158. Home

On this week’s show: We share the highlights of SXSW, discuss home working, and interview Rob Borley about project management.

Play

Download this show.

Launch our podcast player

Housekeeping

Headscape still recruiting!

Headscape is still recruiting. We are looking for an enthusiastic, talented developer to join our team, working from of our offices in Hampshire. For more information see the job advertisement on Boagworld.

Back to top

News and events

The best of SXSW

Well, SXSW is over and I am back in the UK. But what happened at the conference? What was the big news this year?

That is actually a hard question to answer. There is so much at SXSW that it is almost impossible to get a sense of everything that is going on. Even if you could attend every panel that isn’t always where the real action takes place.

The real conference often happens at the parties and in the corridors. In fact, more than one spontaneous panel was started via Twitter, thanks to official panels being full.

Panels this year ranged from the downright dull to all out flame wars! One that I unfortunately missed was "Is Spec Work Evil!". However, Marcus attended and tells me it was particularly fiery. Personally, I am very much against speculative work as I have said before. However, not everybody would agree and the panel seemed to reflect this diverse opinion.

One panel I did make was Paul Annett’s amazingly inspirational talk on Easter Eggs and design twists. The talk focused on the little things you can add to your site to make users go ‘oooo that’s clever’.

Too often I neglect such ‘bells and whistles’ in favour of usability and accessibility. Paul demonstrated how these different priorities can sit side by side without compromising each other. He showed some great examples including the hidden arrow in the FedEx logo and the vines on the Silverback website.

fedex logo

The final panel I want to mention is ‘Being a UX Team of One‘ by Leah Burley of Adaptive Path. To be honest the title of this one was a little misleading (at least from my perspective).

What I took away from this session was that design should not be a solitary activity, solely reliant on the creative inspiration of one individual. Leah seemed to be arguing for a more collaborative approach especially at the wireframe stage. She proposed that all of those involved in the project should sit down together and hammer out the wireframe designs.

This addressed two separate problems we have been having at Headscape

  • The developers concerns at not being involved early enough in the process.
  • The question of who should do wireframing – the designer or the IA person.

Best of all Leah’s presentation was very pragmatic. She provided lots of practical approaches that encourage idea generation and collaboration. I highly recommend listening to the podcast of this when it is released.

Browser testing and IE6

In other news, there seems to have been a lot written about browsers this past week. Three stories in particular caught my eye…

  • .net Magazine seems to have hopped on the ‘dump IE6′ bandwagon – My opinion is the same as that of Jeremy Keith as expressed in last weeks show. It is not a matter of dropping IE6. We should instead being deciding whether we wish to offer it the same level of support as modern browsers. I am entirely in favour of providing IE6 with a basic stylesheet that avoids its shortcomings. However, I dislike the idea of dropping it entirely.
  • Microsoft has released SuperPreview this week that allows Windows users to test different versions of IE simultaneously. I have to say this looks like an impressive tool. It allows you to view IE6 and IE7 side by side. It also has many other tools that may also be useful. Support for IE8 and other browsers will follow and although it is currently in beta, I think it will quickly become an indispensable tool for Windows based web designers. Just a shame there is no mac support!
  • Finally, Sitepoint have written a brief outline of how to create the perfect browser testing suite. Ideally for those starting out it lists various online browser simulators, virtual machines and desktop browser emulators.

Browser testing continues to be a pain in the neck and I for one would be willing to pay for a decent way of streamlining this whole process. This is especially true now that IE8 has been officially released and we have another browser to add into the mix.

Screenshot of Superpreview

A simplicity case study

A few weeks ago I wrote about the importance of simplifying your website. Well, this week Gerry McGovern has written the perfect case study to support the argument I was putting forward.

Removing poor quality content increases customer satisfaction‘ talks about how the Microsoft website consists of a staggering 10 millions pages. Of those pages 3 million have never been viewed!

The post goes on to explain how the Microsoft Office team took a different approach with their site by removing irrelevant pages. According to McGovern…

By weeding the garden, the top task pages became easier to find. But just as importantly it became harder to find a minor task page when you were looking for a top task page.

In short, removing pages reduced noise. Disturbing though it sounds, I think we could all learn something from Microsoft’s example.

An introduction to Microformats

My final post today comes from Richard Rutter’s blog. It is basically an introduction to Microformats aimed at the non-geek. He wrote the post because he recently found himself trying to explain microformats to a client and could not think of a good post that covered the subject from their perspective.

Personally, I am not sure it is necessary to tell a client you are implementing Microformats. The cost of adding them is so small and the benefits so hard to explain, that you maybe better off just doing it.

That said, this is an excellent post and if you are struggling to understand the point of Microformats, this is certainly worth reading.

Back to top

Interview: Rob Borley on Project Management

Paul: So, joining me today is Mr. Rob Borley. Hello Rob.

Rob: Hi Paul, how are you doing?

Paul: Very well indeed. Good to have you on the show. It’s been a little while.

Rob: It has, It has. It’s weird hearing the show above you, um rather than being below.

Paul: Oh yes, because you sit upstairs, don’t you?

Rob: Indeed.

Paul: Do you actually hear it?

Rob: I do. It’s like have a little base bin ?

Paul: Awh. So, um, we have kind of been thinking for a little while that we need to get someone on the show to talk about project management. And the idea was we’d get some high profile web design project manager to come in and talk about web design project management. Then I realised, um, that I can’t actually think of any. You know, I really don’t know of any kind of web design project managers out there, other than obviously the people that work at Headscape.

Rob: Well, maybe there’s a gap in the market.

Paul: I think there is a gap in the market.

Rob: (unintelligible) celebrity project manager.

Paul: Well I think that’s somewhat of an oxymoron, but setting that aside, lets shift around a bit, yeah, so, um, so we thought, lets get you on the show. Um, now, you’re quite and interesting case because you started of as a techie.

Rob: Yes.

Paul: And you became a project manager.

Rob: Yes.

Paul: And, so, um, let’s start by talking about the role of project manager. How would you describe your core role? What is it that you do? I should know this I guess.

Rob: Well, you mean other than manage projects.

Paul: Ok, you just have to make a joke out of it. But you know what I’m getting at.

Rob: Yeah yeah. I mean, I guess, um, the main thing that we do is shovel shit, really. We deal with crap. You know, the main thing project manager would do is a filter between clients and the production team for the project. I mean, there are a couple of stages I guess. So you’ve got the planning part of the job, which is essentially working out what it is you need to do, um, making sure you got the results to do it, plotting a nice time line so they can all fit as far as having deadline. And then you’ve got the people said, because really project management is a people job. You need to know how to get the most out of all the people that are in your project team, um including the client. You need to include the client in your thinking, always. Yah, that’s essentially what we do.

Paul: Yah. It’s a people person thing. I always thought you were so charasmatic. Ok, so, I mean, I guess the question is, if you look at the kind of, if you look at Headscape, and the way that we’re organised, we’ve got four developers, four designers, and three project managers. I mean, that’s a lot of project managers. And, you know the question is, why, why have project mangers at all? Why couldn’t the designers and the developers do the job? Why couldn’t it be spread across multiple people? Justify you exsistance, Rob.

Rob: Yeah, this question kind of makes me nervous here. I feel like I’m re-interviewing for my own job. Not that I interviewed in the first place, but, I guess in one sense, if you were in a small project environment, you could almost get away with one person. If, you know, its a one person job, you could get away with them managing themselves for a limited amount of time. Um, but, as soon as you get beyond jobs which are more than one person, um, and go on for an extended period of time, you start needing to provide some glue to stick things together. You need someone whose got an overview of everything that’s going on. You know, the developers have got a very developer mindset about the way things happen. Designers are the same way, they know about the design stuff. Um, but actually translating what the client wants and feeding that into both areas and bring them together is what’s missing, if you don’t have a project manager.

Paul: So, to some degree, project management becomes necessary with scale. The bigger the projects, and the more complex the projects, then the more a need for a dedicated project manager.

Rob: Yeah, definitely. I mean, I guess the real role of a project manager in these situations is the facilitator. You’ve got all of these tools which are basically your resources, your developers, your designers, um, and you need to be able to enable them to work effectively together to produce what the end product is going to be.

Paul: So here’s a question that I didn’t pre-give you, in advance, which is always the best type. Why, why, why become a project manager? What made you – because you were heading up our technical development team, you were, you know, you were doing very well. Why did you feel the need to get involved in what you call shit shoveling?

Rob: Well, I think my main motivation was, Headscape was growing, and we started employing all of these younger, more dynamic, much more talented, better looking developers, that were basically going to show me up. So I figured that before I got shown in true light that I was going to need to move somewhere else. Um, no, well that’s partly true. Really, I think, its the people’s aspect that I’m really interested in. A good project manager is someone who is able to understand how his resources or how her resources work and how your clients work, and joining the two together. Um, while I quite like writing code really, I’m not passionate about it. So that side of it, you know, I reached as far as I wanted to go, and I really enjoy the people thing.

Paul: Ok. So what other, I mean, what other kind of characteristics do you think make a good project manager, obviously the people skills you talked about, what other, I mean if there are other people out there going well actually I’m not that passionate about coding, or I’m not that passionate about design, but I am passionate about the web, I do like the web design process, perhaps project management is the way I ought to be going. You know, what skills, what characteristics do they need, what personality traits do they need?

Rob: I think well, you need to be able to plan. Um, you know, planning is very very important. If you plan well, then your project will usually go well.

Paul: I like the cornification in that.

Rob: You have to be able to predict the future is helpful.

Paul: Yes.

Rob: A major part of what we de in the planning stages is assessing risk. You know, so, we’ve got what we’re starting with, we’ve got what we want to achieve, and we’ve got a time scale, now we need to work out what things might appear that are unforeseen, which are going to affect us reaching the time scale. So being able to foresee the future is helpful. Um, and so planning, being quite analytical and thorough. The logical background I have from being a programmer, a developer, is really helpful because you have to approach project management in a very analytical way, to make sure you don’t miss things. So there’s that side of it. And then there’s communication skills. You not only need to be able to communicate with a client affectively so they show that you understand what they want, um, and they understand where you are with the project, and they’re happy because a happy client makes everyone happy. But you also then need to communicate that with the various personalities in your team. You know, whether thats the developers locked up in a dark room with no social skills, or the crazy charismatic designers who…

Paul: You’ve just gone with stereotypes that so don’t apply. If I look at our team, no offense to our designers, they’re the ones that sit in the darkened room with their nose right pressed against the screen. And the developers are the ones that are crazy and never do any work.

Rob: (unintelligible) something about reading personalities. No, but you see my point. You’ve got these almost extremes, especially in the web, I guess, in the web world, you’ve got these extremes of personailities which somehow you need to be able to communicate with and put it all together and so, yeah, that’s an important skill. I think the third area, is to be quite relaxed about life. Because things will go wrong and do go wrong, it doesn’t matter how well you plan and how good you are at predicting the future. Stuff will appear that is completely unforeseen and will completely throw (unintelligible). And everyone gets really upset and people will shout at you and it goes a bit nuts. Um, and if you go nuts as well, you project team falls apart, because they look at you as the calm rudder in the storms of life. I can feel my other project manager buddies laughing at me, um, but if you’re calm and you can not get stressed at that but actually see, try and find a clear path through a very stressful situation, then really helps.

Paul: I would so be the worst project manager in the world. I’ve got the attention span of a newt, I’ve got no organisational abilities and I get stressed at everything. So overall, I think I’d fail.

Rob: Yeah, stick to web celeb.

Paul: Yes, I’ll come up with some other title that sounds good. Um, ok, so you talked about this really is, I can honestly say, a foreign area to me. Right? You talk about planning a project upfront. I’m not a planning person. Right? And there seems to be so many variables involved in a project and so much as you say, that can potentially go wrong. How do you plan it? I mean, you know, the kind of thing that you always talk about, when you talk about project management is endless gantt charts that seem to be outdated in about 5 minutes, sort of kicking a project off. How to you effectively plan a project?

Rob: Um, well, we do use a gantt. We always start a project with a gantt. And, um because it seems like thats what project managers are supposed to do, so we justify the time with a gantt. Um, but you do need, um, I think assessing risk is something that is vital in successful project management. Its something that we’ve been doing at Headscape, um, increasingly more over the last year or so otherwise this need to actually spend time highlighting what could actually go wrong here. So, you look at, I’m not going to be able to think of any examples now, but a particular, let’s say you building a shop or something. So potential things which could delay that project would be: the client not getting around to telling you what the products are on the shelf and content population is a big risk on meeting a project deadline, because it is out of your control. So, its like, I need the content by this date, and he needs to put the content in by X date. If the client doesn’t do it, there’s nothing you can do about it.

Paul: I’m guessing integration must always be a big risk. Integrating with third party applications.

Rob: Exactly, so if you’ve got some sort of third party database or a web service you’ve got to pull in, something that you’ve done a bit before, but you don’t know anything about, that’s a risk. Because you can guesstimate what’s going to happen, but its unforeseen. And so, the trick is basically, to find all the tasks that have these risks and then multiply (unintelligible) an hour by some random number. And then make the rest up as you go along.

Paul: So what about once the project gets going, how, what techniques and tools maybe do you use for monitoring and controlling the process and trying to keep on top of everything.

Rob: Yeah, I mean, there are lots of tools out there, obviously, lots of funky web-based ones, um, there is no substitute for talking to you team. Um, trying to (unintelligible) email or basecamp or something is impossibly without talking to you team. So, communicate. It’s a big part of what we do. You have to talk to the people doing the work, you have to talk to the clients, um you have to keep the lines of communication open. Um, but as far as actually keeping track of what’s going on, we do use basecamp, um which is great for managing lists, basically, you manage lists. So from our gantt shell, we’ll break it up into a series of tasks if you like, wide areas, um, and then, (unintelligible) ask people to add comments to them and take them off and then we’ve got kind of an overview of where our project is. Um, and hopefully from there, and when we’ve got the gant shell, we’ve got some dates, some milestones and reminders like you should have done this by then, um and so, you use that to kind of keep track of where you are.

Paul: Cool. What about, so that’s kind of dealing with the internal side of things. What about when it comes to the client, I mean, you talked about, you said earlier, a happy client makes everybody happy kind of thing. So what makes a client happy? What are the things that really, or perhaps turn it around the other way, what are the things that really piss of a client and where can it really go wrong?

Rob: This is really where the people side of it really comes in because every client is different. Some clients want you to talk to them for five hours a day, hold their hand, you know, spoon feed them, and some clients just want to know when it’s finished. So initially, when you’re kind of trying to assess your project team, if you like, your resources and what you’ve got, assessing the personality of your client early on, will really put you in a good place. Um, but, I guess, general principles, if you’re honest, it helps. Um, so, be realistic about what you’re telling your client is going to happen. Don’t promise the Earth by yesterday. Because then you won’t deliver and then they’ll get upset. If there’s going to be a problem, if things have slipped for some unknown reason, then tell them as soon as you know. Tell them as quickly as you possibly can. Um, manage their expectations is kind of the phrase that we use a lot. You gotta manage you clients expectations so that they’re not expecting something that you can’t deliver. And um, and then that limits the amount of upsetness that they get.

Paul: Slippage is a big one, isn’t it? This kinda whole area of things like, you know problems you kinda face, things, like slippage, scope creep, non-delivery, I mean, how do you have any kind of broad techniques for dealing with these kinds of things, or is it just kinda communications thing again.

Rob: It’s mainly I think a communication thing again. Um, part of the planning stage is trying to asses these risks and so you try and build in contingency to cope with those, and if you’re building enough contingency, you deliver the project early and that makes everyone really happy, even if its a long project, you deliver it early, you’ve exceeded their expectation also. Um, so I think, if somethings going to slip, I think you should say you’ve got to be honest. Sometimes things are just out of your control, so you’re two weeks before the end of a project, you in the middle of snagging, your lead developer goes down with appendicitis. There’s nothing you can do about that, and so you just need to communicate with the client and hope they take it well.

Paul: So wishing everything works out, I’m loving that approach. Ok, so, um, let’s finish of with a piece of generic advice. Either people starting out in project management or those that have had project management foisted upon them. You know, whats the kind of one piece of advice that you would leave for people?

Rob: Get to know your team. I think that’s the main thing I would say. Um, its kind of like, when you drive you car, you’re environment is a very organic, dynamic thing, you know what it really what’s going to happen and the only thing you’ve got to get you through it is that you understand you car. You know almost instinctively how it works, how to drive it it, if you get to that situation with your team, then whatever the project throws at you, you kind of, you can deal with it. If you understand how you client is going to react to a certain situtation, you can intincfully deal with it. And it keeps the stress levels low. You need to find ways of managing your stress levels.

Paul: There you go, that’s great advice. Thank you vert much for that, it was wonderful. I really appreciate you coming on the show.

Rob: My pleasure.

Thanks goes to Meredith Marsh for transcibing this interview.

Back to top

Feature: Home Working

I was recently contacted by a friend of mine Marieke Guy about writing a guest post for her blog on remote working.

I have been working at home for over 7 years now and am a great believer in the benefits. However when I actually sat down to write the post, I realised just how long it has taken me to find the right way of working.

As a large number of people who listen to this podcast work from home, I thought I would share my experiences to date and my hopes of where remote working will take me in the future.

The reality of home working

Back to top

Effective browser support

Browser support should focus on usability and accessibility rather than pixel perfect design. Sites should render in all browsers, but provide advanced features and aesthetics to those which can support it.

Most web design contracts address browser support. Many agencies still treat support as a black or white decision – a browser is either supported or it is not. If the browser is not supported the site is often unusable. However, this approach fails to acknowledge the diverse and evolving nature of the web. We should be supporting all browsers.

What does ‘support’ mean?

Although we support all browsers, that does not mean every user will have the same experience. For example, it is unrealistic to expect a user accessing the web through a text only browser to have the same experience as somebody using the latest version of Firefox.

As Yahoo states in their own browser support documentation:

Requiring the same experience for all users creates a barrier to participation. Availability and accessibility of content should be our key priority.

Supporting a browser should provide the best experience possible within the constraints of that browser, and should exclude none.

Expecting pixel perfect accuracy across browsers is unrealistic and not cost effective.

The problem with pixel perfect design

With browser technology improving all of the time it is unsurprising that modern websites do not always render the same in older browsers such as Internet Explorer 6 (released 2001) as they do in more contemporary counterparts. In fact even modern browsers differ in the way they display HTML.

Many web designers go to extreme lengths to ensure consistency across their ‘supported browsers’. However although this is achievable if the number of supported browsers is limited, it comes at a cost. This includes:

  • Significant overhead in the time required to overcome limitations in older browsers.
  • Increased likelihood that unsupported browsers cannot access the site. This is because of hacks and excessive code employed to ensure consistency.
  • A tendency to design for the lowest common denominator.

A better approach is to ensure that the site works well and looks reasonable on the lowest common denominator browser, and then ‘enhance it’ for more capable browsers.

For example, modern browsers support design enhancements such as:

  • rounded corners
  • drop shadows
  • Improved typography

and various other styling not supported by older browsers without additional code and effort. However as Andy Clarke explains – because these design elements are not intrinsic to the usability or functionality of the site they can be safely dropped.

If this approach is adopted, it is less likely browsers will render sites incorrectly and so the level of testing can be reduced.

Testing

When a black and white approach to browser support is employed, testing can become expensive and time consuming. While website owners want to support as many browsers as possible, web designers want to limit the number supported to make testing manageable.

However, if a modern approach is adopted the burden of testing is reduced. This is because instead of testing focusing on pixel perfect precision across all browsers, the focus is on usability and accessibility.

Obviously, when claiming support for all browsers it becomes impossible to test in every browser combination. Instead it is necessary to prioritize browsers based on website statistics and ensure accessibility by testing in these.

The number of browsers and versions that a site is tested on will vary depending on the budget available for testing. However, even testing on a handful of browsers will normally cover the majority of users experiences (as a relatively low number of browsers dominate the market). In addition, those browsers that are not tested should reliably render the page because no unnecessary code or hacks are used to build the site.

Conclusion

In conclusion, building websites that are enhanced for more capable browsers – improves accessibility, reduce costs and ensure every user gets the best experience possible within the limitation of their choice of browser.

145. Baby Jack

On this week’s show Paul looks at how to communicate better with your users. Marcus examines ways to improve your contracts and Ryan has a baby (not actually on the show).

Download this show.

Launch our podcast player

Watch the behind the scenes video

Housekeeping

Two pieces of housekeeping before we begin:

  • First, congratulations to Ryan Taylor our producer and Michelle on the birth of their first child. We want to send our love to them all and welcome Jack Taylor to the world!
  • Second, just a quick note to say we will be holding our live Christmas special on the 8th December at 2.30PM UK time. The show will be an open question and answer time so either send in your questions in advance or come along and join us in the chatroom. We will also be doing a feature on this years top Christmas gifts for geeks. You can vote for your suggestions over at UserVoice.

News and events

Google goes social

The biggest and most controversial story of the week is the addition of SearchWiki to Google search results.

SearchWiki is a way for you to customize search by re-ranking, deleting, adding, and commenting on search results. You can move the results you like to the top or add a new site. You can also write notes attached to a particular site and remove results that you don’t feel belong. These modifications will be shown to you every time you do the same search in the future.

However, most controversially you can also share some of these changes with other users. This has led to fears of spamming and negative commenting as users attempt to manipulate the results.

Personally, this feels like a storm in a tea cup. It is an interesting new feature but I really do not see it catching on in any significant way. Only the most extreme power users will bother using these features and the majority will never see the change.

For example, even if website owners do attempt to manipulate users by spamming notes or adding negative comments about competitors, the vast majority will never see these notes. Users have to actively choose to view other users notes from a tiny link in the footer.

I say let stupid website owners spam these comments. It will keep them busy doing something which ultimately will make no difference to the popularity of their site.

Where this could be useful is when I can identify friends who I trust. Being able to see their notes or reordering of results would be of interest to me. Until then, this is non-starter.

In browser web development tools

In last week’s show we listed your top web development applications. Interestingly several of those applications were browser addons such as the web developer toolbar and Firebug.

This week Smashing Magazine has reviewed 15 in-browser web development tools that offer a variety of debugging and coding features.

The list ranges from the web known like FireBug to the more obscure like Fangs (for showing how a screen reader might read a page) and ColorZilla (for quickly listing all the colors on a particular web page).

Other tools featured include:

  • YSlow – a Firefox extension that analyzes a Web page for front-end performance.
  • Fiddler – an Internet Explorer extension that analyzes and profiles a Web page’s HTTP traffic.
  • DebugBar – a debugging extension for the Internet Explorer.
  • Web Accessibility Toolbar – an extension for Internet Explorer and Opera that quickly evaluating and analyzing your Web content’s accessibility.

If you are regularly coding this list is a must read.

From tables to CSS and back again

Kevin Yank, the co-author of Everything You Know About CSS is Wrong has written an excellent article on Think Vitamin telling us it is time to build websites using tables.

Before you all start sending Kevin hate email I should point out he is referring to CSS tables.

Let’s face it, the worst thing about CSS is its support for column based layout. Sure, it does a great job at absolute position but floats just make no sense! As Kevin writes…

You couldn’t come up with a more convoluted way of expressing page layout if you tried!

Fortunately with the imminent arrival of IE8 all major browsers will soon support CSS tables. This means any group of elements can be made to display like rows and columns within a table. Suddenly designing layout in CSS is as easy as using HTML tables.

I know what you are thinking… ‘what about IE6 and 7?’ Kevin addresses this in his article. He suggests that because it is so easy to layout using CSS tables we will have the time to design in CSS tables for modern browsers and the fall back on floats for IE6 and 7. He goes on to suggest that perhaps it is worth simplifying your design slightly for these older browsers to further speed up the process. He believes (and I agree) that clients would agree to this if they understood the cost savings.

Overall, I think this is a very exciting transition and one that will help bring across those hold out ‘table based designers’.

Advice for long term success

Our final news story today is some advice from the founder of Amazon. Jeff Bezos has done an interview with the ‘US News and World Report’ on how to run a successful business. The advice he shares is something that applies to all of us whether we are running a website or building a freelance career.

From reading the article I took away three lessons…

  • Have a long term strategy – Whether in business or running a website, you need to look ahead. Too many of us are thinking about the short term. What feature should we implement next? Where is the next salary is going to come from? Jeff encourages us to look further and work towards long term and visionary objectives.
  • Do not be distracted – Jeff also encourages us not to be put off by others who do not ‘get’ your long term vision. Stick to your guns and keep going. It is easy to have your confidence knocked by the criticisms of others or problems you encounter along the way.
  • Take risks – I am a great believer in taking risks from time to time. A part of this is excepting failure. If you want to double the amount you succeed you must also double the number of times you fail. As Churchill once said Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.

Sure, the interview is not about web design and is written by a guy who can afford to think long term, ignore others and take risks. However, it is still good advice and something we need to take on board both as web designers and website owners.

Back to top

Feature: Successful communication

We put a lot of time and attention into the content on our sites, but what about our other communications? We send out newsletters, post blogs, participate in forums. All of these reflect on our brand and the way we are perceived.

In this week’s feature Paul examines how to improve our communications with users.

Back to top

Listeners feedback:

Sign-off and payment

We have this question from an anonymous listener:

I have a designer’s contract in front of me and I am getting a ‘feeling’. The contract doesn’t discuss much in terms of scope; just really limits risk for the designer. Though I can understand the need, I raise an eyebrow to focusing more on ‘not getting burned’ than ‘providing a good design’ … so here is the big question. The designer wants 50% upfront and 50% on an arbitrary completion date or “prior to file relinquishment, or upload and/or assembly of website on clients web server.” My thought is I am not paying $X for a pdf mock-up … I am paying for a site redesign and would like to see it work live prior to getting signoff. (or payment) Inevitably, there is a trust issue; I believe we have both been burned in past client/ designer relationships and are treating each other cautiously. Is there an industry norm which could help the situation? My perspective is how it will look live, especially considering different browsers, am I off base as a client to see the design work live prior to payment?

Ok, so picking this apart from the top:

Firstly, having a contract is a good thing. Full stop. But, you don’t have to blindly agree to whatever is put in front of you. If you don’t like what you’re reading then amend and send it back. This may also mean that you want to get legal advice – I guess that depends on your confidence dealing with the legalese involved in most contract documentation.

Contracts should be made up of two parts:

  1. the terms and conditions (the legal stuff) that should cover obligations, deliverables, rights, liability etc.
  2. the Schedule that should be a detailed description of the project – tasks, timescales, price, payment terms etc. It should also include detail on what the testing process is, what browsers/operating systems etc.

Ideally risk should be limited for both parties. A good contract makes expectations clear for both sides and lays out what should happen if something goes wrong.

Regarding payment terms, it is perfectly normal for a contractor to ask for a percentage of the total cost up front. But, it doesn’t necessarily have to be half up front, half on completion. We often spread invoicing over 4 or 5 different points over a project. This is good for our clients as it is an incentive for us to reach certain milestones along the way. One question I have here is – does this particular designer want payment literally on commencement? We provide 30 days for our clients to pay bills, so even though we may invoice on commencement, we will be a month into the project before we receive payment.

Ok, more detail… the contractor wants final payment:

  • On an arbitrary completion date – you should not agree to this. Payment by a particular date is not acceptable as the work may not be completed and the delay may not be down to you.
  • Or “prior to file relinquishment” – this is not unheard of. Basically, they are saying ‘you pay us and you’ll get your stuff’. Which is fair enough as long as you (quite rightly point out) have witnessed the site operating correctly in a ‘live’ environment. I’ll come onto this shortly.
  • Or upload and/or assembly of website on clients web server – this is what you want I believe.

A ‘live’ environment doesn’t necessarily have to mean your web server. We test all our web development work on our own development server prior to making it live and we ask our clients to sign-off on this environment prior to pushing live. We do, however, rarely invoice until the site is live because there are possible issues with the live environment that we may not have envisaged. Particularly, hosting platforms often need to be able to support certain technologies – if they don’t, you have a problem. If the designer is providing the hosting then that is unlikely to be an issue. It also gives them an option of taking your site down if you don’t pay. That way, they can happily make the site live prior to sending you the final invoice. Do they offer hosting?

So, in conclusion, I would push for the final invoice to be on live and tested release of the website. I would also propose that payment is split into 3 points – on commencement, on design look and feel sign-off and finally, on live and tested release.

Back to top

 

143. Partnership

On this week’s show Paul and Marcus discuss how to promote your web application, ways to improve the client/designer relationship and tools for managing your font library.

Download this show.

Launch our podcast player

Watch the behind the scenes video

News and events

Obama top technology promises

One of the most exciting things about being at this years FoWD conference in New York was that I got to witness the election of the next U.S. president.

Whatever your political persuasions it was a landmark election. Not only will Obama be the first African American president he is also probably the most technically aware.

Obama campaigned aggressively online, from a dedicated YouTube channel to Obama pages on Facebook and MySpace as well as Twitter feeds. He even had his own iPhone application.

So what can we expect from this tech-savvy President? How will he shape the future of U.S. online presence and possibly that of the entire web? An article on tgdaily entitled ‘Barack Obama’s Top technology promises‘ gives us a roundup of various technological promises from Obama’s speeches. These include:

  • A commitment to Net Neutrality
  • A desire to expand broadband penetration in the U.S.
  • A review of the current wireless spectrum usage
  • Tougher legislation around online security.

Of course, promises made on the campaign trail are one thing. We shall see what the reality turns out to be.

Could Microsoft consider adopting Webkit?

Talking of things that may never be, a young (and very brave) developer at Microsoft recently asked Steve Ballmer:

Why is IE still relevant and why is it worth spending money on rendering engines when there are open source ones available that can respond to changes in Web standards faster?

Ballmer’s response was surprising to say the least:

There will still be a lot of proprietary innovation in the browser itself so we may need to have a rendering service. Open source is interesting. Apple has embraced Webkit and we may look at that, but we will continue to build extensions for IE 8.

Although some have seen this as a sign that Microsoft may adopt Webkit, personally I am sceptical. Were Microsoft to completely change its rendering engine it would inevitably break large numbers of sites and cause outrage among many of their large corporate clients.

The backlash when moving from IE6 to IE7 was massive. Moving to Webkit would conflict with Microsoft’s mantra of ‘not breaking the web’.

That said, we can dream. Without a doubt the real innovation and competitive advantage among browsers is in features, not rendering engines. This would in many ways be a smart move allowing Microsoft to concentrate on differentiation through ‘extensions’ and functionality, rather than wasting time on getting pages to display correctly.

WCAG 2.0 resources

Something that is definitely going to happen very soon is the release of WCAG 2.0.

WCAG 2.0. has now become a proposed recommendation. This means it is not only technically complete but has been successfully implemented on a large variety of sites. In short, it has been proved to work.

According to the Web Standards group this means it could therefore be released before Christmas.

This is hugely significant and very exciting from an accessibility point of view. WCAG 2.0. has come a long way from its controversial beginnings and is now a very good set of guidelines.

Now is the time to start building compliant sites and the Web Standards Group has provided some useful resources for implementing WCAG 2.0.

Prototyping with XHTML

Our final story is a post on the Boxes and Arrows website encouraging us to ‘Prototyping with XHTML‘.

The article lays out an approach to wireframing and prototyping, which is based entirely around the use of XHTML. Starting with the XHTML itself, you build up the structure and elements within your site. You then add CSS and Javascript to further refine the concept.

It is an approach with a lot of merit. Unlike other methods, the prototype is not thrown away but becomes apart of the final deliverable. It is also an approach particularly suited to multiple iterations, allowing you to refine the design over time.

In a world of web applications it is becoming increasingly important to demonstrate user interactions in a way static comps cannot. However, although this approach is appealing I do not believe it replaces the Photoshop mockup. Client’s like to see ‘finished’ looking designs. That said, it is another useful tool in your arsenal and you should be sure to read this post.

Back to top

Feature: A Partnership of Cooperation

At this years FoWD I shared how the relationship between web design agency and client is fundamentally broken. Where there should be mutual respect and cooperation, there is negativity and mistrust. Read More.

Back to top

Listeners feedback:

Marketing a web application

Nick Charlton writes: Long time listener, haven’t asked a question before though..

Apart from your blog, the podcast and twitter, how else have you marketed GetSignOff?

To be honest, I have done very little marketing yet. However, I know that has got to change. The problem is that I am not a trained marketeer and so don’t really know what I am doing. That said I do have a rough plan:

  • Free pro accounts – While in beta we gave away numerous pro accounts to ‘web celebs’. However, to be honest it was a waste of time. These guys were either too busy to review it or just didn’t feel it was worth writing about. This time I intend to give free accounts to those who blog about the application. Not entirely sure how I am going to do this yet but I think it might generate some buzz.
  • Offering discounts – Discounts are an effective way of spreading word of mouth. Again I am not entirely sure if or when we will do this, but offering the occasional discount should encourage people to tell their friends.
  • Targeting appropriate publications – I am in the process of writing a number of articles either directly or indirectly related to GetSignOff. I have also asked some sites to review the application. I have approached sites like Digital Web, Think Vitamin and printed publications such as .net. Having a product aimed at people like myself makes identifying appropriate publications easy.
  • Producing supporting video content – I have already produced the ‘Getting design sign off‘ presentation but also intend to make some shorter tutorials for YouTube. These will contain valuable content in their own right, but will also promote GSO.
  • Utilising CSS galleries – Because my audience are web designers we have submitted GSO to several CSS galleries. We know that many web designers use these sites and so this gives our application a lot of exposure.
  • Use speaking opportunities – Speaking opportunities have been a great opportunity for promoting GSO and I have started tailoring my speaking slots around the subject of sign off.

In time we may consider advertising through things like Google Adwords or the Deck. However, until we are confident in the return on investment we are not willing to invest more money in anything other than development.

Font management

Aurel writes: I would realy like to know how designers deal with fonts? From personal experience, I have alot of fonts and it takes me time to find or manage them. So I was wondering if you know of any way to group the fonts, e.g. when you go through the drop menu of fonts in photoshop, they apear in groups (or something along those lines).

The solution I use was recommended on the Rissington Podcast (oh the shame of admitting that.)

It is a piece of software called FontExplorer X which is available for both the mac and PC. It has some superb features if you are serious about fonts. These include:

  • Organising your fonts – Organise using a library, folders, tags and even smart sets. You can directly access all typefaces from a certain foundry or all fonts tagged with a certain keyword? You can even view all italic fonts.
  • Auto activation – FontExplorer allows you to decide which fonts are available in which applications. This is ideal if you want to avoid scrolling through large numbers of fonts in applications like Photoshop.
  • Font information – FontExplorer gives you a clear customisable preview of your fonts as well as detailed information on the character set and usage restrictions.

The application also has an in built store that allows you to buy additional fonts within the same intuitive interface. I am guessing this is how they manage to offer the whole application absolutely free.

Back to top

141. Feedback

In this week’s show, Paul Annett joins us to discuss how he pushes the boundaries of CSS and we look at how to improve your website through user feedback.

Download this show.

Launch our podcast player

News and events

Working from home

I suspect the vast majority of people listening to this podcast spend at least some of their time working from home. In today’s world, doing the type of work we do, there is no reason not to.

However, home working is not the utopia some believe. It has its own challenges and problems. For me it is a constant sense of guilt that I am not pulling my weight in the business. For others it is a lack of motivation or fighting the distraction of housework and family.

With some many of us struggling with the relatively new environment of home working it is great to see people sharing their experiences in a new A List Apart article (Working from home: Readers respond).

This article has some great advice and although it contradicts itself in parts (different people deal with home working in different ways) it is full of ideas that I either already implement or will be soon.

While I am talking about A List Apart I want to quickly mention "Progressive Enhancement with CSS". This is a follow up article to "Understanding Progressive Enhancement" an article we mentioned in an earlier show. It is a great article that explains one possible technique for ensuring your CSS squeezes the best out of as many browsers as possible. If you have a chance, give it a read.

Everything you know about CSS is wrong

Talking about CSS, yet another book on the subject has been released this week. However, this one is different. Written by Rachel Andrews and Kevin Yank, "Everything You Know About CSS Is Wrong" is aimed at web designers who already know CSS well. The emphasis is on emerging techniques and future CSS support.

I haven’t read this book yet (although I do have it on order), but it looks very exciting. It has been a while since I have got to experiment with CSS and so this will hopefully point me in the right direction.

It tackles subjects like Internet Explorer 8, CSS tables and CSS3. These are all topical subjects and so the book appears to have a lot of potential.

I will review the book once I have read it and we intend to get Kevin on the show to talk about some of the techniques.

Reduce your business costs with free stuff

With the economy in tatters and a general sense of impending doom, we are beginning to see posts on how to cut cost and tighten belts. One such article is "Reduce Your Business Costs With Free Stuff" on the Think Vitamin website.

The article is a mixture of ideas on how to save money in your business. Some will save you thousands and apply only to larger companies, while others save only a few pounds a month. However whatever type of business you run, from a humble part time freelancer to a multi-national design agency, there is something in here for you.

Ideas include:

  • Cutting costs on your phone system without reverting to VoIP
  • Subletting office space
  • Open source versions of basecamp, Microsoft office, campfire and much more
  • Moving email and hosting in house

Although I think some of the suggestions are somewhat short term (Managing email internally would quickly become an expensive headache) I generally agree with most of what is suggested.

If you are beginning to feel the squeeze then this one is worth the read.

HTML Email: What mail clients are people using?

Finally this week there has been an interesting evolution in our understanding of HTML email clients. This has been nicely summarised by Alex Walker on the Sitepoint blog. He writes:

There are lots of reasons for hating HTML Email, but perhaps no#1 on most people’s hit list is having to produce HTML Email to deliver to potentially hundreds of different mail clients and configurations.

Now, clearly it’s completely impractical to test your work on hundreds of mail rigs, but the question is, where do you draw the line? Generic browser usage statistics are reasonably common, but mail clients stats?

In the past you could confidently make up whatever numbers you liked on those question without fear of being caught out. But that may be changing.

Litmus, who produce an excellent web-based browser and email testing suite are now publishing email client usage statistics from their new Fingerprint email analysis system. It makes very interesting reading.

Alex goes on to summarise the key findings which include:

  • 60% of people use web based clients
  • Just over 80% of the HTML email market is dominated by Outlook, Hotmail and Yahoo!
  • Business still generally stick with Outlook although they seem reluctant to upgrade to 2007

Interesting stuff.

Back to top

Interview: Paul Annett on Pushing the Boundaries of CSS

Paul Boag: Joining me today is Paul Annett from clear:left, good to have you on the show Paul.

Paul Annett: Thank you very much. Nice of you to have me here.

Paul Boag: So Paul is, with a few others from his company, the people who really make clear:left happen, rather than Andy and Jeremy and Rich, which we know, well Richard does work, but Andy and Jeremy certainly don’t do anything do they?

Paul Annett: Well, you know, they fly around the world a bit you know?

Paul Boag: Yeah that counts. I guess..

Paul Annett: No, we all chip in, obviously. Everyone does their fair share, so we say.

Paul Boag: Very diplomatic of you. I feel like I can insult them over this as I do the equivalent of no work in my role as well.

Paul Annett: I was going to say… Well there’s eight of us at clear:left, yeah we all just chip in. We’re all caught making the tea, that sort of stuff.

Paul Boag: Cool. Well tell us about your role. What is it you do at clear:left?

Paul Annett: Well, I’m a user experience designer. So that means, well it’s more than just making a web site look pretty, which were are accused of sometimes in the trade; to make sure that the sites are easy to use, as well as a pleasure to use really. That’s something that’s often overlooked with some web site design companies, obviously none of your audience.

Paul Boag: Obviously not.

Paul Annett: It’s a vital ingredient in the mix really. My job does overlap with some of the other guys in the office. Basically, we all know each other’s jobs fairly well so we chip in and share some responsibilities. My main focus is UX design. We’ve also got the others guys doing information architecture, they tend to start the project off with handing over wire frames or prototypes to me. Then once I’ve finished my bit I then hand over the designs to our front end developers who then code up the HTML and CSS. As I say we do overlap a bit more than that but that’s basically how it works.

Paul Boag: I’m quite interested in how that works. You are saying you don’t do too much HTML and CSS, or how does it work.

Paul Annett: I don’t do a lot right now, I used to when I was freelance before joining clear:left. I used to do pretty much everything on a project. I don’t do a lot now; I don’t really have time to. The occasions when I do get time to are when we are working on our own projects. I especially seem to have had a bunch of project holding pages or client holding pages in the past where Natalie and Jeremy who do the front end are busy doing other projects and we need to just get something up there while the design is being made. So I will code up that kind of thing. I don’t really get to work on a lot of the big life projects, but then I’m no where near as proficient as Natalie and Jeremy are at those kind of things. I think they would have a fit if they considered my code going live.

Paul Boag: See that’s quite interesting, isn’t it? You’ve begun to build a bit of a reputation as somebody that does-I don’t know-CSS embellishments for want of a better word on some of your designs. You know the kind of thing that other web designers go oh. The most kind of well known example would be the Silverback holding page where you have the clever resizing background How did that come about? Where did that idea come from?

Paul Annett: It comes from… it’s fortune, really, that I happened to be building that page because it was one of the holding pages. I always look for something unusual to do, or something that’s going to catch someone’s eye, that kind of thing. That particular technique was quite appropriate because the site has quite a niche audience, in terms of web designers. People who wouldn’t necessarily pick up on the subtleties and things that I like that are in there, they’re like hidden gems, wouldn’t care. Web designers seem to catch on to that, it’s something they haven’t seen before. The particular technique itself was just a happy accident, really, because I virtually designed the site, it’s a very simple little holding page with the gorilla icon, designed by Arch Nemesis podcaster, John Hicks.

Paul Boag: Well he designed our logo as well so he can’t be that arch nemesis

Paul Annett: That was fantastic drawing on it’s own. But then when I put the vines there, I was just thinking finally give it some kind of depth. I was fiddling around with some of the CSS, and because I don’t know, this is a benefit, because I don’t know CSS like the back of my hand. I do sort of dip in and out. I might make mistakes. Those mistakes might accidentally do something that makes me go oh hang on maybe I can actually use that for something, which is what happened in this case. I happened to position the only layer of vines that I had a percentage off the screen. It moved in relation to the grid. That got me thinking, well maybe I can do this with multiple layers of vines. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but I happened to mention that I had launched the holding page on twitter and a few people.

Paul Boag: All hell broke loose.

Paul Annett: Yeah the few people that follow me thought oh that’s nice and they twittered it, and other people twittered it. Before we knew it, a day later, we had 25,000 views on the web site and we were thinking wow we’ve hit something here. 50% of those people signed up for more information about our product, which it didn’t even exist yet, and the web site didn’t even say what it’s about. So they were just intrigued to find out more based on the what they had seen.

Paul Boag: So that caught you very much by surprise then?

Paul Annett: Oh yeah We were kind of overwhelmed. If it had been, in an anyway, some kind of planned INAUDIBLE machine, then we would have waited until we had actually started building the app probably. We had over 10,000 people signed up for something we were thinking we’ve really got to pull something out of the bag here. Hopefully we did.

Paul Boag: Well you do have very good feedback on it. That really demonstrates well the power of design, that even something that, let’s be honest, is maybe, gimmicky is not the right word but you know, isn’t fundamental to the functionality of the site, yet had a huge marketing impact. So it was very worthwhile.

Paul Annett: Exactly. These things, they are gimmicky. They’re things that people come back to and play with and just want to fiddle around and look at it again. They don’t mean anything. The idea is that they entertain me and maybe some other web designers. It just happened that it entertained 25,000 web designers.

Paul Boag: Is this something that you do regularly? Do you sneak things like this in a lot?

Paul Annett: It is something that I like to do, as I said, to entertainment myself. But I do now look for places where I can sneak these things in. I think I’ve always done it really. I always strive to do something unusual. Back in the days of my freelance site, which is nice-design.co.uk, which is still there but not updated since IE8 so if you are using IE8 it will break. Even then, that was one of the first sites where the header and the sidebar were fixed and it was only the content that scrolled. It’s an unusual thing to see, other than the framesets, obviously, back in the day. I always try to sneak these things in. And when I’ve been working here at clear:left, last year’s de-construct site where we snuck in an Easter egg. There’s a style switch on it, I don’t know if you saw it, but when the site launched it was like a wire frame and along the top there a time line which said the progress of the site as it was being built. It was played as if it was being built live as the event got nearer. The time line at the top was actually a style sheet switcher and we deliberately hid the mouse cursor and made it not look like a bunch of links so that if people found it by chance then they would be pleasantly delighted at the surprise of these extra designs on the site that they’d found. Actually we had a few people email us and say terrible usability, they don’t look like links and the mouse cursor doesn’t look like a hand when you move over them. They kind of missed the point, it wasn’t supposed to look like a link, it was supposed to be a hidden little gem for people to find. That got good feedback as well.

Paul Boag: It’s that creating a sense of satisfaction from a user that they found something special or you know, it’s that little bit of wow factor.

Paul Annett: Yeah. When people are then able to say their friends oh go on look at this, then they feel like part of an exclusive little club of people that are in the know. Definitely.

Paul Boag: You talked a lot of the Silverback example of how basically that came about because you were fiddling with CSS and then something didn’t behave as you expected it to and you saw some potential in there. So that was very much a technology driven way of coming to it. Is it always like that or are sometimes these things planned in from the start. I guess in others words, do you have the ideas and implement them or how does it happen?

Paul Annett: It really varies. Sometimes it’s design driven, like with the de-construct site last year, that was design driven and we wanted to have something which resembled the process that building a web site out there. The silverback one was kind of technology driven but also slightly design driven because I wanted to give it that depth. To take that one step further, I’ve used the same technique on the UX London site. UX London is another conference were running next year in June, uxlondon.com. The technique that I used on silverback is reimplemented there. There’s no three dimensional movement or anything like that, but as you resize the window, the logo changes color. That’s just done by having a transparent window through the logo in the shape of the U and the X, so as you resize the window, the background color behind the whole page slides sideways and changes the color of the logo. This kind of this could be done with Flash, it could be done with Java Script, but I don’t know Flash, and I don’t know Java Script, so it is me trying to find my own little work around and quirky way of doing things really.

Paul Boag: I guess the thing that you know when you start thinking about these things is browser support. Some of these things you are doing are kind of either very advanced CSS or very hackerish CSS so either way you come up with browser support issues. Do you worry about that or is it just that they’re extras and it doesn’t really matter.

Paul Annett: Well fortunately because the audience for the sites that we’ve done in this sort of extreme way are web designers so you know they are going to be using the latest browsers. They’re going to be using firefox and they’re not going to be using IE6. We wouldn’t go to that sort of an extreme on a client web site and everything that we do, everything that leaves our doors is valid CSS, valid HTML. It wouldn’t be allowed not to be if you know what I mean. We’re very standards aware as a company, but I do like to kind of push the boundaries on things a little bit and see what I can get away with. Not in anyway inaccessible, but just not very conventional and if it doesn’t work in IE6 and doesn’t work in other browsers then as long as we implement something that looks the same but without the effects then that’s fine. The silverback site, if you look at it in IE6 is just a gorilla in front of some vines, no movement, nothing lost. Nobody coming to that site will be like there’s something missing here, but they just won’t get that extra little embellishment.

Paul Boag: It’s that graceful degradation.

Paul Annett: Progressive enhancement really. Most people that do have the technology get the extra stuff. This isn’t a company policy, but personally I’m usually in the favor of, I’ve seen quite a couple of sites recently that had a browser upgrade nag bar where if you’ve got IE6 then it says hey just upgrade your damn browser, you’re missing out on stuff. We’d never do that, we wouldn’t put that on a client site here, but I might put that on my own site. I haven’t, but I might.

Paul Boag: Sounds like a good idea to me. What’s the kind of process you go through in getting these extras added in? Are they kind of planned in from day one. When you, say for example, did the UX London web site, did you have it in your head right from the beginning that you wanted to do this with the logo, or something occurred to you further down the design process? When did it happen, is it in the design stage, the build stage?

Paul Annett: With that particular one, that was something that I tried out on a previous site. It didn’t really work 100% and we thought we’ll do something else with the site. But I had it in the back of my mind that I wanted to do it from the start on that project. But in general, again it varies really. If, sorry to be so vague and unspecific.

Paul Boag: No no, that’s the nature of design isn’t it?

Paul Annett: One thing I do advocate is that with all our client’s stuff, as well as our own stuff, I always present mock ups in a browser. I never send out a JPEG of mock ups to clients because for start, they are going to view it at the wrong size, they are going to look at it in preview or some kind of windows equivalent, image viewer, and it’s going to be resized to fit their screen, so they’re not going to see it in the context of the web site anyway. Not only that, but it also gives you the opportunity to actually build part of the site so you might have the header as a flat JPEG and the footer as a flat JPEG and the left hand side as a flat JPEG but the right hand side, where you want some kind of interactivity, you could spend a little bit of time building that so that it kind of explains to the client that this is what I want to happen here, roughly. Obviously it wouldn’t be the final thing because you don’t want to invest that much time up front, to give them that little bit of insight. That’s what I do when I am building holding pages or whenever I do get the opportunity to do something like that in house here is that I’ll code up some bits I think is the unique, gimmicky bit of it, and all the rest will just be a flat JPEG. It’s just to sell the idea internally, if you like, and to have everyone gather around my Mac here and ridicule me and laugh at you.

Paul Boag: It makes sense that more and more web design that we are doing these days has got so many interactive elements with use of Java Script and various other things, that a static JPEG doesn’t always cut it anymore does it?

Paul Annett: No, exactly. Another thing we do to combat that here at clear:left is that we often build prototypes of a site, instead of having like a paper wire frame which we often do as well but if there are interactions that need to be explained to the client we’ll build a flat wire frame of it in HTML just using framework and Java Script libraries and simulate the AJAX side of things just with hard coded Java Scripts. It’s also not production quality code, but the prototype wire frame and the flat JPEG combined will give the client a better idea of exactly how the finished site will be.

Paul Boag: Sounds good. We’ve talked a couple of time about is this gimmicky, is this not you know… I’m quite interested as where you feel the line is drawn between good design here and tipping into that naff gimmick area. Do you know what I mean?

Paul Annett: Yeah. There are a couple of things that haven’t seen the lights of day yet, which maybe they will one day. I guess it depends on how much time it’s going to take and how much value it gives us at the end of the day. Using a similar kind of thing with positioning elements we’ve got these great big letters in the clear:left office and we regularly rearrange the letters that spell clear:left to spell different words on the shelf at the office. To simulate this online I’ve built a little page which has got the word clear:left across the page when it’s at full screen at 1024 pixels wide and as you resize the window all the letters swap places because they’re all positioned at different places at different percentages off the screen, blank bits of image and all this complicated CSS positioning going on. When you reach 800 pixels wide it says elf:cartel. So it doesn’t have any fundamental reason or… it doesn’t do anything, it’s pointless, so it’s not going to be anywhere probably. But that is too, possibly gimmicky. There are some ideas which are not necessarily web based which are gimmicky but do work like when we were planning this year’s de-construct and INAUDIBLE wants to get some silverback promotion in there. I talked to him why don’t we just have a gorilla one day running around dishing out silverback branded bananas. Everyone laughed and thought it would be stupid, and then we did it. And then it was really successful and everyone loved it. Yeah, it was a bit of a gimmick but again it kind of fitted with the brand so it worked.

Paul Boag: It’s a fine line isn’t it, you walk in things like that? Because you know you could have been absolutely ridiculed for something like that. How do you know what is going to go down well and what’s not? I guess you don’t.

Paul Annett: Yeah, luck. I was ridiculed for that here in the office but we went with it and it seemed to work. It was great fun.

Paul Boag: I’ve seen pictures. It looked entertaining if nothing else. Going back to the online stuff, even if you develop something like that, it never sees the light of day, you never know that technique may come in use in a future web site that you develop and it might be appropriate.

Paul Annett: Yeah there’s always like a library of that stuff that we’ve kind of half developed and ideas that we’ve got, notes, that kind of thing. It might well see the light of day in the future

Paul Boag: Let finish off with just a kind of general advice that you like to give designers out there that they look at some of the cool little things that you do and they think I’d really like to do that but I don’t want to just go out and copy him because there’s nothing imaginative in that. I want to kind of get into that mentality of looking for opportunities to do this kind of thing. What advice can you give them? How can you start them off?

Paul Annett: There’s loads of stuff that’s come out as a result of the silverback hype, if you like. There was an article that I did on ThinkVitamincom which kind of explains how to achieve that technique. People have taken that and done all sorts of other things with it. I’ve seen someone creating moving 3d images and that style of a zoetrope(?) toy thing, which uses the same kind of principles but applied in a different way. So by all means, the best advice in all cases of web design is to look at the code, see how someone else has done something and see how you can adapt that to your own stuff. One thing that I really rely a lot on is, especially in these hidden Easter eggie things, is alpha transparency and thinking of how you can create a window through the front layer of a web site so you could have, instead of having a white background on the web site, put a white foreground layer with a window through it, shaped in the shape of whatever, and see how you can make that interact with the background layer so as you perhaps scroll down the page something becomes visible through this previously invisible transparent window. There’s a site called webleeddesign which does this brilliantly. That’s my ultimate, I would have loved to have made something like that, it’s really good. Only that one page, but it’s really nice with that alpha transparency in the front there. Think about what you can do with resizing the text on a browser so-we redesigning the clear:left site at the moment, hopefully it will be online soon-now I’m giving up an Easter egg that’s coming up on it.

Paul Boag: No one listens to this podcast so it’s fine.

Paul Annett: There are certain things hidden on certain pages and if you bump the text size up a couple of points then those things would become visible because of course you can control the position of things based on ems. As you resize things, your font size gets bigger, it perhaps moves in relation to the other things and things begin to peak out from behind something that was previously in front of it. I play around with that kind of thing a lot. That’s the advice I’d give you in terms of this particular way of doing things.

Paul Boag: That’s some great advice there, there’s lots of possibility. I like what your saying that it only takes a small number of techniques, you talked about transparency there, you talked about the background stuff, and you talked about the font resizing, but the possibilities of just those three things are endless really. You could do all kinds of things with them.

Paul Annett: Exactly, combine them in different ways. Again someone take this and do something with it, but imagine a line going diagonally across the screen but in font of that you’ve got a completely white page and across that white page is a very narrow slot of transparency, so if your line starts at the top right hand corner all you see is a dot in the top right hand corner but as soon as you start scrolling down the screen, that dot moves to the left because it’s visible through that hole. That’s a very basic example of how you could use windows of alpha transparency interacting with the background to do something which moves horizontally as you scroll vertically. I haven’t done anything with that yet as I haven’t thought of anything good to do with it but maybe someone can.

Paul Boag: That’s absolutely brilliant Paul, there’s some really good advice in there and thank you for taking the time to come on the show. I hope we can get you back on before too long.

Paul Annett: Thanks. Thanks very much for having me.

Thanks goes to Troy Oltmanns for transcribing this interview.

Back to top

Feature: Improving your site with user feedback

Users can be invaluable when deciding how to move a website forward. We should always listen to what they say. However, sometimes that is easier said than done. Read more here.

Back to top

135. Libraries

In this week’s show we talk with John Resig on javaScript libraries and address the question what is more important when we release an app: speed or quality?

Play

Download this show.

Launch our podcast player

News and events

The complexity tax

Don’t you hate it when somebody beats you to the punch? I recently finished writing a report for our biggest client (Wiltshire Farm Foods). It talks a lot about the need to simplify and remove complexity. It is a lesson we should all learn and so I am in the process of turning extracts from the report into a blog post which we will cover in next weeks show.

However, it would appear I have been too slow and that Gerry McGovern has beaten me to it with an excellent post on the cost of complexity. However, where I focus on why simplicity is important, he addresses the underlying causes of complexity.

For me his post is summed up in the following quote…

Most organizations are producing far too much content. Too many emails, too many PowerPoints, too many reports, too many webpages. All this content creation activity keeps a lot of people busy.

If you are part of a large organisation or work on a substantial website you need to read this post.

10 Rules for Driving Traffic Using Forums

What do you do if you have no marketing budget but have some free time to promote your site? Well, there are a number of guerilla marketing techniques you could use but contributing to forums is one of the most effective.

Sitepoint has posted an article explaining why forums are a great way of driving traffic to your site. It goes on to suggest 10 rules for doing so effectively. These include…

  • Build your profile
  • Follow the rules
  • Start by responding
  • Contribute your expertise
  • Don’t be a ‘me too’ poster
  • Don’t self promote
  • Explain yourself, but be brief
  • If you’re wrong, say so
  • Write intelligently and correctly
  • Negativity is a no-no

This is an excellent article and one that you should definitely read before using forums as a marketing tool. If you do not, you are in danger of damaging your brand, rather than driving traffic.

Accessibility in suit and tie

The life of the corporate web worker who cares about standards and accessibility can be a frustrating one; hampered by office politics and archaic content management systems. In an article on the Think Vitamin site, Bruce Lawson looks at what you can do to make sure your projects are as accessible for your users as possible.

Its a very pragmatic article, which I love. Bruce works from the premise that this is going to be tough and makes suggestions like "some accessibility is better than none". He also talks about the need for ‘buy-in from the top’ but goes on to provide practical tips about how to get that buy in. What is more, his arguments for accessibility were backed up with facts. For example…

Finally, he looks at how to get content providers onboard through education and getting them writing HTML rather than relying on the WYSIWYG editor.

UK Government Browser Guidelines

Our final story raises an interesting discussion; should you decide which browsers to support based on popularity or capability?

Apparently, the UK government believes we should test on the basis of popularity. In a draft document advising public sector websites, it suggests that if a browser appears in visitor logs as being below an arbitrary percentage of total “unique visitors”, then it should not be listed as being “fully supported”.

On the surface this appears very sensible. However, as Jon Hicks points out on his site, this can create problems. He writes…

It isn’t clear how the supported browser list would be enforced, but I’m concerned that this approach will encourage browser sniffing, a move that will exclude browsers like Omniweb, Shiira and iCab, simply because their name isn’t ‘Safari’. They share the exact same rendering engine, and therefore require no further testing. You can be more inclusive without spending any extra resources.

In other words we should be defining our list of supported browsers based on capability rather than popularity. This is the approach used by Yahoo! and it is one that I would fully support.

The Yahoo model supports all browsers through progressive enhancement and graceful degradation, without the need to test on every browser. Its a neat solution but one that the UK government guidelines specifically say they do not advocate…

These guidelines do not advocate specific development methodologies, for example graceful degradation or progressive enhancement. However, it is widely accepted that sites conforming to open web standards such as XHTML and CSS are more likely to work well across a wide range of browsers.

How come if they are widely accepted, do they not advocate them?

Fortunately there is an opportunity to change things before this is set in stone. I recommend reading the WaSP article on the recommendations and then sending some polite feedback to the powers that be.

Back to top

Interview: John Resig on javaScript Libraries

Paul:Joining me today is John Resig, who is famous for jQuery and the work that he has been doing with jQuery. John, it is great to have you on the show.

John:Well, thanks for having me.

Paul:I have to say this at the beginning. I have to get this out of the way. I absolutely love working with jQuery, and it’s an absolute pleasure. I remember twittering just a few days ago that every time I start doing anything in jQuery it makes me smile, so that’s got to be a good sign.

John:Well that’s good. I’m glad to hear it.

Paul: What I wanted to do today is get you on the show and not just for me to suck up and say how great jQuery is, but to kind of look a little bit broader at the subject of JavaScript libraries. Because I have to say from a personal point of view my opinion has changed quite a lot about JavaScript libraries and I’m kind of interested in your perspective on things as somebody that’s actually created one. I think the place I want to start is for a long time I had the attitude that you shouldn’t use JavaScript or indeed any library and that you should know the underlying code yourself and all of this kind of thing. Let’s start with the question of how do you know if it’s appropriate to use a JavaScript library? When is it appropriate to use it? What’s your opinion on that?

John:Well, I guess my opinion is it’s always appropriate, and I mean the simple fact of the matter is that there’s two things. One is that when you’re developing, you’re trying to support, generally a large number of browsers simultaneously. This is the same as if you are doing CSS development, JavaScript development, you want to support a large enough market share and you want to make that development process easy. The problem is twofold that you’re going to be encountering weird browser bugs and the APIs, the different utilities the browsers provide, will be different. For example, Internet Explorer provides different ways of handling events from all the other browsers. So what libraries do is that they remove you away from dealing with browser bugs, which is huge. And at the same time they provide a simple interface that you can interact with that will just work ubiquitously.

Paul:Is there a problem there in the sense of, you know, somebody came along and they basically learned to write jQuery for example from scratch, but never learned the kind of underlying JavaScript? Is there a problem there, do people need to know JavaScript before they start using a library?

John:It depends on the library, but I don’t think you do. I don’t think you have to know JavaScript. In a lot of ways, at least in my experience with jQuery directly there’s a lot of people who have used jQuery who have never done any programming whatsoever. jQuery does embody a lot of advanced concepts but you don’t necessarily have to know them in order to make good use of jQuery. I know this sort of translates well into some of the other libraries but one point of concern you brought up was what if someone learns a library but doesn’t learn JavaScript? I used to be more concerned about that, if someone only knew a library and I guess from a purist perspective, that’s a bad thing. Fundamentally, you want people to be getting better at programming JavaScript, not this specific thing. However, I think the reality of it is, is that so many people are just using JavaScript or CSS or doing web design, they just want to get their job done. It’s not really a matter for them of becoming an excellent JavaScript programmer or awesome CSS user, you want to get from A to Z and finish their work in an effective manner that works everywhere. So I think it’s important to realize that this market, so to speak, exists. It’s a very large one. And that ignoring it completely will just leave users frustrated and going back to the simple cut and copy paste scripts that they used to use. So, I think what libraries are doing is they are instilling good standards, they are instilling good practices, even though the users don’t necessarily know about it. And then eventually what’s good is that since these libraries have these good practices that users can always open up a library and read about it and try to understand better what’s going on.

Paul:I guess that’s always been a little bit of my concern with relying heavily on a library is that if you come across something that’s a problem or a bug or something like that, you can’t fix it yourself because you don’t necessarily know your way around the library. What’s your response to people that say stuff like that?

John:Well by the same token if you encounter a problem with a browser you are far less capable of fixing that issue. There’s really no way about it other than that ultimately it would be good to have that knowledge, absolutely. I fully support people who want to do that and I’m writing a second book now encouraging people to do that, to dig into libraries, to learn more, to build their own. What’s important here is that you just don’t, you can’t force people to do it if they, one if they don’t want to or if they’re just not capable. There’s no reason I feel to force a designer, someone who’s a designer by trade to learn the fundamentals of object oriented programming, or functional programming. Theoretically that can help them some way in the future but what’s more important to them is doing good design and I think by helping people keep their focus where it should be. Obviously if a library is able to help programmers program better, that’s good as well. It’s all about helping people keeping their focus and making sure they aren’t down a rabbit hole getting sidetracked.

Paul:I think that’s the thing that really attracted me to jQuery is as a front-end interface designer was the fact that I could pick it up and run with it very easily. The conclusion I came to is, “OK. Well if I do by some chance find a major problem with it, there’s a massive community of very clever people out there that I can ask and I can get help from.” So, that kind of reassured me, I think. If then, we’ve kind of come to terms with the fact: “OK we want to use a library.” There are so many different ones out there. Run us through some of the different options available and the pros and cons and how do you go about picking which library is right for you?

John:Well it really depends a lot. There’s a coupe questions you need to answer. Probably the most important of which is you need to ask yourself, how do you want to write JavaScript? Because libraries end up augmenting or really changing the style of how you write JavaScript. So, finding a library that you like how it looks. It sounds very superficial, but you like how it looks, you like how the code feels is a great place to start. There’s obviously a lot of libraries to choose from. There’s a select group of libraries whose quality is generally above the others and the popularity of those libraries generally reflects the quality as well. Out of those I pick generally jQuery, Prototype, Yahoo UI, dojo, then also MooTools and sometimes XJS. What’s interesting is all those libraries are open source and they are all the most popular JavaScript libraries. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. It’s just a matter of fact that in the web these open source frameworks are going to improve better and attract more users and generally have better community to surround them. So out of these libraries though you break down into a lot of different paradigms for development. I’ll try to summarize as best I can, but it really is not substitute for trying it out yourself. Looking and seeing some examples you can have a pretty good feel right away. So, Prototype and MooTools, they both extend the native objects of the language. They both try to improve the JavaScript language itself. So they add new methods to arrays, they make strings better, at the same time they provide things like object-oriented code
, and all the way out to doing things like events and AJAX. The normal things that you would expect. But at a very broad level they are trying to improve the overall quality of the language and of the experience. Then you have Dojo, Yahoo UI, and XJS and they are generally very modular, very package oriented and they have components you can easily snap in and out with nice ways of handling dependencies and it can end up being a very cleanly architected style of coding. They really support object-oriented code, and additionally events, AJAX, all the normal stuff you would expect. I would tend to group jQuery a little bit differently in that jQuery is more oriented toward improving the relationship between JavaScript and HTML and that it’s highly focused on searching through an HTML document, modifying some things, just getting in and getting out. Unobtrusive, and it doesn’t provide any language features, it doesn’t provide any object-oriented code writing features, it’s just hyper-focused at the task on hand.

Paul:It strikes me from my experience with jQuery that it’s very much a tool that’s primarily focused at helping front-end interface people implement the kind of functionality that they require from a usability point of view rather than necessarily doing, I mean would you build massive applications in something like jQuery?

John:It’s absolutely possible and people do it all the time. For example, T-Mobile’s T-Online in Germany, they built their entire user area so like their mail, their calendar, and everything using jQuery. So it’s absolutely used for very large projects. What I think is very interesting for jQuery at least is that while we don’t explicitly provide the object-oriented styles that most hardcore developers are used to we provide some very interesting alternatives especially they way it, like functional programming that I think actually end up suiting development very well. It’s very different, I will completely grant that, but it’s still very capable of scaling quite large.

Paul:So if people go out there and they have a kind of play around with these different libraries and try each of them out as you say to kind of find what fits their style of coding, once they’ve found something that kind of codes in the way they would like to, for example for me the similarities between jQuery and CSS made it a very natural fit, but what are the kind of things that you should look for from a functional perspective? What kind of things should be included in a JavaScript library? Does that make sense?

John:At the very core there should be a set of features. Of the libraries that I listed previously they all have methods for doing DOM traversal, so traversing through an HTML document, modifying an HTML document, events, so handling user interaction, animations and AJAX. All of them have some support for that to one degree or another. You can be fairly safe in knowing that if you pick a library you will have that base level. In my opinion those sets of features are probably the most important features and the ones that you end up using the most with your applications. Some people might say in their particular case that maybe animations aren’t as important, or maybe that they aren’t using AJAX, it really depends but for most of the time that set of features is fairly comprehensive. On top of that you really have to start to, once you’ve tried to use it, and once you’ve played around, there’s a whole set of secondary features that you kind of have to dig into, ones that aren’t immediately code-related. Things like the community around a library, the documentation for a library and even the health of the projects themselves.

Paul:What do you mean by that last one, the health of a project?

John:There’s a lot of things. In health, do they have an active development team? Are there developers? Are there multiple developers? It’s the famous hit by a bus; if a developer is hit by a bus will the project still continue? Is there a team will continue? Can you view the source code? Is there a repository where you can go? Is there a bug tracker where you can submit bugs? And finally is there a test suite, is what you’re going to be using going to be tested and analyzed to make sure it stays working. Another point that’s important to bring up is that a lot of browsers now are starting to integrate the test suites of these libraries into their test suite. So for example actually this is a lot of my work at Mozilla, was integrating the test suites of Prototype, Scriptaculous, jQuery, MochiKit, a bunch of libraries into our test suite such that if we ever added a change that caused a regression to happen in a library we would catch it and we would fix it on our end. Obviously we would do this in a very smart way, we wouldn’t just blindly be like, “Oh something broke!” We would communicate to the library what the issue was or whatever and this has been very big because now you can, there’s an extra level of safety and security here, in that you’ll know that if you’re using a library like this that it’s going to continue to work going forward in these browsers. That’s an extra level of safety that your personal code can’t provide. I think that’s very interesting. I want to jump back here really quick to the other issues I mentioned.

Paul:Sorry, I distracted you there and we took you off topic.

John:It’s OK, it’s OK, of community and documentation. So community, it can be usually be pretty easy to determine the health of the community. All these libraries will have some sort of a mailing list or a forum that you can go to. Just hopping on there, seeing how many messages are posted, seeing what the typical response is like, how they treat new users, just stuff like that it can be really useful because if you’re just starting out, you know you’re going to have some pretty basic questions. Do they understand your problems? Do they help you out? Doing some searches on Google for example to see how many people are talking about it, or using a service like Technorati or something. Are people blogging about it? Is it positive? Are they having problems? The other thing is documentation. This is also pretty easy to tell. If you are starting out with a library, you’re probably going to start out by doing a quick test, running a simple application just to get a feel for it. When you’re doing that you’re immediately going to be in the documentation trying to figure out how things work. I think you’ll be able to determine pretty quickly if the documentation quality meets a standard that you, because if you aren’t, if the documentation just isn’t that good, you’ll immediately have problems and I guess you will have to resort to the mailing list or the forums or whatever. Secondary is, do they have good examples? Do they have books if you want to learn from a book? Do they have books that you can buy to learn from? So again there’s a whole lot of issues here but what a lot of it boils down to is looking at the libraries, looking at their style of code, does it seem alright with you? Then just doing a quick test with each of the libraries that you’ve picked out, building like a menu or just a basic form of interaction. How easy is it? How hard is it? Does it in fact mesh with you well? This is something you can do over the course of a single day and it definitely shouldn’t take you any longer th
an that. If it’s taking longer than that then you probably want to try a different library. Ultimately you should be trying to use these libraries to make your development simpler and easier. If it doesn’t improve your productivity, if it doesn’t improve the quality of your code then you probably shouldn’t be using it to begin with.

Paul:Tell us a little bit about the kind of plug-in architectures that exists around many JavaScript libraries. Certainly I know there’s a strong plug-in architecture with jQuery. Does the same kind of thing exist with other libraries?

John:It depends. What jQuery has is a little bit unique in that we provide a number of plug-in points that plug-ins can snap into and extend how jQuery works. So they can add in new CSS selector behavior, or they can add in new events or all sorts of intricate additions. Other libraries have things that aren’t quite of the same vane, in that they’ll have modules or packages that you can use. Also another thing that varies is how do the various projects treat these plug-ins? At least with jQuery there’s a dedicated plug-in repository that’s used that plug-ins are listed in that you can browse through, you can see ratings, comments, discussions and things like that. Currently no other framework has something similar to that to the best of my knowledge. It’s much looser, just people uploading, putting things to their websites or Google code or some such. So again, at least to me, what makes plug-ins, jQuery-style plug-ins important is that they are, that there’s extension points and that they are supported by jQuery fully.

Paul: The only thing that I think that I kind of struggle with a little bit about plug-ins, you know I love the idea that there are other people out there that can do the hard work for me in that they can develop something I was looking for, and I love the fact that I can go to jQuery, I can type in whatever I’m looking for and it will pull back stuff. I’m always a bit unsure mind about how reliable those plug-ins are, you know as you’ve been saying with the kind of, the core jQuery library that you’ve created I know there’s a big team of developers working on it, I know that it’s thoroughly tested, I know what browsers it’s tested against, all of that kind of stuff. Plug-ins are a bit more of an unknown entity. Is there any kind of advice that you can provide about judging whether a plug-in or module or whatever is reliable or not?

John:I mean you sort of have to use the same standards that you would use in looking at a library. Looking at, what you mentioned, is it tested? Is there good documentation? Are there, how many developers are working on it? Like for example in the jQuery project we started a sort of, sub-project called jQuery Glide in which we’ve taken a whole bunch of plug-ins and actually blessed them and proved them, given them themes, excellent documentation, examples, all this stuff and made them sort of official. We’re doing this more and more, trying to bring in more plug-ins, improve their quality and make sure that they’re up to our standards. There’s still tons and tons of plug-ins that are just excellent, but the issue comes down to that you have to sort of train your eye to look at, and be able to spot when something has good quality. The thing that’s easiest for a plug-in author or a library author to do is to just set up a page that has their code on it and has a basic example. At the very least every single library is going to have that. If you dig in and see that it has documentation, that it has tests, you begin to realize that that plug-in is a much higher quality, at the very least. I think it’s really starting to dig in to these side issues, that you begin to get a better picture of how, of the true nature and of the true health of a particular library.

Paul:Excellent! That’s really useful and I think it’s easy to just look at these libraries and indeed the plug-ins as well and ask, “Well do they have the basic functionality that I require?” But, like you say, looking at things like the community and documentation and things like that are equally important. It’s been very useful John. Thank you for taking the time to come on the show. No doubt we will get you back in the future to talk about some of the specific things going on with jQuery and maybe this book that you’re writing as well, sounds very good. Thanks for your time.

John:Thanks for having me, Thank you.

Thanks to Todd Dietrich for transcribing this interview.

Back to top

Listeners feedback:

Quality or Quickly?

What is more important, to reach market quickly or to launch with a quality product?

I received this question from Pete in South Africa…

I have been working on a small web application, which I hope to launch soon. My problem is that I am spending ages tweaking and improving it before launch. I fear that if I spend much longer on it somebody will beat me to market. What is more important, getting the product right or launching it quickly?

It is a good question and one with no single answer. It is certainly something we have been struggling with as we prepare to launch GetSignOff.

To read the rest of this blog click here.

Back to top

Can Google Chrome topple IE?

Without a doubt the biggest story of the week is that Google has launched its own browser called Chrome. At the moment the browser is only available for windows although a mac and linux will follow shortly.

The launch of Chrome has generated huge publicity and I am sure you are already aware of its emphasis on stability, speed and support for web applications. You probably know too that it is built on webkit so CSS support is good.

The question is whether we will need to start testing our sites in Chrome? Well, take has been strong with figures rising up from 1% to over 6% shortly after launch. But is Chrome going to finally overcome the dominance of Internet Explorer or just cannibalise the market share of IE’s rivals? That is harder to judge.

The browser that finally topples IE will not do so because of quality, but because of brand recognition. If IE was going to fall because of its poor feature set or dodgy rendering it would have done so already. The problem is that most people are quite happy to use IE. It is pre-installed and ready to go. Indeed many simply associate the web with that little blue E.

Sure, other browsers have made remarkable inroads into IE’s market share. However, they have probably pushed as far as they can go. The rest of the market are those people that just don’t care. They know IE, they are familiar with IE. Why change?

Extract from the Google Chrome comic

However, if anybody is going to change that status quo it will be Google. Although many associate that IE icon with the internet, when they click on it they go to the Google homepage. Google has as dominate brand, maybe even more so than Microsoft. If anybody can pursued the hold outs to swap, it is Google.

Google has a huge profile. Never have I seen a browser featured on BBC national news, but today they mentioned the launch of Chrome. They also have a lot of eye balls and with Chrome featured on their minimalist homepage you can expect downloads to go through the roof.

Who knows if they will pull it off. What I do know is that this will certainly be damaging for other browsers especially Firefox which has been heavily backed by Google.

To Version Control or Not?

Version control can seem like a very daunting thing to incorporate into your work flow, but once it’s there you can be left wondering how you ever lived without it. Paul Stanton gives his thoughts and experiences on the subject.

This post has stemmed from an e-mail by Simon Hamp whom has just started working for a PHP development team and has been given the task of assessing their current systems. Simon writes:

I wanted a professional opinion on a proposal I have made to move from file-based version control (i.e. manual folder management) to full-blown source code management.
Is it worth making the change from an existing system and move to something like Subversion for a team of our size, considering that this would change the processes for those who have been here the longest quite considerably?

Version control is one of those things that you already know you should be using, and if you’re like me, have promised yourself for a while that you’ll get round to learning and integrating into your own workflow. Chances are that one day, disaster will strike and you’ll realise why it’s so important.

I’m going to be honest with you here, I can’t profess to be an expert in version control. I’ve been playing around with it, and the team I work with are very close to making it a mandatory part of our design and development workflow, but I hope i can provide some form of assistance in your decision to adopt a version control system, and maybe convince myself in the process.

That being said, I don’t think there even is a decision to be made. You – need – version control. There’s no real question about it. The biggest challenge we face is integrating this into our existing workflows.

Let me take a step back, and explain what version control is for anyone unfamiliar with the concept.

Version Control Systems (VCS) (also known as Revision Control, Source Control or Code Management) is a way of managing multiple versions of the same information, which is most likely – in this case – the source code of your website.

In the simplest terms, VCS allows you to keep track of the development of your source code, keeping track of the changes you make as you go along with all the changes being stored in a repository. You may already use a crude method of version control yourself, naming files such as index1, index2 etc. VCS systems keep track of all these changes, and let you revert to any previous version if the need arises.

The real benefit of VCS comes when you have more than one person working on the same file. Instead of you overwriting each other’s changes, or attempting to manually merge the changes from one developer with the changes of another, the VCS can take care of all this for you, creating branches for each developer to work on which allows multiple developers to work on the same file simultaneously, then merging the changes into a single version, highlighting any conflicts or problems that may arise.

There’s plenty of more detailed descriptions of VCS systems online if you’d like to learn more (Wikipedia might be a good place to start), so I’ll save diving too deep into the rabbit hole for now, I’m sure that if you’d really like to learn more, Paul can work it into future shows. For now, I’ll return to our case in point; “Is it worth making the change from an existing system and move to something like Subversion for a team of our size”.

I work in a team of 11, with 2 other designers and 3 other developers, and we ran into issues recently with a site that needed some last minute changes made. I was asked to do some markup modifications and CSS changes which required me to modify multiple files. This project wasn’t in a VCS system, so I was given a copy of the files on a flash drive. I made my changes, re-saved the files to the flash drive and handed back to the designer. In the mean-time, the designer had made other changes to the files, and needed to merge my changes with her own manually by copying and pasting from my copies of the files. To further complicate matters, the developer then needed to take these files and integrate the markup and CSS into their .NET templates.

I don’t need to tell you that this was an absolute nightmare, at one point we were managing 5 local copies as well as 2 remote copies (one on the dev server, and one on the live server) To be fair I’m not sure if the team has ever hit a problem such as this before, with multiple people working simultaneously on a project and unfortunately we don’t have VCS as a mandatory part of our workflow as yet, but after this experience, I’m sure it won’t take long.

If we did have VCS, I could have checked out the necessary files, made my changes, and checked them in, the other designer could have checked out the same files and made her changes simultaneously, and also checked them in when she’d finished. Then we could have simply merged these together into one, any conflicts would have been highlighted for us to easily rectify. The developer, when ready, could easily deploy these from the dev server to the live one with a couple of commands.

There will be issues with integrating this into your own processes, especially with people who have their own tried and tested systems, but personally I think you really have to put your foot down here. VCS should be a mandatory part of your workflow, especially as your team grows and there are more people involved with projects.

If possible, I’d recommend arranging training sessions on whichever VCS you choose to adopt, you should only need a day, or even a half day to go through the basics of using a VCS for your dev team, I’d even wager (or should that be “hope”) that those who have been professional developers for some time will already have experience of one form of VCS or another and shouldn’t be resistant to using one.

My last point would be to explore the various VCS systems on offer. The main 3 that come to mind when writing this article are Subversion, GIT and Mercurial.

Subversion (SVN) is the system that most listeners will have probably heard of. SVN is a centralised VCS system which centers around a single repository. Subversion is a well known, and generally well supported tool with a wide range of user interface tools available such as such as IDE extensions for most popular IDE’s and Windows Explorer shell extensions like TortoiseSVN. There’s also native Windows and Mac GUI tools available to make the normal command line interface a bit easier to digest.

GIT and Mercurial are slightly different in that they’re Distributed Version Control Systems (or DVCS for short). While Subversion manages a single repository, a DVCS system like GIT has multiple repositories. The best way I can explain is that imagine if my team was working on a project, and we had a repository on our dev server, I can then clone that whole repository to my laptop, and take it away to work on at home, on the train, or at the top of a mountain if I so wished. With a centralised VCS like subversion, you really need access to that central repository to commit your changes, with a distributed system, al
l your developers can mainta

in their own local copies of the repository, commiting changes to the master repository when needed.

GIT is actually the system I’m getting to grips with at the moment, the branching, tagging and merge tools are more stable than the ones within Subversion. Please note that I’m not trying to bait anyone here, and I don’t want to get into a flame war about which VCS is better than the other. GIT’s distributed nature makes more sense to me personally, and allows me to manage my branch without network access if needs be, and in the event that our development web server with the master repository blows up, each developer has a copy of the repo in some form, and there is a good chance that the whole codebase can be rebuilt easily.

So I hope this persuades you into adopting some form of version control, but if you really ask yourself, you already know that you need to use it, and to return to Simon’s original question, I bet your developers already know they should be using it, they just need a little encouragement to integrate version control into their processes, the benefits far, far outweigh the disadvantages.

By Paul Stanton

129. Conferences

This week’s show sees the return of Ryan and Stanton, holding the fort while Paul and Marcus sun themselves on holiday. .

We’ll be talking about taking your first steps into the world of conferences and answering your questions about font smoothing and browser emulators

Download this show.

Launch our podcast player

News and events

Release of Firefox 3.1 Alpha

Last Wednesday saw a new developer release from the Firefox team. Firefox 3.1 Alpha, or “Shiretoko” is now available for download. Shiretoko is built on a pre-release version of the Gecko 1.9.1 platform and introduces several new features for you to play with.

  • Web standards improvements in the Gecko layout engine
    • They don’t actually say what improvements, so I guess we’ll have to trust them with this one but from what i can gather, they’ve added a lot more CSS3 selectors like :nth-child, the CSS3 “word-wrap” property, CSS3 columns, text-shadow, box-shadow, border-image and more.
  • Text APIfor the <canvas> element.
    • This is a quite detailed API for drawing vector text within the canvas element, and is sure to set the hearts ot typophiles beating just a little bit faster.
  • Support for using border images.
    • The design community has been screaming for this for as long as I can remember, the ability to specify images as borders. The whole rounded-corner craze might be slightly out-of-style now, but I’m sure we’ll see some innovation with this feature very soon.
  • Support for JavaScript query selectors.
    • Now I’m not completely down with the javaScript kids, so I apologise if i don’t get this quite right. But the query selectors seem to be a way to target specific selectors instead of having to filter a result set provided by the getElementsByTagName() call, you can now do the filtering before you execute the query.
  • Several improvements to the Smart Location Bar.
    • When you start typing a URL, Firefox starts giving you options to choose from, you can now filter those results while you’re typing.
  • A new tab switching behaviour.
    • Pressing Ctrl+Tab now gives you a filmstrip style overlay which lets you quickly navigate to your open tabs, and mimics the similar feature in most operating systems nowadays.

The alpha is available from the Mozilla Developer Center.

A List Aparts’ 2008 Survey

It’s that time of year again, the A List Apart team have unleashed their 2008 survey “for the people who make websites”. The survey gathers a massive amount of information, with around 33,000 people taking part last year and covers a wide range of questions covering all aspects of our beloved industry.

The survey covers everything from Age, Gender and Geography to Education, Employment, Vacation (holidays to the rest of us) and those oh-so-important salary details, how many hours worked and your methods of staying upto date with what’s happening in the industry. The data gathered is compiled into a comprehensive, yet easy to read report, and they also provide the raw (anonymous) data so you can do your own number crunching if you so wish.

You can also have a look at the 2007 survey results if you wish, and Paul and Marcus will no doubt be covering the results of this years survey when they’re published. So this is a call to arms really, help improve this survey by taking part at Alistapart.com. We took part, so should you!

The Future of Web Font Embedding

The last news item is a blog post by Richard Rutter on the future of web font embedding. With both Safari and Firefox supporting web fonts in their 3.1 releases, and development releases of Opera, it could be time to start playing with web fonts.

Richard starts by defining web fonts as using the @font-face rule to point to regular TrueType or OpenType font files on a web server, this is to clear up any confusion with Internet Explorer’s proprietary web font support with uses EOT font file, which is also a way to wrap the fonts in DRM, which i think might severely hamper any efforts to bring web fonts into the mainstream.

The font foundries and type designers seem to view web fonts as the death of their industry, insisting that their revenue streams will be destroyed by piracy and free font embedding, rather than seeing this as an opportunity to really boost their industry.

There’s nothing to say that the @font-face rule has to point to a locally hosted font file, The opportunity exists for the font providers to host the fonts themselves, and charge for their useage. This saves us, as designers, from having to install fonts on the machines we design on, and will undoubtedly allow us to choose from a much larger selection of fonts which can be switched quickly and easily.

Back to top

Feature: A Year on the Conference Circuit

This week’s feature has stemmed from a listener who asked “which conference would I suggest for a first timer”? And “how difficult is it if you don’t actually know anyone there”? Having attended a couple of the big conferences this year I thought it would be useful to share my experiences.

Back to top

Listeners feedback:

Font Smoothing

Steve Writes: I have been listening to your podcast. I really like it.

I jusr want to ask a question. On mac, the fonts seem to be all thicker than windows. What setting are u using? I’ve been using best for lcd. Today I changed to automatic, and the fonts were much thinner. It looks more alike with windows fonts.

Do you think this is a big problem for mac users? Since the fonts will look different. Which setting do you think is the best for web designer on macs?

The difference of Mac fonts compared to their Windows counterparts originates from Apple’s legacy in desktop publishing and graphic design, the fonts are rendered in a way which would give a closer approximation to how they would look when printed.

Mac’s use a specific font wrapper called dfont, this contains extra information to preserve certain features like font outlines and hinting which can then be rendered more accurately on-screen meaning that in general, fonts look better on a Mac, whichever smoothing method you choose.

If you’re a designer, I’d heavily recommend testing your design in as many different browsers as possible, but also on different operating systems as well. I work primarily on Windows Vista (don’t shoot me) and have a dualscreen setup, my second screen can be flipped over to my Mac where I can test in Safari, Firefox and Opera on Mac, I also run a Ubuntu system to test in. Rather than running a standalone IE6 build on vista, I run a full XP virtual machine with IE6 running natively as I just don’t trust the standalone builds.

One of the main things you’ll have to accept is that your design might not look identical on any combination of browser or operating system, and because you’re probably designing websites to be viewed by other people, I’d recommend keeping your font smoothing to the default setting of “automatic” which is most likely going to be the case for your target audience.

Browser Emulators

Andy Asks: Hey guys. Been listening (on and off) for a while now and love the show.

I was wondering if there is such a thing as a browser emulator, software that allows you to see your site as it would appear on IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc. If there is one, is it total crap and not really work.

The answer to your question is yes, there are several websites that can provide you with this type of service.

One of the more popular sites is Litmus which is an online emulator that validates your HTML and CSS as well as presenting you with a screenshot of your website loaded in up to 23 different browsers across various operating systems. It can also provide you with a report of any compatibility issues it has come across. However there is a fee to get any real use out of this service.

What Litmus does it actually does very well; however there are a couple of major draw backs I’ve found:

  • You can’t have an interactive experience – Not all issues can be seen from a screenshot and more often than not you need to just take your mouse and navigate around the site to find problems.
  • You can’t test javaScript – You can’t see javaScript animations from a screenshot.

As Paul said in the previous question, there’s no substitution for the real thing, which is having multiple setups with multiple browsers installed. However that’s not always a viable option especially for freelancers working from home who don’t have the budget (and space…) to have several machines and licenses for operating systems needed for testing, in which case sites like Litmus are invaluable.

My advice is if you can test on the real thing, do, if you can’t then take a look at Litmus.

Back to top

Lessons from the O2 failure

I don’t want to start ranting about the debacle that was upgrading via the O2 website, from my iphone to the iphone 3G. However, there are a couple of things we can learn about good site design from their mistakes.

Like most of the British population (or so it seemed) I tried to upgrade my first generation iphone for the new iphone 3G. Following the instructions I received from 02 I went to their website and then spent the next 2 hours battling to place my order. This horrendous experience raises some interesting points.

  • Load test - If you are expecting shit loads of people to hit your site at the same time then run some loading testing against it!
  • Don’t cause a panic – Announcing there is limited stock and that you are going to sell on a first-come-first-served basis is going to cause a rush.
  • Provide alternatives – Don’t force users into only purchasing through a website. Allow them to purchase via phone or store too.
  • Keep it simple – The whole process could have been streamlined. Adding a text message as a method of authentication was unnecessarily complicated and caused problems.
  • Avoid AJAX – On a site that is going to be hit by heavy traffic, avoid using unnecessary AJAX. It was impossible to jump to the appropriate place in the process. Instead I was forced me to start from scratch each time the page hung.
  • Use cookies – By using cookies they could have saved me considerable time entering my information again and again.
  • Clear messaging – Despite completing the process I am unsure of whether I have an iphone coming or not. The site needed to make it clear whether an order had been successfully placed.
  • Error handling – When things went wrong with the site it didn’t respond elegantly. Some carefully written messages could have cleared up a lot of confusion.
  • Better labels – One label asked me if I wanted a bolt on package. It didn’t explain what that package was or what answer was required. It just gave me a blank text box. What was I supposed to type into it? Should I leave it blank? Why was it a text box and not a dropdown menu? Was this the reason my submission was failing?
  • Email confirmation – It would have been nice to receive an email confirming or rejecting my order.
  • Waiting list – For those who failed to place an order before the product ‘sold out’ there should be an alternative. Never turn a customer away. Either offer the chance to pre-order with an estimated delivery date or at give the change to register to be informed when new stock arrives.

Update: Alex made some excellent additional points in the comments and I wanted to mention them here too. He added to my already extensive list:

  • Get a CDN or virtual servers – If you’re expecting a lot of traffic in a short time, look to share the load. Think about placing your critical functions (such as an online shop) onto a platform that allows you to deploy additional servers on demand (often called Virtual Private Servers) – such as Amazon S3 or similar. If you can’t change onto something like that – you can still help your server by moving images, CSS and javascript onto another server, or even a CDN. A Content Delivery Network (CDN) is a network of servers that contain copy of your key files to help spread the load.
  • Have a backup plan (or have two!) -
    If you have something really high-profile, have a backup plan, or two! In this case, O2 DID have a back-up plan… they had a ‘failover’ site… which was a simple one-page form to take down customers details. The only problem was it didn’t work when it needed too… it failed too!
  • Brief your call centre -
    Knowing that some customers were likely to experience trouble accessing the site (or even just getting confused placing an order), you should make sure that you brief your call centre staff – put on extra staff and make sure that they can take orders too, and know what to do.
    When I called O2′s customer services, they couldn’t offer any help as ‘upgrades were online only’. Additionally they couldn’t check if my 3 times I put my credit card details in were registered (they weren’t as it happens).
    If all goes wrong… the call centre is your last line of defense, and O2 dropped the ball here too.

Update 2: Well, the iPhone 3G has now launched in the UK and O2s website continues to fail users. This time Apple was forced to turn away customers from their stores because they were unable to register them with the O2 site. The reason why: The O2 website would only work in Internet Explorer. This provides us with yet another lesson to learn…

  • Build for your audience – Consider who your target audience is and what requirements they have. In particular consider their accessibility need to make sure you never turn away people wanting to give you money.

All in all it was badly handled and I am pissed off. Can you tell!

124. HTML 5

In this weeks show we explore how to create better online surveys and Lachlan Hunt joins us to discuss HTML5

Download this show.

Launch our podcast player

Watch the behind the scenes video (Part 1)

Watch the behind the scenes video (Part 2)

News and events

Removing Microformats

The story that has generated the most email this week is the BBC announcement that they will be dropping the hCalendar Microformat. This decisions comes because of long standing accessibility concerns over the machine readable content within that particular Microformat. The problem is that code meant to be used programatically is potentially read out to screen reader users and displayed as meaningless tooltips to sighted users.

The decision of the BBC to adopt Microformats was a huge boost to the movement. Equally the rejection the hCalendar is a blow. However, it is important not to get this out of proportion. Remember, they are only rejecting a single Microformat not the whole approach.

The other thing to consider is that the BBC is a public service organisation with an incredibly high obligation to ensure maximum accessibility. In many ways they are in a unique position. Although it maybe appropriate for your organisation to pull hCalendars too, it should not be based on the decision of the BBC.

My advice is as follows. If you already have hCalendar information on your site I would probably leave it (dependant on your exact circumstances). The Microformat community is working on a solution and I would implement that rather than removing hCalendar entirely. If however, you are not yet using hCalendar then I suggest you hold off until an updated specification is released.

Becoming employable

In the past we have spoken about becoming a professional web designer. I know that many people who listen to this show or read the blog are students. You are concerned that the skills you are being taught are out of date and will not improve your employment prospects. How then do you become a more employable web designer? What skills do you actually require?

Andy Rutledge tackles this subject in his post "the employable web designer". Without a doubt it is the best post I have read on the subject of web design career development. I highly recommend you read it.

The thing that impresses me is that it looks beyond the obvious design and technical skills required to be a web designer. It also tackles the business and communication skills too. He really drives home quite how wide an understand a good web designer has to have.

My only criticism is that it could feel demoralising. You may read the list and think it is an unachievable aim. However, I don’t think that is the case. What Andy outlines is the optimal requirement of a web designer, rather than what is needed to get your first step on the ladder. I certainly did not have all of the attributes listed when I started.

All we need now is a second post telling us how to gain the skills he lists.

Better CSS font stacks

David (a boagworld listener) sent in the next story. It covers a subject that I am currently still grappling with. It is a post about CSS font stacks.

If you code in CSS you already know about font stacks. It is where you specify the fonts you wish to use. You can say for instance; use Helvetica and if that isn’t available use Arial. If that fails use a generic san-serif font.

For many of us that is as far as our thinking goes. The majority of us use very basic font stacks that are uninspiring to the point of being insipid.

I love this post because it lays out a very clear methodology for improving your font stacks. It also goes on to provide an impressive selection of font stacks organised into heading and body fonts, allowing you to instantly improve your site

If your site is looking tired and boring, but you don’t have the time to redesign, consider adding a new font stack. Such a simple change could make a real difference.

Do flexible layouts still matter?

Our last story of the day is a post from Smashing Magazine entitled Flexible Layouts: Challenge For The Future. To be honest I was ensure whether to include this post or not. On one hand it covers an issue many people have been asking me about. On the other, its arguments seem stretched and the whole thing ends with an advert for a CSS framework.

The article tackles zooming and fluid design. The new generation of web browsers – Firefox 3, Opera 9.5 and Internet Explorer 7 – provide full screen zooming. This gives users has the ability to enlarge the whole interface, not just text. Some are arguing that this is the end of fluid layout because zooming tackles many of the accessibility concerns associated with fixed width sites. However, this article strongly disagrees.

The author argues that flexible designs are better for mobile devices, that pixels are becoming less important and that the user shouldn’t be required to customise a site to their needs (it should be done automatically). Although his arguments are weak at times and he uses some fairly dodgy comparisons I do generally agree with him. I see no reason to think fluid design will go away anytime soon.

That said, I am in no doubt that page zoom does reduce the number of occasions fluid sites are necessary. Ultimately there is no right or wrong answer. It is entirely based on the situation. For example Boagworld, Headscape and The Website Owners Manual all use fixed designs. However, many of my client websites do not. That decision is based on numerous factors such as device, user base and business priorities.

Back to top

Feature: Creating a Better Survey

The web allows us to interact with our customers more than any other medium. One of the tools in our arsenal is the online survey. However, these are often badly implemented. In this weeks feature we find out how we make your surveys more effective?

Back to top

Interview: Lachlan Hunt on HTML 5

Paul: Joining me today is Lachlan Hunt; It’s good to have you on the show

Lachlan: Thank You Very much

Paul: It’s great to have you here I really appreciate you taking the time to join us, now the reason that we asked Lachlan on the show is because he posted a brilliant article on the A List Apart site about the subject of HTML 5 and I have been keen to look at this subject for a while partly because of my own ignorance to be honest, um, so lets kinda kick off by if you could perhaps tell us a little bit about where HTML 5 is at the moment I know that kinda getting a language to a release like this finalized is a massive process so can you tell us where we are at in that process.

Lachlan: OK, it’s, um, a really an ongoing process with browsers implementing different parts of it progressively so it’s not, you know, going to be all implemented at once and ready to go in one, er the next few browser implementations. We have some features implemented already and shipping in browsers other features which are being worked on at the moment and other are planned for, but still a few years of yet. But it is gradually getting there. We are trying to focus on what authors really need, instead of trying to do it all at once

Paul:Ahh, okay so that a slightly different approach that we have seen in the past, the idea of an incremental roll out. So how does that work from the W3C’s point of view are they doing modular releases is that how it works

Lachlan: Um, at the moment no, but the way the spec is structured each part of the spec, what I am trying to indicate is the stability of each section of the spec as we go along. SO thing like the Canvas API which has been in browsers for a few years now, it should be getting to IE very soon. That section is pretty stable, Other things for example "data grid" or a lot of the web forms are not widely implemented.

Paul: OK so that quite an interesting approach to the problem I guess from what you were saying earlier to me there is a community base element people can get involved and contribute. How is that all working then?

Lachlan: Well we’ve got a REALLY REALLY open mailing list on whatwg.org anyone can subscribe at the moment there wa about 800 subscribers on that list anyone is free to subscribe and post feedback about the spec if they want to, but that’s not for everyone obviously because it’s quite a high volume mailing list and not everyone can keep up with that. We have also got an open blog on http://blog.whatwg.org/ where absolute anyone who wants to can write an article submit it and have it published. Anything to do with what the WHATWG are about, HTML5 and anything related to it at all. It’s also a good way to let the community know what’s going on by publishing articles also to find out what people think because they keep posting comments on there as well. We have also got an open forum which is at http://forums.whatwg.org/ again anyone can subscribe to that, am sue you know how a forum works

Paul: So there are lots of different ways to be involved, I have to confess things like that can feel quite intimidating to get involved in. You’re kinda worried about putting your foot in it, and saying something really dumb, is there kind of Opportunities to lurk and are people fairly friendly over there? I guess you are going to say yes aren’t you

Lachlan: Yeah everyone is friendly over there,they are nice sort of area to go to aim at web developers and people who aren’t quite as technical with the spec areas and stuff. You can ask any question you want and just learn whatever you want as well. Their is also the w3c side of it as well. Which is strictly related but is more focused on the actual technical side and issues so yeah. The What WG and the W3C are both publishing exactly the same spec and they both work on it together and feedback can be sent to either place, it will all be taken into account

Paul: Oooh, that’s useful. So looking at kinda the state of affairs at the moment with HTML 5, reading through your article there was some things in there that really sounded quite exciting, there was this thing about structure and some kind of additional elements that could be used, which provide a little bit more structure, headers and footers and things like that can you tell us a little about that, and maybe explain a bit of what those do.

Lachlan: Well at the beginning of the work back in 2004 / 2005 we basically took a look at what a lot of site where doing and we noticed that they were all using a similar structure. All the blog’s were using headers and footer and generally things like column layouts to show articles and stuff like that. So we wanted some semantic elements to come and cover each of those features that people actually used, solving the real problems that they were actually focusing on. instead of having to do "Div" elements for everything, which is what people do we give them an actual element and that also has a side effect of increasing accessibility because an element with specific semantics can be hooked into the accessibility API’s and help someone with assistive technology navigate the document a bit easier.

Paul: Okay, because I mean reaction just glancing at it quickly and not thinking about it was what’s wrong with the div with an ID Equals footer, or an ID equal header or whatever but like you say, as you think about it more it become obvious that if those are considered distant elements, one person might call it a footer another might call it "the bottom" or whatever else if they have consistent semantic names then you know you can have screen readers and stuff jumping to the footer or avoiding / not reading the footer depending on what is set in their preferences, is that what you are thinking?

Lachlan: Yeah that sort of it, it’s also helping the authoring side too, as there are lots of Div elements in source code which makes it easier to read if you have got elements with different names

Paul: yeah very much so, I spend half my life trying to which closing Div relates to which elements, that very exciting. Obviously the other big area you talk about in your A List Apart article is the audio visual elements and there is a lot that’s happening in there. It’s always had the vague feeling that HTML has never had any kind of, erm, erm, the audio visual elements have always been and after thought, what happing in HTML 5 in regards to that?

Lachlan: Well we have added the video and audio elements to the spec to try and allow video to be added directly to HTML, at the moment we have sites like youtube revel and all the other video site out there using flash to embed video and using the flash to give customized controls and stuff to the user, it’s really awkward, depending on proprietor technology, so we want to open that up a bit give a very very easy to use Javascript API to hook into and promote custom controls and all sorts of cool stuff with videos and of course audio as well. We have got experimental implementations of that in opera and in webkit. I have heard mozilla is considering implementing it as as it is now I am not sure of the status of their implementation. However the one big problem with video and audio at the moment is with Codecs, there are a whole load of software patent issues going around and we are not quite sure what codec we are going to standardize upon or if we are going o be able to get common codec support among the browsers, That’s an open issue but I am no lawyer to I cannot really go into that, so the ultimate aim is that you will be able to embed your movie file, your avid file or whatever directly into the HTML without the need to kinda pump it through something like flash

Paul: cool

Lachlan: that make it a whole lot easier to the authors hopefully

Paul: Yeah, you kind of, to some extent got to ask the question why do we need that when we have got a solution like flash

Lachlan: Well because Flash is a proprietary technology it’s managed only buy Adobe , they control it, they control the changes and what does and what does not go into future versions of it, however the thing with HTML is that it is an open standard platform which can be implemented by anyone and maintain interoperability between those venders.

Paul: It’s intrusting isn’t it that adobe has just announced they are opening up the flash format, do you wonder if that’s a reaction to some of the stuff you have been doing to kind of force their hand if they want to stay ahead o the game and dominant they need to be open

Lachlan: Yeah I don’t know how that going to work though, it depends, if they open the format up and actually make it an open development process where anyone can contribute to the future version and features which go into it or whether they just write the specs and tell other people to implement based on what they write, so I don’t know much about that. It will be interesting to see how it goes.

Paul: Very interesting, Now the next thing you cover in the A List Apart article is something which you titled "Document Representation" now I have to confess this confused me, so do you want to explain a little about what you meant by document representation. What you were getting at there.

Lachlan: Yeah, well in the past we have had HTM, and XHTML with two separate specs, HTML 4.1 which a lot of people use and XHTML 1.0 which a whole lot of other people use one of them is based on XML and is really really strict syntax that requires well formedness and is supposed to when you serve it correctly, if you make a well formedness error the browser is suppose to stop processing and throw and error message saying "Sorry I cannot handle this" where as HTML is more sorta loose and convenient in its error handling, it’s the traditional inspired by SGML, although really only syntactically similar these day but the error handling is a bit more lenient and you can get away with making a lot more errors. So instead of having two distinct language which you can use we have combined them into a single language which share the same elements and attributes and everything and as much a possible and when the browser reads those file it produces and internal representation called the DOM, a lot of javascript user will be familiar with the DOM as they work with that with their scripts to modify the document through the DOM. That’s an internal representation which is mapped, the DOM which is sort of mapped to by the syntax’s, the HTML and the XHTML syntax’s so it give the authors a choice of which syntax they want to use

Paul: So why do we need that choice what is the key difference, I mean you talk about HTML being more lenient are there other reason for choosing one over the other.

Lachlan: erm, well I don’t really know. However a lot of authors do prefer the strict syntax of XHTML like to make sure they quote the attributes and encode all their ampersands properly. They like to know they have done everything perfectly as with HTML a lot of people do make mistakes inadvertently and don’t want end users to see big error messages, so it’s a bit more user friendly if some little small error slips though their CMS and causes problems.

Paul: So it’s basically come down to personal preference then

Lachlan: yeah

Paul: Okay, that’s fair enough, so both, we are going to see equal support for both of them in browser manufacturers are we

Lachlan: Well that’s the hope we have said that we have got good support in most browsers, it’s just IE which is lagging behind

Paul: (Sarcasm) Oh that’s a suprise (Laughs) Okay are there ant other things in HTML 5 that might be of interest to those listening to the show which we should be paying attention to?

Lachlan: erm, well, as I said before we got canvas implemented in most browsers

Paul: So tell us, what’s canvas

Lachlan: It’s a 2D drawing API that you can use javascript to draw dynamic image with. People have used it to implement things like graphs that are built using tables of data which are on the page. People have also gone and done 3D games with it which is really cool

Paul: Wow, that incredible. I mean that sounds very similar to SVG is it a different thing.

Lachlan: It is different SVG is entirely done with XML, you modify that with script via the DOM by changing elements and attributes and stuff or with CSS. Canvas is an immediate mode graphics API where it is more like a bitmap sort of thing where as SVG is vector graphics, and canvas is bit map. They can both do images, the same sort of images, if you like but we have both vector images and bitmap images, so they both can serve different purposes.

Paul: Right, I see. Okay that’s good, so okay the big question, kind of the final question everyone is going to have is when can they start doing some of the cool stuff. Now you said right at the beginning this is going to be modular support based thing so we are going to be able to see some of these elements before others. You know some parts before other, so what can we do now, what are we going to be able to do soon give us an idea of where things are at.

Lachlan: erm, okay let’s see I think what’s being implemented at the moment. Cross document messaging is being implemented at the moment, that’s an API that lets you send message between documents with javascript without worrying about cross domain security issues,

Paul: Oooo…. that’s good.

Lachlan: Yeah it’s a really, really handy API that been implemented in opera for a while and I heard mozilla is implementing it soonish and should be in firefox 3 thought I am not entirely sure about that. That should be very very soon, erm, what else have we got, we got…. hmmm, this is tough

Paul: Sorry put you on the spot there (laughs) is that last one supported in webkit?

Lachlan: erm, I am not sure I would have to double cheek that

Paul: Okay that’s fair enough

Lachlan: yeah,

Paul: Okay so any other elements? Things like the structural changes are any of those being supported yet?

Lachlan: Not quite yet, erm as far as I know support for those requires changed to the phaser, and to implment the new pharsing algorithm in HTML 5, as far as I know browsers are not yet focusing on doing that because..

Paul: Okay that’s a shame, because that one I liked the sound of, what about the audio and the visual stuff?

Lachlan: We have experimental implementations in opera which supports OGG video, though it’s not really in a public build version yet, there is a experimental version which was released last year sometime. And webkit also has support in their nightly builds, which supports mpeg 4 unfortunate they don’t support the same codec but you can experiment with them.

Paul: (laughs) That would be far to easy

Lachlan: yes I know

Paul: So it’s all progressing slowly but, erm you know obviously the one name which has been very absent in the list you keep mentioning is Internet Explorer, so I expect we can probably see some slower movement there. We are talking you know in the years before this all becomes mainstream and we can actually start using it. Is that a fair comment to make?

Lachlan: Yes it will be several years before the entire spec is finished, we are hoping that it can get finished sooner rather than later but realistically it’s going to be quite a while yet, But it is important to know people will be able to use theses features before the spec is finished; so it depends on when browsers start supporting features authors can go ahead and use it.

Paul: That’s great and real exciting that you can start to do that sort of stuff. you know that we don’t need to wait for it all to be set in stone before moving forward. And it’s always exciting as well to see the future, know what coming up and be aware of everything. so is there somewhere people can go a websites address and keep an eye on what is currently supported by browsers.

Lachlan: Not at the moment but that’s something worth looking into, I think there is a wiki on the Working Group site, it does have some implementations listed but I am not sure how up to date. But it’s something I think we should look into

Paul: Yeah it would be great to have some kind of single page which says what features are supported by each browser that you could check back every few months see what’s going, there you go there is my contribution to the working group (laughs). Alright it was really good to speak to you and thank you so much for your time, What we will do is to get you back in further down the line and have a check to see where we have currently got to in the development of HTML 5, Thank you so much for your time.

Thanks to Jamie Knight for transcribing this interview.

Back to top

Listeners feedback:

Staying healthy on the web

Evan writes: My question to you is not entirely related to design, development or management but rather about health in the web industry. This is very important but we often seem to forget about it. We spend hours upon hours at our desks but are unaware of the damage this could be having on our health. Eyeballs almost touching the screen, typing without a break, sitting incorrectly – just a few examples. So, what do you do to maintain good health while working?

I am possibly the worst person in the world to answer this question. I consistently abuse my body while at work. In fact a physiotherapist friend said I had the worse posture in front of a computer she had ever encountered.

However, there is possibly something to learn from my terrible example. Let’s look at what I do and compare that to best practice.

  • I sit with my leg tucked up under me – Posture while working is important. Both feet should be flat on the floor, rest your wrists on the desktop in front of your keyboard and make sure your monitor is at eye level (in other words avoid laptop screens).
  • I stoically refuse to use anything other than my preferred mouse and keyboard – Using the same keyboard and mouse in the same position day after day can cause damage. Try using a variety of different hardware and positions. Push your mouse and keyboard nearer or further from you to change the position of your arms.
  • I believe that an individual pixel should fill my field of view - Leaning too close to your monitor is a particular weakness of designers who want to position that pixel ‘just so’. This not only damages your eyes but also your back. When you learn forward your neck and back support the weight of your head. When sat upright, the head is supported by a straight spine and therefore your chair bears the weight.

On the upside I do take regular breaks. I would like to claim this is because of my health. However, I think it has more to do with my short attention span. I get easily distracted and wander off to do something more interesting.

From Photoshop to HTML

I see a lot of PSD 2 HTML services on the internet but never tried any out. It seems to be an great option for an designer for making an quick website, to edit later myself.

What is the opinion of you guys? Love to hear you discuss this topic in one the next podcasts.

An long time listener from Holland.

I have to confess to being a snob over these services. Until recently I have always doubted the quality of the code but after seeing some recent examples I have begun to change my mind.

We are even considering giving them a try at Headscape, just to see what happens. Certainly from an economic point of view they make sense especially if you have more work than you can handle. That said, I do have three concerns.

First, results may vary. Without a personal recommendation it could be hard to find a provider who can produce the quality you require. Anybody can convert a photoshop document into HTML. However, it is much harder to do so using techniques like microformats, semantic markup and accessibility. Also, just because the quality was good once, does not mean it will be so again. As the good providers get busy it can lead to a decline in quality.

Second, people code in different ways. Unless careful attention is given to commenting, it is hard to pick up somebody elses markup. This is fine for relatively static sites where only small changes are required. However for projects where change happens regularly as the site evolves, it is more important that the markup is tailored to your style of coding.

My final concern is that this could lead to designers not learning HTML. As I have said before on the show, I believe all designers should be able to code themselves. You need to understand how the web works and markup is apart of that. Also, if you cannot code how can you judge the quality of the markup you receive?

Back to top

120. WCAG 2

In this weeks show we talk with Patrick Lauke about WCAG 2 and we discuss the perils of blindly following conventions.

Download this show.

Launch our podcast player

News and events

IE testing made easy

Testing in Internet Explorer is horrible for many reasons. Not least the fact that you cannot run multiple versions of IE on a single operating system.

In the past there have been a number of solutions to this problem. There were standalone versions of IE. However, it quickly became apparent that they did not behave as IE does natively. There are online services which provided screenshots of your site in different versions of IE. However that does not give a sense of whether interactive elements were working correctly.

The only really feasible solution was to run multiple operating systems as virtual PCs but this was slow and inconvenient.

However, it looks like things might be about to change. DebugBar have just released IETester. A free web browser that allows you to have the rendering and javascript engines of IE8 beta 1, IE7, IE 6 and IE5.5 on Vista and XP all at once.

They are currently describing it as Alpha software (whatever that means), so it sounds like it is still a work in progress. As with any such software it is hard to know if it is accurate. If you do choose to use IETester, I would still recommend giving your site a final once over in native copies of IE before making it live.

That said, this does look very promising and I will be trying it out myself very soon.

Hosting your Javascript libraries

Our next story is an announcement from Google. They have started to host the main Javascript libraries including…

  • jQuery
  • prototype
  • script.aculo.us
  • MooTools
  • dojo

This means that if you are using a Javascript library it does not need to run from your own server, but can pull it directly from Google.

“Why would I want to do that?” I hear you cry. Mainly to improve performance. First, according to people much cleverer than myself the Google servers are faster and can deliver libraries much quicker. I know little about server performance so I will have to take their word on this.

However the main reason is that if enough web developers use this approach we will see a significant caching benefit. Lets say a user visits headscape.co.uk and this site pulls its jquery library from Google. Boagworld.com does the same thing so when the user visits that site it uses the cached version (from the visit to Headscape) rather than re-downloading it again. As more and more sites pull their Javascript libraries from Google the likelihood that a user already has a cached copy of that particular library increases.

Of course allowing Google to host your Javascript does require a level of trust. What if Google goes down? What if Google turns evil and starts using Javascript to manipulate your site? What about the data this approach gives Google about your site?

However, if these concerns do not worry you, then there are definitely tangible benefits.

Prototyping website interaction in flash

Next up we have a tutorial demonstrating a quick and easy way to prototype complex website interactions.

In some ways the static Photoshop comp is becoming less useful. Modern websites have numerous interactive elements that are hard to convey through static images. There is a need for something that can demonstrate this functionality.

We have spoken before about wireframing interactive websites, but not how to demonstrate changes in visual look and feel. This article on boxes and arrows suggests that Flash maybe the answer.

The advantage that flash has over something like a clickable PDF is that it allows for easier updating when the client wants to make changes. However, it does require basic Actionscript skills. Fortunately, the tutorial talks you through these step by step and none of it is too challenging.

If you are looking for a way to better demonstrate interaction in your design comps then this might be the answer.

The rule of thirds

The final news story today is another post from those lovely people at Smashing Magazine (we love them since they said nice things about our podcast!) The article entitled “Applying Diving Proportion To Your Web Design“, introduces the reader to the fascinating subject of the golden ratio (also known as the divine proportion or rule of thirds.)

If you haven’t come across this principle before then I highly recommend reading more. The rule of thirds emerged in the Renaissance but has always excited in nature. There seems to be something inherently pleasing about these proportions and they occur again and again. There is something about human perception that is naturally drawn to this composition. We can use this to our advantage when designing websites.

The article goes on to demonstrate how the golden ratio can be used in all aspects of design from photography to web design. In particular it focuses on the benefits this can provide to the grid structure of your sites.

Admittedly if you have not come across the rule of thirds before this can all sound like hocus pocus. However it really does work. Following principles like this can dramatically improve your designs. What is more they can be followed by anyone even if you would not consider yourself a designer.

Back to top

Feature: Defying Conventions

As the web matures an increasing number of conventions are emerging. But should we always follow the crowd? In this weeks feature we discuss just that.

Back to top

Interview: Patrick Lauke on WCAG2

Paul: So joining me today is Patrick Lauke from splintered.co.uk, is that best way to refer to you?

Patrick: Yeah, it’s one of my many monikers, yes.

Paul: Just so many presence on the web, you’re just so well known. Good to have you on the show, Patrick, it’s been a while.

Patrick: Thanks for having me.

Paul: I don’t think you’ve actually been on Boagworld before have you done Dot Net with me, but I don’t think you’ve done Boagworld.

Patrick: Exactly, yeah, I’ve only had the pleasure of sitting on the Dot Net one.

Paul: Well this is the proper grown up, you know, professional version compared to Dot Net.

Patrick: Super!

Paul: So the reason I wanted you on the show, Patrick, I have to be honest is as much for me as it is for my listeners this time round, because you are our resident accessibility expert, and we had a conversation a long time ago on the show about WCAG2 and we talked a little bit, not with yourself but we’ve talked on the show before about WCAG2 and it was coming along and all the rest of it, but it suddenly occurred to me we haven’t done anything on it for ages, and I’m wholly ignorant on the subject and the current state of affairs, so I thought, I know, I’ll get Patrick on the show, I’m sure he’s bothered to read it and knows what’s going on. Hence you’re here.

Patrick: Excellent.

Paul: So you’re not going to let me down, you have actually read WCAG2 have you?

Patrick: I have, I’ve been fairly involved with it, yeah.

Paul: Good! That’s encouraging. OK so perhaps the best place to start is, where’s it currently at, what’s the stage of development at the moment?

Patrick: Right, well literally a few weeks ago it entered what’s called the Candidate Recommendation Stage, all part of that W3C terminology they use. It wasn’t…it has been in last call for about 2 years now, but yes, Candidate Recommendation really means that now the WCAG working group and the general public has been kind of sending in comments etc on the status of the document. They’ve all reached kind of a broad consensus about, yeah, it’s fairly…it’s pretty much there, you know, it’s fairly accurate, technically there’s no big howlers in the actual wording of the things. I mean there might still be a few minor, minor details that change from now until the end, but pretty much the actually core of it is as good as it’s going to get.

Paul: OK.

Patrick: And really the…kind of the purpose of this Candidate Recommendation Stage, you know, why aren’t they going straight out and releasing this now as a standard, is really to give people an opportunity to start test driving, you know, what WCAG2 says in its current state, so working group thinks it’s pretty much there, let’s test it out actually in the real world, so give people the opportunity to run it…run their websites through their paces according to WCAG2, see if, you know, things are feasible, if it’s realistic to kind of say, yeah, this will be the standard from now on, and they’ve actually…they want to make it quite official, so if you have an intention of kind of doing that, you have a website and you want to actually officially say, OK, I’m going to use that website to test WCAG2, they’re now asking for people to basically register their interest and to actually, you need to then implement that, you need to say, right, I’m going to run WCAG2 on my site and by the 30th of June you want to be able to basically say right, I’ve finished it, and then give feedback and basically say yeah, no problem, or you know, we tried and tried, but this is actually not realistic, it might need to be modified, but unless there are major, major issues that come out in the wash as people are now trying to implement it and test drive it, it should be fine really. One of the main things with WCAG2 is, as with any kind of Candidate Recommendation documents, is really that there are a few items where even though we’ve got consensus, the working group isn’t 100% sure that they’re going to make it in their current stage, so they’ve kind of gone very ambitious with some of them, but they realise that yeah, it might not actually make it through, and they’re called….quite fittingly, items at risk, which in the latest CR document, Candidate Recommendation document, they’re clearly marked, and they’re basically…the testing phase is really about, let’s have a look, specifically these kind of items at risk, can they actually be implemented in the kind of more stringent way that we’ve worded them? If not, we might have to scale them back. I mean there’s one for instance where it says, it talks about, you know, colour contrast, and they’ve worded it currently that the contrast needs to be on a ratio of 5:1, so if you’ve say got, you know, text and background colours, you need to have…want to do your calculations for the various algorithms, there needs to be a contrast of 5:1. Now they’ve put that at risk, because some people still felt that it might be a little bit….setting the mark a little bit too high, and they were already saying, OK, well if it turns out that it is too ambitious to say, right, you need to have that ratio, that they’re happy to kind of jump back to 4.5:1 or even 4:1, so it’s kind of things like that, we’re really now at the nitty-gritty stage with these kinds of things, of saying, you know, can it actually be implemented.

Paul: So this is getting very close to the point where, you know, your average website owner and your average web designer needs to be…we need to be looking at this now, don’t we really? I mean we’re getting that close?

Patrick: Yeah

Paul: OK, I mean it sounds like things have gone a long way since the kind of early stages where WCAG2 was quite heavily criticised. I mean what kind of shape do you personally think it’s in at the moment?

Patrick: Yes, I mean looking back, I think it was May 2006 where Joe Clarke wrote his kind of vitriolic post, to Hell with WCAG2 on A List Apart, we have definitely come a long way since then. I think it was a good wake-up call back then for somebody like Joe, somebody of Joe’s stature, to really come along and, where web designers maybe at that stage weren’t really that interested in WCAG2 to actually say, look guys, you need to start looking at this because in the current shape it’s in, it’s really not feasible, and what Joe said at the time, there are many things that he criticised, but you know, overall he was spot-on with a lot of the things. The main thing was that the whole document at that time was extremely bulky, it was one big monolithic document which tried to do everything. There was loads of Orwellian-style language, everything was made up of Newtons, and they pretty much invented…because the problem with WCAG2 it’s a kind of full shadow of it, is that because it tries to be technology agnostic, it tries to avoid in the main document and talk about anything relating to actual technology, so it doesn’t mention specific HTML elements or things like that, so to make it very tech-agnostic, that document at the time really re-defined almost anything, so it didn’t talk about web pages, but it started ta
lking about web units, and basically the glossary was almost bigger than the actual document, so you know, that was very problematic because even people who’d been doing web development for years, if you just gave them the document as it was, they would have had to completely re-learn whatever all the terms were, it was of no practical use.

Paul: So has all that gone now?

Patrick: Yes. The language has been simplified. I mean it’s gone now from 2006 onwards it’s gone through, I think it was 2 or 3 last call stages. Well it went back from…in 2006 it was at last call stage, literally the stage before we’re saying, OK, we’re up to Candidate Recommendation. They actually scaled that back. W3C don’t admit that was because of Joe Clarke, and OK, it was probably not exclusively because of his article, but I think the general kind of feelings that it stirred up, or that it tapped into, kind of made the W3C reconsider. They’ve scaled it back to a public working draft, which is kind of one step previous to that. Everybody had a pretty good look at it. There’s been rounds and rounds of comments, I mean I’ve submitted in the 2 year period that it’s now been since that article, I’ve submitted loads of comments. I mean ranging from really small things like, oh you missed a comma there, or that’s not very clear, to kind of very substantial things about the actual core concepts that are being discussed, and in that process, a lot of really hard copywriting and editing has happened since then. They’ve also split out the document into far more manageable sub-documents themselves. One of the main things, for instance, is that the whole structure of, you know, WCAG2, it’s actually a suite of documents. The main guidelines document itself is only a handful of pages, I think it’s…yes, 19 pages I’ve printed out today. That is purely the core guidelines document, and that’s the only part if you will, that is actually normative, that’s the only one that is the actual guidelines. Then there was a lot of extra documents that really are just what’s called informative, so you can read through them, but you can’t actually refer to them in terms of, you know, just if somebody sort of says, your site isn’t accessible, you can’t point to an informative document and say, yeah, but I’m following that particular thing.

Paul: OK

Patrick: One of the documents will be the techniques document. You can’t actually point to that and say, well I’m following these, because the only thing that’s important are the actual guidelines, so they’ve really slimmed it down, broken it up into separate documents, you know, 19 pages printed out, it’s nothing, you can pick that up, you can read it through. It’s roughly the same size now of WCAG1 if you will. So they’ve simplified the language. There were loads more contentious kind of fundamental problems with WCAG2 as it was back in May 2006. I mean one of the main ones that really caught, you know, the eye of a lot of developers, was the concept of base lines where basically at the time they were saying, even though the concept itself is good, but it’s pretty much read like, as a website owner I can basically say, right, to work with my site, you need to have Flash and you need to have this and you need to have that, which was completely opposite to, you know the very austere WCAG1 which basically said, you can’t have anything. This seemed to open it up completely and allow for website owners to basically say, right, you know, we are going to do a whole Flash website if you will, and our baseline will be, you need to have Flash to use this site. But the concept was good at the time, but the wording pretty much came out like that, so these kinds of things, base lines, at its core, is actually still in the current document. They’ve basically re-worded it and turned it on its head, where before it was talking about website owners can say what technology they’re using, now it’s far more, if as a website owner or designer, I’m using a technology, I need to make sure that I know for a fact that it’s supported by accessibility…assistive technologies, for instance screen readers, so they kind of turned it on their head. The onus isn’t any more on the user to say…to have the latest technology, but on the developer to make sure that the technology they use needs to be accessibility supported. So loads of kind of fundamental changes like that have happened really, and no, definitely to go back to the original question, it has improved quite dramatically since May 2006. I mean I’ve now familiarised myself extensively with it. It’s good bedtime reading material!

Paul: You’re not convincing me of that one. Not unless I want to go to sleep I guess!

Patrick: I know. OK, I’ll be blunt, it’s better toilet reading. You kind of print it out and you put it there, instead of a novel you’ve got that there. But it is very good. I mean it’s now down to the level of…it almost reads like common sense. You kind of…you go through it and you just find yourself nodding and thinking, like, that’s not contentious. OK, there are still a few here and there where I might slightly disagree in a heated argument, but overall there’s nothing really there that makes me think, ooh no, that’s never going to be realised, so absolutely, it’s in very, very good shape I would say, and this Candidate Recommendation Stage looks like it’s going to be very successful really, and fingers crossed, I think; I’m not 100% sure now of the timeline that W3C are working by, but I wouldn’t be surprised if, say by the end of calendar year, we might see actually WCAG2 being released and getting out and becoming a proper recommendation.

Paul: Cool. So then what’s the big differences from WCAG1. I mean with WCAG1, you know, every kind of standards-based designer became very familiar with that. I was a great fan of that, you know, single sheet which listed everything by priorities and I would go through and I’d check myself off, and I kind of knew where I stood with WCAG1. With WCAG2, it’s much more of an unknown entity at the moment, so kind of give me the potted version. Where are the big changes?

Patrick: Right. No you’re quite right, it’s actually a lot more vague WCAG2, but it’s that way for a reason. Right, so WCAG1 really was very much, I mean it’s a product of its time, I mean it was 1999, the web was still quite in its infancy, and it is very much HTML focused, WCAG1, there’s no denying that. There’s a few mentions of things like CSS, but pretty much it’s all about how to use HTML to create content that at the time would be deemed accessible. I mean JavaScript was pretty much bad; I mean you could use it but you need to make sure there’s a fall-back. Non-W3C technologies were completely out basically, unless you provided a W3C alternative, so things like Flash and PDF etc, when they first started becoming more and more used, that directly clashed with WCAG1 at the time. Now WCAG2, as I mentioned before, it’s far more tech-agnostic. It tries to basically not t
alk about specific technologies. It doesn’t directly reference HTML or CSS or Flash or Flex or various other things in the actual core guidelines. Now the reason for that is WCAG1 as soon as it was released, the thought behind it was that it would be updated on a very regular basis, but from 1999 onwards, nothing has really happened, and because it was so heavily influenced by the technology of its day, it aged very, very badly. I mean nowadays, if I hear people saying, we’re building against WCAG1, I almost have to chuckle a bit, because it is pretty much just going back to, you know, we’re doing the web like it’s 1999, you’re not really allowed to do anything, and it’s completely opposite to what’s actually happening with the web. I’m not going…well I am going to say Web 2.0 to sound all trendy, but you know, all those things, Ajax, Flash, PDF etc, particularly say PDF, there is now…there are now easy ways, or relatively easy ways, to create reasonably accessible PDFs, I mean the technology itself has moved on, the format has moved on, screen readers are quite capable of dealing with well-structured PDFs that are created in a certain way. We’re not really talking about, you know, you need to test your pages with links because, you know, people might just use a text only browser. Things have moved on, but WCAG1 is pretty much kind of frozen in time of 1999. There have been a few kind of…people who’ve been working towards WCAG1 have started kind of re-interpreting it a bit for the modern days. I mean in my own practice in my…one of my other identities, in my day job as web editor for the University of Salford, I’ve never actually said, we’re going to make our pages WCAG1 compliant, but always said, you know, we’re going to take inspiration from WCAG1, filter it through our own knowledge of what the technology landscape actually is today, and try to do the best we can to actually serve the users and you know, how they currently use the web.

Paul: So….so are you, you know, you said that you’d never claimed in your day job, you know, to be WCAG1. Are you intending, you know, are you more confident in WCAG2 to be able to say that, that we’re going to be WCAG2 compliant, or is it not that kind of thing?

Patrick: I think …I think yes, WCAG2, it would be a lot easier to say we’re working towards WCAG2, because to kind of go back a bit and explain WCAG2’s kind of…the thinking behind WCAG2 and how it’s structured. WCAG2 as I said, doesn’t talk about HTML, CSS, it really just sets out very general principles, when then break down into guidelines, which then in turn break down into success criteria. Now again it probably sounds like there’s a whole new language to learn, but it is fairly straightforward, so if you think, web pages themselves need to be the four principles. They need to be perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. So those are the four kind of guiding principles, which you know, make sense. It was already implicit in WCAG1, but this kind of just spells it out. These are the kind of four things that we want to make sure. Now under each of those principles, say perceivable or whatever, there are guidelines which still provide…they don’t go into detail, but they provide some very, very basic overall goals, so what we want to achieve is X. They’re not testable, because they’re still very, very generic, they’re saying, we just want to make sure that people can, say, use a keyboard to do things. They don’t go into detail about what that means particularly. And then under that you’ve got the testable, what are called success criteria. Now these are very small kind of little atomic sentences if you will, that say, right, very specifically, if you’re providing this, then make sure that that happens. Now I’ll pull out an example, I’ve made some notes here, let me just go through…yeah, I’ll give you an example here. So in the big WCAG2 document, you’ve got principle number 2, operable. User interface components must be operable. So, you know, you can’t argue with that, fair enough. Underneath that, there’s loads of guidelines, I’ve pulled out one here, guideline 2.4, navigable, which states that you should provide ways to help users navigate, find content and determine where they are. Again, that’s a very, very broad goal that doesn’t say anything about you need to use a link, you need to put title in here, or you need to make sure you use access keys. None of that. It basically just very generically tells you that. Now under Guideline 2.4, there’s loads of smaller success criteria. Now I’m just going to pull out one of them. The first one, 2.4.1, which basically is called bypass blocks, and I’m just going to read it straight from the thing, ‘a mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages’

Paul: Yes

Patrick: Now again, this doesn’t say anything about HTML or whatever, but it is quite testable. You can actually pull up your web pages and say, right, are we following this? Is there a mechanism available to bypass blocks of text, blocks of content, sorry, that are repeated? So I don’t know if that gives a flavour of…

Paul: Yeah it does.

Patrick: …against WCAG1. Now you couldn’t write a validator to actually just run through this and check for that, that is one of the core differences I think with WCAG2 compared to WCAG2. I mean even WCAG1 we all agreed that you can’t just run it through Bobby and then, you know, if Bobby gives you the thumbs up, that’s good. You still have to do some manual checking. But there were a lot of things that because it was so HTML-centric, you could pretty much run it through something and it gave you a fairly good indication of whether you were achieving that particular check-point in WCAG1 or not. Now the way the success criteria are worded, yes you could say, OK, if we accept that, we want a skip link, and the skip link will fulfil that particular success criterion, we could write an automated tester that just looks for skip-links, the presence of skip-links, however you want to code that, but it’s not to say that that is the only way in which you can pass that success criterion. The actual guidelines don’t say exactly what you’re supposed to do. They pretty much focus on the end result and particularly what I’m interested in, they focus on the end result for the user for the most part, so it really puts the onus on the developer to understand, these are the user needs, and this is the kind of very generic thing that needs to happen. You can then, from that success criteria, jump over to the techniques document for instance, which actually goes into detail, if you’re using HTML, here’s some of the ways in which you could achieve this success criterion, and then you can test against those, but the techniques document is only informative, it’s not the be-all and end-all. You could follow whatever’s said in there, or you could actually come up with something that’s completely separate, is not mentioned anywhere in the techniques, but if the end result of an actual real user is still, OK, they can still bypass blocks of text that way, then that’s fine.

Paul: Which is great, because it kind of gives people the freedom to innovate and come up with original ways of solving accessibility problems.

Patrick: Absolutely, and it puts…it puts the focus straight back on doing something that is good for the user, rather than right, we’re just going to go and make sure that we tick that particular box because the guideline says we need to do X in HTML and, well, we’ve done it, so we’re cool. This kind of forces you to actually think about solutions. I mean you can… you can go into the techniques document, and what’s mentioned in the techniques document, is pretty much they’re tried and tested ways in which that situation has been solved, so you know, you can be I’ll say lazy, but you know, you can get guidance from that techniques document, but that’s the important thing to know, is it doesn’t mean that you have to necessarily use one of those techniques, and absolutely you’re right, this will stimulate a lot more creative kind of ways in which these success criteria can actually be met. And as I said, it then applies to any technology. You could say, right I’m going to provide that functionality in Flash if I’m doing Flash, or maybe I need to do that in PDF, or whatever, so it is a lot more open. Which obviously is a problem if you’re very set in the ways of I’m going to run it through a validator, and I’m going to get a clear yes or no answer, because you pretty much need either a lot of user testing to say, OK are the users actually able to do this particular thing that the success criterion says, or you get experts that kind of help you with that, and there it’s a lot more likely that you’re going to get 2 or 3 experts and they might not necessarily agree on what’s the best way to implement something, so that is kind of…not the problem I would say, but the slight shift in mentality that website designers and website owners will have to make, that it’s less easy to make a very kind of cut and dried, yes it’s accessible, not it’s not accessible. I mean it was problematic before, now it could be even more woolly, which you know, is a bad thing in a way, but also a good thing because it does force you really to focus on the actual core of the problem rather than trying an easy way out and just implementing some mark-up that a guideline suggests.

Paul: Yeah, I mean yeah, I can see how it potentially might create some legal problems further down the line, but it certainly gets people beyond that kind of arse-covering check-box mentality, which has good to be good. So it sounds like a lot of the time we’re kind of going to be working as web designers on the success criteria level where we’re going through and making sure we conform with these various success criteria. What about priorities? WCAG1 had Priority A, AA, AAA or whatever you want to call it; Priority 1, Priority 2, Priority 3. I mean, did, you know, is there anything like that any more or has that gone away completely?

Patrick: No, that’s actually still there. At one point there was a bit of a change in terms of how it’s going to be worded, whether you could achieve full compliance or not by following…having to do all the success criteria for a particular level or not, but no, they’re pretty much there in their old form if you will, so it’s still called Level A, AA and AAA. One of the things that WCAG2 has tried to do in its wording of these Levels is to say that it wants to remove the kind of idea of hierarchy that AA aren’t less important than A, and AAA aren’t less important than AA. They’ve written a lot of nice words around it to explain why it’s actually still worth doing AAAs when you’re not fulfilling all of AA etc, but I think they’ve actually muddied up the waters a bit because in effect, you can’t claim, say, AAA, if you haven’t claimed AA, so the hierarchy is actually still there, so probably this explanation was quite confused, but it actually reflects exactly how confused the WCAG2 document is about that. They’ve tried to kind of have their cake and eat it at the same time, I think, because they have to…necessarily have some hierarchy, but they’re really trying to stress that they’re all equally important, you know, but some are just more important than others. So…interesting.

Paul: Yes. So I mean what, you know, we’ve got potentially, you know, if you’re right, until about Christmas to sort out our act and to kind of really get thinking about WCAG2. What kind of steps would you recommend for people that are owning and running websites in order to kind of prepare for this?

Patrick: I would say that because WCAG2, as I say, is a whole suite of documents, you’ve got the actual guidelines which I mean now I can read them and they’re quite understandable to me, but I’m obviously very close to the subject at hand. I can kind of understand where they’re coming from. But as part of the suite of documents, there are kind of better documents possibly to start with, depending on what your current level is. There are ….there are simple things like Understanding WCAG2, which kind of takes a helicopter view of WCAG2 and gives a lot more context that explains why, you know, certain guidelines are important, how, you know, people will use them, how they will benefit from them etc. It goes more of a context. It’s obviously a lot weightier than the actual core guidelines, but that is…if you’re a bit rusty with, you know, I haven’t looked at WCAG2 at all, you’re a bit rusty with what WCAG1 even was about, beyond just being a document that you checked some boxes against, that’s certainly worth reading, just to really get a feel of understanding why….why are we changing things, why wasn’t WCAG1 good enough, so that really gives you a good kind of introduction to the subject. And I think that’s an important step towards actually implementing WCAG2 would be for people to buy in, as with anything, if you’re trying to push it through at an organisational level. People need to understand the rationale behind it. You can’t just dump this document on say your developer’s desk and say, right, these are the new rules, you know, white is black, black is white, this is what you need to do now. They need to buy in from actually understanding what the rationale behind it is, so the understanding document will really give them all the information they need. Some, you know, technically minded people might be tempted to jump straight to the techniques document, which is fine, but again with the caveat that I mentioned before that the techniques document is actually only informative, so whatever’s written in there is not the law. Some techniques that are currently in there might even be proven later on to be maybe not optimal in certain situations etc, so it’s not the law; it can help you initially get, if you’re really technically minded, you might read the success criteria and say, yeah, OK, that’s all nice language, but what does it actually mean, you know, if I’m doing HTML, what….what are you expecting me to do? The techniques document can help, it will give you actual examples. If you’re using HTML do this, if you’re using Flash do that, etc, so it brings it back down to something that as a techie, you might be more comfortable with, but again, understand
ing that that is not the law; those are not the guidelines, and that there might be even better or more creative ways around the problems, but it’ll get you into the right frame of mind I would say.

Paul: Cool

Patrick: There’s also documentation that just pretty much compares WCAG2 to WCAG1,

Paul: Ah, that’s good

Patrick: Yeah, if you’ve got a lot of experience with WCAG1, that will kind of help you roughly map, you know, what used to be WCAG1’s check-point about this, is now this far broader guideline that covers a lot more aspects, so it’ll help you kind of move towards the thinking behind WCAG2. And I think that is the main thing as a website owner or as a designer; it’s more of a shift in perception if you will, more of a shift of understanding of what accessibility is, more than, you know, the change of how is my mark-up now going to be affected by it. It’s really moving beyond that kind of very HTML specific, you must do exactly this, to a more, you need to understand how users actually use your website and how to creatively kindly of help them in that pursuit really.

Paul: Cool. I mean that sounds good; there’s lots of different ways you can kind of start the process of learning it

Patrick: Absolutely

Paul: …which is good. I mean I guess my last question, you’ve almost kind of answered, which is, you know, if you’re somebody from a WCAG1 background that is comfortable with WCAG1, the one thing that you’re thinking is, hang on a minute, I kind of knew this, I had my head around this, you know, I’ve suddenly got to change to this new system, you know, is it going to involve more work, is it going to be painful? The fact that you’ve talked about this document that does transition, you know, between WCAG1 and WCAG2 sounds helpful. Overall, do you think it’s going to put more pressure on designers or is…more going to be expected of them as they develop stuff?

Patrick: I think it’s going to be interesting for a variety of reasons. I wouldn’t say necessarily there’s going to be more work involved. If you’ve been working similar to the way I’ve been working, that you take WCAG1, you take what you want from it, and you filter it through your knowledge of, yeah, that screen-readers can actually work well with PDFs, so I’m ignoring the non-W3C technologies I’ve banned that used to be in WCAG1, so if you’ve actually been doing accessibility based on WCAG1 in the real world rather than simply just following it as a set of check-points that you just tick the boxes, I wouldn’t say it’s going to be more work. Certainly if on the other hand, if you have been somebody who hasn’t been too understanding or involved with WCAG, you pretty much had it as a function in your, say, Dream…copy of Dreamweaver or whatever, I’ll just quickly run it through this validator, I’ll run it through Bobby, although Bobby’s now gone, thank God, various things like that, you know, if you really just saw it as a check-box exercise, yes there will be…it will be more of….I don’t want to say paradigm shift…well there you go, I just said it….absolutely, no cliché will be left unturned in this particular episode…you really need to start understanding it more. But if you’ve actually been doing what I would term in a quite elitist way, real web accessibility over the last few years, there’s no major, major big surprises there, and there’s…I wouldn’t say there’s a lot more work involved. Now it would be interesting, I think, one of the aspects will be if you’ve been working in an organisation and you’ve been trying to appease management say, and one of the things that management might have erroneously picked up is, we need to make sure our pages are Bobby-compliant, for instance, is that will be a difficult, I would say, or challenging, should we say, situation because you will have, already at the time you might have been crying, saying, well, the validator can’t check everything, you still need to do manual checks, but at the end of the day, some managers, all they wanted was to see the thumbs up and the smiling policeman with the helmet on their website. This time around it will be a lot more difficult, and yes, as I mentioned before, there will be automated tools that will help you in determining whether you’re doing certain things right according to WCAG2, but because, as I said, the techniques…there is no definitive list of techniques that are OK, and there are no definitive lists of techniques that aren’t OK, it’s practically impossible to write an automated checker that will be able to check against everything, so tools…automated tools will really just be relegated to certain interpretations of WCAG2. I know that there’s a few organisations in the States that are currently working on, you know, validators. I think the….name escapes me now, but the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany, they’re currently working on their own version of a WCAG2 accessibility tester for instance, and I had an interesting discussion with representatives from Fraunhofer the other week when I was in Germany at a conference, and they’d pretty much agreed that their tool will only check against, basically, their favourite techniques if you will, from the techniques document. Now who’s to say, as we said before, that those are the best techniques? They’re ours. You might come up with a really creative way that no tool has been primed to kind of sniff out in your mark-up or in your Flash or PDF or whatever, so you’ll always get a very, very subjective, based on what the developer’s written into their tool, very subjective assessment of your website, so bring it back to the point, it will be extremely difficult I think for a manager to be able to say, right, I just want to make sure that we pass that particular test, unless you then go and dig out exactly what that tool is looking for, and you end up back in the situation that we used to be in, where you’re trying to write it to get a good grade from a tool, rather than actually thinking about what is best for, you know, users with disabilities or users in general, so that, I think that will be the more challenging part, as I said, the paradigm shift, getting managers who might not have understood it up to now, to really kind of confront the fact that automated tools aren’t the be-all and end-all, and that yes, everything is a lot more subjective now, so really I would say the only solution to that is really start thinking more exclusively about proper user testing, getting actual end-users in there. You could give them the success criteria from WCAG2 and basically say, can you confirm that this is something that you can do on our website, so it becomes a lot less about automation and a lot more about actual end users.

Paul: Cool. I mean it all sounds really exciting, you know, a bit apprehensive, you know, a whole new thing to learn and all the rest of it, but I think the whole freedom of approach side of things, that you can approach problems in different ways and sold things in different
ways, is very refreshing and it all sounds really exciting. Patrick, thank you so much for coming on the show, that’s been really enlightening, and I look forward…

Patrick: a delight

Paul: Yes, and I look forward to getting you on again, maybe to get into some specifics once WCAG2 is up and running. Good to talk to you.

Patrick: Yes, super duper. Okey-doke.

Thanks to Alison “Anna’s Mum” Debenham for transcribing this interview.

Back to top

Listeners feedback:

What are the key features of a CMS

Hi Paul. Hi Marcus. What in your opinion are the important and fundamental features of a CMS, not such as the ability to create pages, but the add-on features that make a CMS better than other CMS’s around it. Thank you very much for answering my question.

Interestingly Drew Mclellan was talking about content management systems at this years @Media. He had an excellent list of things to look for in a CMS. Some of his recommendations were…

  • Friendly URLs
  • Data Feeds(RSS)
  • Customisable and accessible administration interface
  • Well implemented search
  • Multi-site support
  • Multi-language support
  • Caching
  • Support for user generated content

Interestingly some of the features he looks for (such as friendly urls) are not always required. He wants to see them there because it indicates best practice from the developers who built the system, not because he actually needs them.

He also spoke in his presentation about the importance of not buying a CMS based on a wish list of functionality you might need one day. This will lead to unnecessary expense. It is also the problem with ‘off the shelf content management systems’. You end up buying functionality you don’t require and introducing additional complexity into the user interface. Perhaps that is the reason why both edgeofmyseat.com (Drew’s company) and Headscape have chosen to build their own CMS codebase, which can be customised to clients needs.

If you are looking for more information on the selection of a content management system be sure to check out episode 24 where we dedicate the entire show to the topic.

Is certification worth it?

Chris asks: I’ve been working in web design for the last 5 years and am really looking to get into the more user experience side of things. I was wondering if you or our listeners knew of any qualifications or certifications that might be a good idea. Are they even worth the good idea in the first place or are they not worth the paper they were written on?

As somebody who regularly recruits user experience designers I have to say that qualifications and certifications mean little. Sure, I like an employee to have a degree simply because it demonstrates a certain level of academic achievement. However, I don’t think that web specific qualifications count for a huge amount.

What I consider important is example work, that shows your skills in user interface design. I want to see sites you have produced and for you to explain to me the underlying thought process that went into them.

Given a choice between work experience with a high profile web agency or becoming a student again, I would recommend the former every time.

119. Fluid Elastic

On this week’s show Ed Merritt joins us to discuss fluid, elastic layouts and we take a look at PHP Designer, a feature rich code editor.

Download this show.

Launch our podcast player

Watch the behind the scenes video

News and events

Harness the power of "frilly bits"

I love watching design trends come and go on the web which maybe why I love Patrick McNeil’s Design Meltdown so much. One trend that has caught my eye is the move away from the Web 2.0. look to something more ornate.

This style makes use of what can only be called "frilly bits". You know the kind of things, those swirls and ornaments buried in typeface sets but rarely used. They have been around for years, used by blacksmiths and typesetters alike. They turn up on everything from wedding invitations to architecture, and now it would appear, the web.

One of the first sites I saw them was Cameron Molls blog. He is an amazing designer with a very ornate and delicate style (about as far away from my own as possible).

Recently one of Cameron’s readers asked him where he sourced such beautiful ornaments and he has been kind enough to share 25 different sources of similar frippery.

Unfortunately, simply knowing Cameron’s sources will not grant us the ability to design as well as him. However, it is an extremely useful list and definitely worth perusing at your leisure.

The cure for content-delay syndrome

Returning from the world of creativity to the realities of project management, our next post tackles the frustrating subject of clients failing to deliver content on time.

Entitled the cure for content-delay syndrome this article addresses once again the subject of copy-writing.

We have talked about the need for a copywriter many times before. I have encouraged you of the need to engage a professional to craft your sites copy, while at the same time struggling to convince my own clients of the need.

The problem is that ultimately many clients believe they can write their own copy. After all they are experts in their field and know their own audience. Some argue that it takes as long to brief somebody as to do it themselves. When budgets are tight, these sound like convincing arguments and are hard to dispute.

This post suggests that the answer in not to promote the use of a copywriter but an editor. An editor refines the clients text rather than writes it from scratch. This is considerably cheaper but still brings improvements in continuity, accessibility, usability and SEO. What is more, the client no longer needs to worry about the quality of his writing. Instead he can concentrate on "bashing it out" and let the editor improve its readability later.

Its a persuasive argument and gives me hope that I might soon be able to encourage my clients to engage a professional to work on their copy.

The roles of a web entrepreneur

From the role of an editor to the many roles of a buddying web entrepreneur.

We haven’t spoken much about developing web applications on the show (this is definitely something we should try to do soon). Traditionally web design has been a service industry and for the vast majority that is still the case. However, a growing number are looking to add a product line to their offering or make the switch entirely. Certainly this is something we are doing with getsignoff.com

But what does it take to be a web entrepreneur and build web applications? Well, unless you have a lot of venture capital it requires you to wear a lot of hats as explained in this post on Think Vitamin.

From marketeer to customer service representative, you are required to fulfil many more roles than you are used to. Its a challenging undertaking but the benefits are substantial. Get it right and you have a regular income without the overheads associated with a service based business.

Intranets revisited

Another subject that we have neglected on the show is intranets. They continue to grow in importance and yet have fundamental unresolved problems.

In two great posts Gerry McGovern exposes these flaws including the tendency for intranets to become dumping grounds for information and their lack of decent search.

Both posts in their own way focus on the fact that intranets should be about "getting things done". They should provide tangible productivity benefits but often fail to do so. Each post identifies a reason for this being the case.

The first points to the way intranets are perceived. Many see them as an information repository. This appears to be a fancy way of saying "where information goes to die". Viewing an intranet in this way, McGovern argues, is to miss the point. We should only be distributing information if it aids productivity or encourages collaboration.

The second post argues that intranets fail to aid productivity because information is just downright hard to find. In particular Gerry targets search but he also argues there is a wider problem of find-ability. Why is it he asks, that even in the largest of organisations nobody is dedicated to ensuring employees can quickly access the information they need to do their jobs?

If you have an intranet or are involved in developing them, then these are an excellent read.

Back to top

Feature: Fluid Elastic Design

When it comes to planning the layout of your new website there are just three commonly used website layout structures to choose from: Fixed; Fluid & Elastic width layouts. None of these are perfect; each comes with its own advantages and disadvantages and in this weeks feature we have Ed Merritt with us to disuss them.

Back to top

Review: PHP Designer 2008

This week’s review is on PHP Designer 2008 has actually been submitted by Simon Jones of Zako Media. He writes…

As a web business, I needed stable coding platform or IDE which would allow me to be as productive as possible. Money was no object so I researched everything available from open-source packages to expensive commericial software. I discovered phpDesigner from www.mpsoftware.dk and was blown away. It’s much quicker than Zend and has most of the same features. phpDesigner has all the usual code highlighting and auto-completion for PHP, CSS, HTML, Perl, XML, Javascript, along with easy buttons to tidy this code on the fly. We all know how hard it is to keep code tidy… now we don’t have to. phpDesigner also allows you to arrange files by project without disrupting the standard windows folder system. If you ever want to transfer away from this software, you don’t need to worry about compatibility.

The smaller features I find most useful are: bracket matching, code explorer (to jump to functions, variables and arrays), code snippet library to store your most commonly used functions from project to project. Tooltip syntax reminders for PHP and rightclick to view PHP.net help page for that function. Finally it validates your syntax on the fly, without affecting performance… all other editors stalled, slowed and chugged away as they scanned the whole file every time a character was added. phpDesigner offers the same ability with very little processor time, as soon as you’ve finished a line, it hilights unobtrusively to show missing semi-colons, brackets etc. A more detailed error message can be accessed. This saves valuable Alt-Tab, Control-F5 time. (or for apple users, switch task and refresh browser) as you know the code is error free before you start.

The software offers links to internal ‘browsers’ for phpmyadmin and php help, has an inbuilt ftp client or allows you to call an external one like filezilla. It helps integrate nicely with Smarty templates and works with phpDocumentor for instant php documentation.

On the longer term projects, it has built in bug tracking information, project and global todo lists.

One of the most important and major strengths with this software is it’s stability. It has a few issues sometimes closing down if it’s travelled through a laptop’s standby mode, but otherwise it has never crashed or lost data in the years I’ve been using it. mpsoftware is obviously passionate about this product as updates are available very regularly offering additional functionality and fixing minor bugs.

This is by no means the full feature list, but more information can be found at www.mpsoftware.dk where they have a free cut down non-commercial version and sell the full version. Compare to other available software and it sounds expensive, but mpsoftware.dk is charging a ridiculously low €39 for a single license with further discounts for groups of 10.

Thanks to Simon for that review.

Back to top

Listeners feedback:

Can you set up a web design company in the evenings

John Bullock asks: Hello boagworld team, my name’s John and I’ve got a question for you. Basically I’m starting up my own web design company and I’m in what I think is an unusual situation of trying to do it along side my 9 to 5 job which has absolutely nothing to do with computers, it’s actually an engineering job so I actually have no chance at all to work with computers in my normal job. Now I know trying to set up a company alongside your 9 to 5, while obviously tiring, is a very sensible and safe way to do it, is it actually possible? Do you think it’s a realistic way of setting up a company or do you think I would have been better going with the freelance option? It’s great to have the show back after what seemed like a decade and keep up the good work.

Yes it is definitely possible. In fact it is the way the vast majority of freelancers begin. That is not to say it is easy. However, it is the most sensible approach. If you don’t your options are fairly limited…

  1. Wait to be made redundant and hope you get a payoff
  2. Live off the kindness of friends and family (a guaranteed way of losing friends)
  3. Borrow money from the bank

Personally, I am very much against borrowing money. It substantially increases the risk. If you setup loan free then you can get another job if things go wrong. With a loan you are left in debt and struggling to pay the rent.

Build up a freelance business on the side and save the money to pay for the first few months. Also if you are able, land some regular customers. This will give you an existing client base to bring in much needed cash. At the very least you will have a portfolio of client work to show off.

We were fortunate. The web design company we worked for folded. Although we didn’t get any redundancy payment we were able to take several of the clients with us. These not only provided valuable income in the first few months but also allowed us to attract other clients.

Domain names

Robert Prior asks: Hello Paul and Marcus, my name is Robert Prior and I am from Waco Texas, i’m currently a beginner web designer but in the future I would like to set up a small web design agency here where I live and my question is, when you’re trying to get the URL for your company name, how important is it to get different extensions like .net, .info, .tv are those important at all? Or do you just need to get the one main one like the .com name? Really enjoy the show, appreciate all the hard work you guys put into it and looking forward to future episodes. Thank you.

In my opinion your domain name is incredibly important. You should definitely try to get the domain extension for your country and .com as well. We have never managed to get headscape.com but as the vast majority of our business is in the United Kingdom headscape.co.uk has been adequate.

However a good domain is about a lot more than the extension. Personally I am not a fan of these new web 2.0. urls (flickr, del.icio.us, digg). They are hard to spell and hard to remember. In my opinion a good url should be a well known word (or words) even if not directly associated with your product. Headscape for example sounds more like a hair dressers than a web design agency, but at least it is memorable and easy to spell.

Another common mistake is to go for a domain name with hyphens. This never works well as it is hard to tell somebody. For example "headscape dot co dot uk" is much easier then "head hyphen scape dot co dot uk". Also users often later forget that it contained a hyphen.

The ideal domain is also descriptive of the site. For example we were blown away to discover getsignoff.com was available. It describes exactly what we do and is memorable too. That said more recent studies suggest that a brand name (Amazon.com) is more valuable than a generic name (books.com), so if you are forced to choose pick the former.

Finally, be careful to avoid words with multiple spellings especially if working internationally. For example don’t choice a domain like colorTheory.com because it could equally be spelt colourTheory.com.

Many claim that there are no good domain names left. Although it is harder these days getsignoff proves they are still out there. With a bit of lateral thinking (or using one of the domain suggestion tools) they can be found. There is no reason to start randomly start dropping vowels.