you have participated, tell me about it. Otherwise, shut your pie hole. Of course, this will upset some people, but so what? I've drawn some lines in the sand and I'm feeling satisfied about the topic. (Yes, I know how to ramble.)

Wed 16 Oct 11:46 | JB | I disagree. I have friends that still do not use the internet. Remember only about 160 million people in the Us are online so say 'I have been on the net for .....' is not yet passé. It may only seem that way because everyone on hear lives and breathes it. It is the reason usability is around. To make sure there are checks and balances for the newbies that come on through when they see the light. Otherwise the early adopters would rule and no one could use the net.

Wed 16 Oct 12:02 | Lydia | I think it is a valid statement for establishing credibility if you are trying to describe something about the Internet. Granted, it is a completely relative statement, since you can be on the Internet for seven years and still be a complete idiot, but it at least gives the person who might be hearing you or reading your words an idea of where you draw your ideas from. If I write an article about the evolution of the Internet in modern times and I say 'I've been active on the Internet since 1993' that is going to sound a whole lot better than 'Wow, I just found this thing out last year, and let me tell you about how it all evolved.' The article could just leave out any mention of the author's experience with the medium, but adding it might give it a little weight, as well.

Wed 16 Oct 12:40 | Mac | I agree with Lydia and think that it does depend on the context. 'I remember the excitement I felt when I downloaded Netscape' could sound sad, and 'I've never sent a text message' could make me look like a luddite.

Wed 16 Oct 12:44 | Contrarian | So you've been using the Internet for 7 years. So what? What relevance does that have to anything at all? Suppose I've been watching TV for 25 years, 5 hours a day. I have more than 45,500 TV hours logged. So what? Suppose you amend your statement to say you've been designing web sites for 7 years. So what? Those first few years are a joke from a design standpoint. You read a 'Learn HTML 1.0 in an hour' pamphlet and shazaam, you're a designer. Many of the 'old' web designers are the ones who have been putting off learning CSS and current coding techniques because they don't want to learn new tricks. In many respects, I would favor a designer who learned coding after the advent of CSS and promotion of accessibility so that they never think of the world in any other terms. Mileage doesn't mean experience or expertise. It just means old. The quality of your ideas and your portfolio are what's important. If I saw '7 years' mentioned on a resume I would laugh. It's compensating for a lack of value.

Wed 16 Oct 17:12 | Frank Lynch | Sorry I misunderstood you, John. I now see it's not the 'time' issue but the 'on' issue. To be honest with you, I've never heard people say it the way you're hearing it. I hear 'I've been online x years' but can't recall hearing anyone saying 'I've been on the internet x years.' To me that's an important distinction, and acceptable. Does it matter to you?

Wed 16 Oct 17:25 | John S. Rhodes | Frank, it isn't the wording, it is the meaning. When people puff out their chest and make it seem like the understand the internet due to time alone, I think it is lame. However, if they have spent time in the trenches, then the amount of time usually increases my respect for that person. Then again, in light of what The Contrarian states, I also think that too much time can also mean that people can get stuck in a rut. Some people do something so long that they get too comfortable and too static. That's not good, usually. (Caveat: In many areas of life, it takes about 10 years to reach an expert level. Time is good in this respect.)

Wed 16 Oct 18:56 | Lydia | Frank, regarding syntax, I tend to agree with you. I usually say 'I've been using the Internet for x years' when asked. I also think 'I've been online x years' is usable. In conversation, I'm willing to use whatever syntax the other person is using, as a comfort thing, and I have heard people say 'I've been on the Internet for x' but that is usually a small number of months or years. That might account for them thinking of it as being 'on' it. Sadly, in a capacity where I am trying to help someone do something, I hear too many people who are novice users say 'OK, I've got my Internet started now,' where Internet means browser. When writing articles or help documentation, I always stick to a 'style guide' of online terms. Online is never on-line, Internet is always capitalized, it's always login, not log in when referring to the user name and password as a unit, always sign on instead of log in, etc.

Wed 16 Oct 19:26 | Chad Lundgren | Hi. My name is Chad, and I've been on the Internet 10 years. People do say that. It's on my resume. And I mean 'on' by John Rhode's definition: I have poked around the Google Usenet archives and found postings from January of 1992. One of my signatures has a line of poetry in it I still like: my blog Zen Haiku has 'a bit of poetry' although it's mainly about usability. So yes, I have been on the Internet 10 years, and I yes, I am proud of it. Oh, and I am bugged by people who use 'Internet' without a definite article in front of it 'Oh, I have Internet.' Not very linguistically correct of me, I know, but I can't help it.

Wed 16 Oct 19:38 | Frank Lynch | John, regarding the puffing of the chest (I apoologize in advance for the thread drift here), I remember back in '93 I was going to be out of the office, and gave my boss my CompuServe email address (remember? back when it was two strings of numbers, separated by either a comma or a period, depending on whether you were emailing within CS or from outside in?). My boss at the time (bless his ignorant little -- er, very small -- heart) responded as if I was a total geek, rolled his eyes, and said (seriously) 'hmph. he even has an email address!' I retorted, 'Hey Larry, you use AOL, right?' He responded in the affirmative, and I said, 'well, so do you!' Some people didn't know to puff their chests early enough, I guess...

Fri 18 Oct 21:05 | daniel szuc | 'Some people do something so long that they get too comfortable and too static.' Yes and think people also get into some fixed habits OR assume that their *use* habits are the same as others. Just finished a round of usability testing and always *so interesting* to see how people approach the same problem on a web site and also how people *surf* so differently. Observation of target users is great! Just can't beat it. Example, heavy reliance on the BACK button.

The Art of Multitasking | Tue 15 Oct

(Fast Company) The most important thing to know about technology is when to turn it off.

Wed 16 Oct 06:53 | daniel szuc | Slaves to email.

Fri 18 Oct 20:20 | MikeC | This is actually a very good article. I'm glad I scrolled down through Webword to take another look at it. Thanks for finding this one, John.

Love It or Hate It? | Thu 17 Oct

Ive been at HotWired for six years now, and the flaming negative hate messages which spew our way after a new redesign are not new for me.

Thu 17 Oct 08:19 | Contrarian | 'As designers, we make conscious decisions to use elements from a visual language to communicate a message or facilitate interaction.' HAHAHAHA! Yes, I actually released an audible guffaw when I read that line. Sounds like a stock excuse from a Web Artist when his design has failed. Translation: 'You're just an ignorant user. You're not sophisticated enough to appreciate the masterpiece I have created for you.' Did Wired do _any_ audience research before foisting this new, terribly ugly, design on us? Do they design in a bubble? Most important, the new color scheme is so child-like that I am forced to stop referring coworkers to Wired articles in my discussion of issues. My less-savvy coworkers would simply not take Wired seriously. It no longer matters what Wired has to say; the design lacks credibility. It's a gumball machine.

Thu 17 Oct 08:58 | Contrarian | Correction: It's a goth gumball machine. They reluctantly accepted that they couldn't present an all-black design. So, if they had to use color, they decided to at least make it hauntingly disturbing.

Thu 17 Oct 11:33 | Anonymous | http://www.wired.com/news/explanation.html They tell us that 14% of their users will see crud (sorry, 'stripped down design'). That's a LOT of people they're pissing off. Idiots! Do standards come before users?

Thu 17 Oct 11:43 | JB | I wonder if it complies with the W3C standards for accessibility? And the standards they are hanging their hat on are not design standards but technical - so user be damned they say, we comply with W3C!

Thu 17 Oct 19:27 | Lydia | As a reader, I don't care that they comply with W3C web standards. I just want it to look nice, be readable, and work. However they do it is fine by me. The site is noticibly faster and not so glitchy. The colors don't bother me, since what I care about is the content. However, their explanation (thanks, C) makes a good point: 'This isn't the first website to be converted to XHTML and utilize CSS in such a powerful way... but the well-designed example that Wired News now provides can hopefully embolden other large content sites...' It sounded really good up to that point. I thought - yeah, people read Wired and they've been around the block. It's a good example of how CSS can be used site-wide and what a difference it can make. It will make sites take notice. Then I read it: '... to follow and join the Web Standards Project in the campaign encouraging users to upgrade their browsers. Doing so will help pull the Web out of the Dark Ages, and allow us all to progress forward.' Sigh. What will pull us out of the dark ages is people upgrading their browsers to a new version. This isn't accomplished by forcing them to do it by shoving web standards down their throat so they can view your site. That just pissed people off so that they go somewhere else. If Netscape and Microsoft would do something like what Netscape did with their browsers before 4.7 (which were rendered useless in Y2K and had to be upgraded to at least 4.7) every year, the problem would be well on the way to a fix. Build in a required upgrade, make it painless for the user, and people will, by default, design better sites. During my last job search, I interviewed with a government agency. Their IT department was so underfunded, they were all using 3.0 browser versions. Their audience (according to statistics, most of which were for their Intranet that spanned several agencies) were also using 3.0 over 50 percent of the time. That is a huge, huge number for just two years ago. It does happen, it just doesn't tend to happen in the mainstream.

Thu 17 Oct 22:05 | Jack Schonchin | John, I still read this site, but I do not post. Please remove the above post -- that I did not author -- and any future posts made by a 'Jack' using my yahoo.com address. Thanks.

Thu 17 Oct 22:15 | James | 'This isn't accomplished by forcing them to do it by shoving web standards down their throat so they can view your site.' It isn't a prerequisit, its accesable in everything down to palm and lynx, precilely because it uses web standards. It's also easier on the disabled and faster which is a usability plus. Hell the stripped down version looks like webword and useit.com. They seem to be comfy with giving the user an uglier experiance in exchange for simplicity and speed. The new design is much more visually attractive, I couldn't stand to read the older version (also by the same design team). Its colors are much more vibrant and alive without being overwheling. 'As designers, we make conscious decisions to use elements from a visual language to communicate a message or facilitate interaction.' Is exactly what designers do, they are VISUAL usability and marketing specialists. We dictate things like readability, emotional response and a dozen other important factors to a sites experiance. They are an important part of any website just as usability professionals are. We know we can't please anyone so we make the best value call giving the information, target audience and business/brand requirements. I'm shocked at the quantity of poorly informed comments on this thread and jabs at designers in general. There should be a mutual respect from both fields, design AND usability. Did anyone notice its easier to navigate or that you can adjust your text size easily when viewing articles? That the eye flows smoothly through an article now? Instead of bitching about user testing, why not ask the man directly. Get some hard data. One of the problems with most people is they don't relize someone has to take the first step, try new things and take risks.

Thu 17 Oct 23:13 | Annoying Puff Cat | Instead of bitching about user testing, why not ask the man directly. Get some hard data. Bitch = easy Get Data = hard

Fri 18 Oct 07:14 | Mac | Readers who have been with us for a while understand our design history Ahh, that's OK then. If I have comments that are anything less than positive then I am just a 'johny come lately' who is too 'stupid' to appreciate the changes. In that case I am 'stupid and proud', and will keep my comments about wired to myself. That should be much more acceptable.

Fri 18 Oct 12:58 | Lydia | James, you misunderstand. I am critcising the Web Standards Project, not Wired. I personally don't have a problem with their design (other than that the page is choked with text, between ads, sidebars, and columns), and I like their move to CSS. What I don't like is that they have to announce it under the banner of the Web Standards Project. I don't like an idea that attacks the symptom when they should be addressing the cause (non CSS sites are a symptom of the cause, which is poor browser update control). In other words, don't put the problem at the feet of the people who use it. Change it at the source.

Develop for the Mac | Thu 17 Oct

Mac users are still an elite, they dont go the default route, they dont buy a beige box, they pay a premium for a slick design and the promise (or the illusion) of a system that works better, and they know theyre spending a little more to get more, its a conscious, explicit decision.

Thu 17 Oct 19:04 | Lydia | Excellent article. I like that he pointed out that Mac users won't pay for garbage or clones. It's true. The clearest example I can think of is when Maxis made SimCity 3000. This was basically SimCity 2000 with some extra bells and whistles, and Mac users weren't going for it. Because of this, Maxis decided (despite the number of Mac users who voraciously purchased SC2K) that 'Mac users aren't interested in our products.' It took them forever to think about The Sims for Mac. Mistake. I agree, though, that it probably doesn't make sense to develop for Macintosh if you are only going to make one product and you are limited by audience size, programming language, or something else like that. So, Joel isn't wrong per se. His argument for why he doesn't want to make a Macintosh version is perfectly acceptable. You have to consider the bottom line, especially if you are trying to make it without the gobs of financing that people seem to expect all companies have when they start up these days. And hey, it's just like having kids: if you don't want to do it, the world is a better place if you don't even though everyone says you should.

Fri 18 Oct 07:21 | Mac | Damn it, I thought this was going to be about someone designing specificially for me. Next they'll be telling me that 'Return of the Mac' isn't about me either! I spent some time working on a 'mac' version of some software in the 80's. We gave up after a few months because Apple's attitude to developers was absolutely awful. They didn't seem interested in encouraging developers to write for their platform. Microsoft on the other hand, have always seen the benefit of courting the developers, and this approach has paid dividends for billg. I hope that Apple have changed their attitude since those days, as I would like to do some work for the Mac someday.

So, is your brain really hierarchic? | Tue 15 Oct

(Scripting News) Now think about your whole house, and how many things there are in it, and for almost every thing in your house theres an equivalent place in your brain where you store knowledge of how to retrieve the object. Thats a hierarchy. (Comments: Few people think that the brain is hierarchic. One of the main strengths of the brain is that it is not hierarchic!)

Tue 15 Oct 08:01 | Matt Round | As far as I'm aware, even our top scientists have yet to find the area of the brain devoted to tracking Q-Tips, but I'm sure they'll get there one day. (I can see what he's getting at, but he's chosen a vague analogy and explained it poorly)

Tue 15 Oct 08:36 | Mac | For us foreigners a 'Q-Tip' is a 'Cotton Bud'. This 'argument' is even less well thought out and ridiculous than one of mine!

Tue 15 Oct 11:37 | Contrarian | Don't you mean the mind is not hierarchic? Medically, the brain -- and really your whole body -- is all hierarchy. It functions on a strict rule set. The brain is the general of a massive army, deploying and maneuvering troops as needed 24 hours a day. I'm most impressed with the hierarchy of essential body functions and what systems the brain chooses to shut down first in an emergency to sustain its core functions.

Wed 16 Oct 04:13 | Anthropocentric | Post by Matt Round said it correctly... Dave Winer is a fanatical 'blogger' - in my opinion, most blogs are wide and shallow, just like Mr Winer's analysis. (BTW: He's also a fanatical 'Outliner,' which is precisely the reason he's talking about 'hierarchy' at all. Seems like he's looking to justify his interest in Outliners.) Giving this whole thing a bit more thought, if our minds were so 'hierarchical,' why the heck would we need an Outliner, which, by design, is a tool to ORGANIZE our thoughts in a hierarchical way!? We would just spit out thoughts in a hierarchy! Dave is Lame - he smells - he talks about blogging way too much My Comments - post them at Webword.com - hopefully they will be read. - everyone will think I am smart.

Thu 17 Oct 04:14 | Alan Fisher | Surely our brains function as they do precisely because they AREN'T hierarchical? How else could we make the ridiculous associations between disparate things - for example, train journeys always remind me of 'Get It On' by T.Rex (or Bang A Gong as it was called in the USA). I won't explain why. And how would you explain creativity? Or am I just misunderstanding the point?

Movable Type 2.5 | Sat 12 Oct

Of course, thanks to all of our users. From day one, weve been overwhelmed by the interest in Movable Type; because of this demand, we are determined to release the best possible software we can offer. (Comments: I started using Movable Type on April 14th. I think that Im running version 2.0 or maybe 2.1. Should I upgrade to 2.5? Probably. However, I fear change. I dont like touching systems when they are working. I want the new features, but I dont need them. When it comes to technology, Im usually driven by needs, not wants. What about you? What makes you embrace new technology?)

Wed 16 Oct 12:06 | Lydia | I like that definition a lot. I also like Vincent's deft use of 'unsatisficing' - Norman would be proud.

NetTrends: Fighting Spam Becomes Top Priority | Sat 12 Oct

Naked women performing oral sex with guns pressed to their heads, naked women with large dogs clutching their backs, naked women in pigtails pretending to be daughters having sex with their fathers. (Comments: Yes, of course I pulled this quote out of context. However, I probably have your attention now. Thanks for the tip Daniel Szuc.)

Mon 14 Oct 07:15 | Mac | Why the Contrarian Chose Her Name

Mon 14 Oct 09:50 | John S. Rhodes | Jack's back!!

Mon 14 Oct 19:38 | Contrarian | I enjoy enlightened discussion as much as the next person, and believe me, your hairy boy toy fantasies are intriguing, but what does this banter have to do with the content of the linked article, or the presentation of the linked article?

Tue 15 Oct 17:03 | Lydia | In my brief absence due to spending days digging out from under a mountain of work, I see that I have missed much! First of all, Contrarian, you shouldn't be alarmed by the people here. These guys are kind of wild, but the idea is to have fun with usability (imagine, FUN with usability!). It's a good thing, so I humbly suggest that perhaps joining in on the fun would be good and hostility would be bad. Second, I am intrigued by technology that would consider the entire content of the message. I know someone who sends out a couple of letters to email subscribers but can no longer send emails to people who have Hotmail because anyone coming from the IP address of her mailing list service have been banned by Hotmail because of the actions of one of the companies using the service. That was about 40% of her mailing list alone! She isn't selling anything, so it's no skin off her nose that way, but the people who subscribed are very disappointed. It's good to block spam, but it can go too far.

Tue 15 Oct 20:49 | Contrarian | Lydia, these people are alleging my birth certificate is fraudulent, as if my parents have reason to lie about my name. Meanwhile, the consensus of this group is that I'm a visually-impaired hermaphroditic poltergeist taking possession of living bodies, moving from person to person in a search for sexual gratification, and also someone willing to shave my back so that my skin is smooth and silky. And all of this is derived from a discussion about Internet trends. You don't want me to be alarmed? How am I supposed to feel? Ya'll are freaks.

Wed 16 Oct 04:27 | daniel szuc | Freak on :) Gamellian. See: http://www.usabilitymustdie.com/ww/ww_superhero.htm

Wed 16 Oct 12:03 | Lydia | That's getting into it, Contrarian!

Suit Over Airlines' Web Sites Tests Bounds of ADA | Mon 07 Oct

When Robert Gumson logs on to the Internet, he uses a software program that converts Web site content into speech. But when he logged on to Southwest Airlines Web site to make a reservation, Gumson, who is blind, found that the site was incompatible with his screen-reader program. (Comments: Do you think filing a lawsuit is the best way to get a company to change its web site?)

Wed 16 Oct 04:58 | Brian Ty Graham | I saw a poll on TechTv.com regarding is most agree with the suit charging web sites to make their sites accessible to blind. 75% said that do not agree with the suit and the requirement. Personally, I think there is a lack of awareness in alternatives that the web sites and the disabled community have regarding accessibility. Why should a web site conform to a non-standard software program not regulated by the government. Should southwest be sued again for not being compliant with another screenreading program? Why can't this woman pick up the phone and book the flight this way? Why should she make it hard on herself by navigating web sites that really are catered to the visual population. I agree that web sites should be accessible to the visually impaired. I started a company based on this idea. However, suing a company to be compliant is the wrong way to go about ADA compliance. Using modern tools like those from my company www.voicewebsolutions.net can make the experience much more enjoyable for the disabled person. Big things are going to happen soon. Cheers, Brian

homework due October 14 | Sun 13 Oct

Due by 4pm: Please read the article by John Rhodes. E-mail me a short paragraph stating how you either have or will implement some of the suggestions in the articles for your pbj site.

Mon 14 Oct 02:39 | daniel szuc | *places vitual apple for the teacher on the desk* - 'Here you are Mr. Rhodes!' *student finds seat and waits attentively*

Mon 14 Oct 04:32 | Mac | On Article Let your ideas have sex - I do not think comments such as these are appropriate for an educational arena. A high level of failure is inevitable. - Excellent news. On Homework Rough sketches will not be accepted - Ah well, thats me knackered then. Frames Training - Yehhhh baby, give me some of that! Do we get to see their homework? Seriously though, this course seems to be mainly a 'Dreamweaver in xx days' course. Would it 'almost' be better just to buy all the Filbert books and read them instead?

Mon 14 Oct 04:42 | Mac | Oh and here is a handy lesson on how to create a Timed Popup Window I can't find anything on e-mail address harvesting though.

Mon 14 Oct 13:09 | Kim | I wish that I could say something positive about John Rhodes' essay, Evolution, Usability, & Web Design, but it left me unmoved, honestly. His comparison of the web to that of Darwin's theory of evolution, left much to be desired. Evolution is not allergic to change. It does not suppress all possibilities. And it doesn't favor backward locomotion. It does not limit growth and experimentation. The author never provides any examples of sites that he considers to be good, nor does he explain the 'standard' of which he's basing his ideas. I use the web at least 60 hours a week, and I strongly disagree with the authors' assertation that 99% of Flash sites are horrible! When he talks about usability, which sites is he referring to, and what audience demographic? We do not live in a homogenized soceity, and choice won't breed complacency with boringly delivered information. People will surf where they feel comfortable. Of course a 40 year old is not going to find a site designed for a 20 year old appealing, and vice-versa. There is room for everyone on the web, I repeat, there is room for everyone on the web. There is even room for gratuitous animation. The author also fails to take into account that the world-wide-web has been in existence, publicly, for less than ten years. Which means that we are all still learning to use it, and realize it's full potential. To say that web designers, particularly those who utilize flash, which has been around for a shorter amount of time, are missing the mark, is quite presumptious. Remember, there is an entirely new generation of people growing up with the web who will speak its language fluently. Let's also be honest. The web is competing with television. And unfortunately, it is competing for an audience whose attention spans have dwindled over the years. Overall, I believe that people appreciate beautiful design and the time designers put into keeping the interface from being cold. For example, John Rhode's web world site repels me, I feel like I'm looking at a computer. How hard would it have been to at least put in a background color? And choice of font? yeuck! In regards to 'slow' download speeds, flash requires a minimal amount of memory for use and vector based graphics are much computer friendly. And which way are we headed? Well, if the telecom giants world-wide ever get their acts together and more providers are allowed to enter the marketplace for cheaper DSL services, speed could become a NON-issue. Take South Korea for example, over the years it has become the leader in broadband usuage. Who would have thought? I enjoy visiting experimental and trendy design sites. I find learning my way around the designers interpretation of an idea challenging, fun and exciting. Regarding http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html What exactly is a non-standard GUI? Is this guy serious?? Can just anyone claim to be a 'usability expert'?

Mon 14 Oct 13:41 | Mike Boyink | I tell ya...this debate gets old. No energy to fight it anymore...but I do have one question, Kim: What are web sites supposed to make you feel like you are looking at, if not a computer?

Mon 14 Oct 19:32 | Contrarian | Mike, what is a telephone supposed to make you feel like you are looking at, if not a piece of fabricated plastic with buttons? If my phone has a microchip to accommodate Caller ID, does that mean that my phone looks like a computer? A web site makes you feel like you are looking at a web site. It is its own entity. I think Kim is Jack. I counted eight paragraphs.

Mon 14 Oct 19:37 | Mike Boyink | OK, just let me know when the title to that bridge clears, seems I have some extra money.

Tue 15 Oct 16:52 | Lydia | Must I quote Frank again?! 'Don't feed the trolls!'

Tue 15 Oct 18:13 | Contrarian | Trolls must eat, too.

WebWord Comment | Sat 12 Oct

/A> Why use an image for all that text? Makes me think very bad thoughts about the conference they are promoting!

Tue 15 Oct 17:12 | Lydia | The perfect way to get across the idea of blending design and usability would have been to have their catchy design, but to print text on the screen, possibly using CSS to get it to look the way they wanted, so that it was accessible and people with images shut off could still read it.

Wired News: A Site for Your Eyes | Sat 12 Oct

But what isnt readily noticeable is the backbone of this new design, a landmark undertaking for a heavily trafficked, content-heavy website like Wired News. With this edition, we have rebuilt the site to comply with Web standards recommended by the World Wide Web Consortium. (Comments: Why dont more large web sites use XSS and XHTML? Here are some thoughts on that topic.)

Mon 14 Oct 04:38 | Mac | Yes, technically it's a good thing and should be applauded. BUT when will I 'easily' be able to see the new news stories without having to hunt throught the categories seeing the same stories over and over again.

Tue 15 Oct 16:14 | Contrarian | I never gave Wired's design a second thought, but now it's damned ugly. In-my-face ugly. Color scheme from hell. It changes daily? So each day we will be treated to a new visual assault? Today's flavor is hot pink and yellow-orange. I'm debating whether I want to go out and buy a poodle, or wear a polyester shirt. At least their colors are a call to action. At this point they might as well randomly select colors and let users vote on the next day's dreck.

Tue 15 Oct 16:22 | Contrarian | Why is no one bothered by the text sizing menu? So now we need screen real estate consumed by basic browser functions? Golly, why not add a 'back' button to the web page so users are not forced to use the back button built into their web browsers? Your browser's text resizing function should work throughout Wired's site, unlike the goofy resizer on their web page. Teach people how to use their browser and you save the world the trouble of a billion web sites each adopting their own conventions for basic functions.

Tue 15 Oct 17:09 | Lydia | I would add to Matt's list that many developers are concerned about backward compatibility. What will their site look like if someone is viewing it with an older browser? Or with AOL, or with Web TV? Also, lack of time/money is such a huge factor. That is the problem I am currently facing. It's nuts! The new Wired design is definitely faster, but it is still too cluttered, too annoying to read because of oversized ads, and the articles are still too broken up. I don't mind scrolling if it is in a continuous article, but they want to break it up into five screens so I'll see five ads. Argh.

Ailing AOL rediscovers its 35 million members | Tue 15 Oct

(cnn.com) I am suggesting we should lose all the ads, all pop-ups, de Castro said, bustling around his Starbucks-chic office and alternately scribbling on a white board, clicking on a Web TV remote and jabbing his index finger at a pyramid chart.

Tue 15 Oct 13:40 | JB | Gimmick. If they want to stand alone and still make incremental revenues, they will have to do something else that annoys their users.

Back to basics: 75 painful questions about your customer satisfaction | Tue 15 Oct

Perhaps it is time to go back to basics. To actually ask the consumer instead of taking answers for granted. Do they want high-tech, electronically run call centres that reduce costs and cut queuing time or would they rather wait for longer in order to hear a human voice? Do customers want to see facts or product advertising (or both!) on your web site?

Tue 15 Oct 11:47 | Frank Lynch | I won't be reading the entire article, but what I read on the first page was consistent with a lot of other materials I've read on customer satisfaction (e.g., don't address areas in surveys if you're not willing to tackle them internally...) I also recommend the Jan-Feb '97 HBR, which had an article on achieving high growth through innovation. It pointed out that it was a huge mistake to waste time comparing yourself to the competition, because in doing so you could be wasting money on what your competitors have defined as the cost of entry, rather than what your customers define it as... Freeing up wasted resources can alow you to tackle the value-adds which help to retain a customer longer.

An Interview With Douglas Bowman of Wired News | Tue 15 Oct

(DevEdge) The brains and primary driving force behind this compelling new design is Douglas Bowman, Network Design Manager for Terra Lycos, who graciously agreed to an interview and in the process shed a lot of light on what goes into a standards-based redesign.

Tue 15 Oct 08:31 | Mac | A few changes to the CSS can completely alter the presentation of thousands of pages Whoopey doo... Now they can change the visible strucure of the site at the flip of a switch. The main benefit of the change seems to be that they now have most (We don't make any claims about past archived content) of their content in their CMS system with all HTML markup removed. If you have your content in a properly designed clean databse then it only takes a click of a button to re-format all content even if you are using plain HTML markup. After reading this interview, I think that in most cases people should use a 'half-way house' approach to converting their data. The key is to get your database design right. If you do that then it is a relatively simple job to convert all of your content into a new format, which could be XHTML or even a format that hasn't been invented yet. Don't get me wrong, I love CSS and XHTML. But if people go around over selling it, then it won't help at all.

Tue 15 Oct 11:36 | Chris | It's not about the back-end, though it does offer advantages there. It's about access at the front-end, so the content is as much removed from the style as can be acheived so that a) style can be sculpted for different browser/media types, b) style can be switched off or personalised by the user, c) (from a)) printer-friendly does not mean loading a new page, d) only one url is required for one piece of content, e) faster page downloads after the first page (probably not too noticeable), f) backward compatibility with some style still evident (the older browsers' default settings for headings, paragraphs, etc.)

From Ancient Searcher to Amazon-Aholic | Tue 15 Oct

(EContentMagazine) If you want customers, you must listen to customers. You must seek out their opinions, soliciting them at the end of every search. Even if they dont fill out the forms, its just common business courtesy to ask.

Tue 15 Oct 10:24 | Contrarian | Common business courtesy? The only feedback requests I receive are on product registration cards (that are really just a method of harvesting my personal data) or unsolicited telephone opinion surveys when I'm eating dinner. Feedback I send to companies by e-mail is routinely ignored, or worse, they insult me with a canned response. The author's supposition that this is a courtesy is garbage. The few companies who want feedback just want to get into my pants and coddle the family jewels.

WebWord Comment | Sat 12 Oct

A little over a year ago I predicted that we would start seeing spam with Flash. However, I dont think I have seen a single email using Flash. Have you seen any spam with Flash?

Mon 14 Oct 19:11 | John Dowdell | Hi, I have indeed heard of some people doing both personal and commerical email with SWFs either embedded or referenced, but whether you see it would depend on various factors on your end. I use a regular ASCII emailer rather than an HTML emailer... don't have to worry about scripts executing or such. (If you do prefer an HTML email reader, then choosing one which uses application-level Netscape Plugins rather than system-level ActiveX Controls will let you control which apps use which extensions.) I also set my emailer to never download an email over 20K in size, because (imho) most of those are garbage regardless of media. Manuel raises an important point, about opt-in... it's one thing to have unpopular activities between consenting adults (MYOB!), but quite another when such behavior is directed at unsuspecting and non-consenting individuals. But here's the bigger issue: each year, a lot more things will become technically possible. Some of these will be socially misused. If we make a society of prefab rules we'll be addressing such problems ad-hoc forever. Stronger would be explicit reliance on basic principles... who owns your data? what recourse do you have when someone wastes your time? what recourse when someone swipes your digital content, whether words or designs or whatever?

14 Principles of Polite Apps | Sat 12 Oct

Software should respond to your obvious needs, not just your commands. Use these 14 principles to create accommodating software.

Mon 14 Oct 04:11 | Mac | See also The Polite Interface or Guidelines for Dialogs

Mon 14 Oct 13:21 | Philip Chalmers | How much time and money does the author have? Doing everything he asks for would take a heck of a lot of memory and processing time. OK, that might be cheap in 10 years. But on the software side, it took evolution millions of years to design creatures capable of meeting most of his requirements most of the time, and 20 to 30 years for one such creature to learn something approaching the full repertoire.

Google Needs People | Sat 12 Oct

Like the fabled creatures of mud and sticks, Google is a golem, an inanimate jumble of algorithms and interfaces, held together by the connective tissue of links. No people. No links. No Google. Similarly, the potential of Google News lies in its ability to leverage the distributed intelligence of thousands of editors and reporters. No editors. No reporters. No Google News. (Comments: Written by Peter Morville, author of Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, 2nd Edition.)

Mon 14 Oct 07:07 | Mac | daniel, start with my 'Search Considered Harmful ?' comments on WebWord Posting 992

An interview with Peter Merholz and Nathan Shedroff on User-Centered Design | Sat 12 Oct

(Digital Web Magazine) Usability is specifically focused on ease of use and is a component of User-centered Design. User Experience can mean a lot of things depending on who youre speaking with but it should be the focus of a user-centered design process. The experience encompasses a lot of space, including 3 dimensions, 5 or more senses, time, emotions, social context, etc.

Mon 14 Oct 01:48 | daniel szuc | Very good interview.