Zend (the company that makes PHP editing software) has released a new web site. It looks snappy!

BittBox Reader Jeff F tipped me off about this neat little Illy trick. It just so happens that if you hold down the “tilde” key on your keyboard, you can get a neat effect using any of Illustrator’s drawing tools. Holding down the tilde key, (the little squiggly line above the tab key, left of the number 1 on your keyboard.) while using a drawing tool will cause Illustrator to repeat the shape rapidly as you move your mouse. Examples after the jump. Thanks Jeff!

(more…)

It's that time of year, wherein many of us gaze with luminous eyes into crystal balls of foresight and attempt to predict trends for the coming year.

Right. So, I'll get to the topic of this article in a moment, but unlike bygone years, I refrain from offering predictions about aesthetics and techniques for the coming year. (Though as an aside, I find it sadly interesting the fieldset element still sees little usage today, more than three years after I expected we'd all be happily implementing them in our forms.)

Instead, I turn to a subject that's been receiving increased attention the latter part of 2007, that of creating exceptional experiences. I've heard the terms "experience" or "user experience" quipped incessantly in presentations, articles, and the like, more so this year than previous ones. For the most part, this is a good thing. It seems we're finally getting it as an industry -- that after all the design polish is crafted, the slick interaction developed, and the copy carefully penned, what matters most is the complete experience of consuming and interacting with whatever it is we've produced.

On that note, I return to the topic of this article. Perhaps more than any other brand, Apple is and has been the predominant archetype in nearly any conversation I've been privy to -- or fostered, for that matter -- regarding branding, identity, experience, etc. "Apple does it best" is the claim, and frankly I've rarely disagreed.

As appealing as Apple is, however, there's remains an aura about the brand that is undoubtedly Apple-centric, even Steve Jobs-centric dare I say. One cannot disagree iPhone offers one of the most enjoyable user experiences by any device on the market today. Likewise, one cannot disagree that the experience is undoubtedly a tightly controlled Apple experience. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you. But it's expected from a company so concerned about its image.

What isn't always expected is an experience whose exceptionality is derived by the user rather than for the user. "You do it best" is the substitute claim, and it is this distinction that has left me seeking alternate archetypes. (Note: I'm not talking about social networking here, but instead great experiences created by individuals, whether or not those experiences involve more than one person.)

Admittedly, I'm still seeking these alternates. But one brand that has repeatedly come to mind as I've given this topic thought is LEGO. Those infamous Danish plastic bricks you used to play with as a kid (and probably still do)? Yeah, that brand.

As described on its site, LEGO is an abbreviation of the Danish phrase "leg godt" meaning "play well," and it so aptly describes what LEGO is all about. You, the person who plays well. In fact, a couple years ago, advertising agency Blattner Brunner created a brilliant advertising campaign that captured the essence of this LEGO/You experience:

Deliberately simple block formations with high-fidelity shadows exaggerate the idea that one's imagination, not the blocks, creates the experience.

At this point, you're likely asking, "So, exactly how does this differ from Apple?" Ironically, in many ways it doesn't. Quality is just as much a concern for LEGO as it is for Apple, and just as vital to the experience (if you've ever played with LEGO knock-offs, you know what I mean). Elegant simplicity is just as much a concern too, as probably only 100 basic shapes account for 95% of all LEGO kits. Yet, in the end, you create the experience from start to finish, and you're free to modify that experience however you choose.

Think of it this way: We spend weeks, even months trying to figure out user needs and develop features to meet those needs. We often have to shoot for the middle or aim for the lowest common denominator to meet a widely varying set of needs for a given audience. What if instead, the individual user, who presumably knows his/her needs best, could create his/her own experience within a framework we provide?

Say you work for a bank and you're tasked with building the online extension of your bank's business. You'd probably start by providing the "basic blocks" such as account balance showing credits and debits, bill pay, and options for printing and downloading statements. What if that were all you provided, and then you allowed each user to extend and customize the capabilities of your system to their liking by merely providing a few plain-English commands:

• "Text me whenever my account balance nears $500."
• "Transfer $1,000 to savings anytime I receive a direct deposit from my employer."
• "Send me a Quicken file with expenses for gas and groceries at the end of each month."

Your app, therefore, does nothing more and nothing less than it needs to for each individual user. In essence, your app offers an exceptional experience derived by the user rather than for the user -- or for one type of user, that is.

Do I expect this to happen in 2008? Certainly not. Probably not even in the next couple years. Is it economically and technically feasible to pull off? That remains to be seen. But I do I believe we should at least consider working towards this approach? Yes.

And don't get me wrong, we definitely need the Apple archetypes among us. I just think we need a few more LEGO archetypes, too.

On this week's show: Paul suggests some gifts to buy the geek in your life. Marcus talks about wireframes and Matthew Paterson talks about the Email Standards Project.

To download this show click here.

To subscribe to the podcast click here.

To subscribe directly within itunes click here

News and events | Marcus: Quick and Dirty Wireframe | Paul: The Perfect Geek Gifts | Email Standards Project |

Clear:left winner

Congratulations to Ryan Downie who is the lucky winner of the Clear:Left training competition. Ryan will have his pick of either a place on the Bulletproof AJAX course or a day learning CSS Mastery.

If you didn't win do not despair. There are places still available on both courses for a mere £345 + VAT. I have attended Jeremy Keith's course on AJAX and have to say it was superb. I am sure the CSS course is just as good. Go to the clear:left website for more details.

News and events

Opera goes on the offensive against Microsoft

Without a doubt the biggest story of the week and in many ways the year is the fact that Opera is filing an antitrust suit against Microsoft. This story is huge, not because one browser manufacturer is litigating against another (something that is a common occurrence) but because of the strange ripple effect this seems to be causing in the web design community.

However, before we get into the ripples lets look at the antitrust suit itself. Operas beef seems to focus on two areas. First, they object to Internet Explorer being bundled with Windows (surprise, surprise). Second, they are complaining about Microsoft's lack of commitments to web standards.

Call me an old cynic but this whole thing stinks of a massive PR exercise. This is especially true when it comes to the complaints about standards. As Eric Meyer points out, the timing of this claim seems odd to say the last. If the suit had been filed before the release of IE7 it would make some kind of sense. It was certainly true that standards support in IE was very poor. However, IE7 is a huge step forward and Microsoft seem to be active in its development of IE8.

To me this just looks like an exercise in pandering to the gripes of the web design community. It was as if Opera knew it wouldn't get a lot of support for the whole "unbundle IE" argument and so threw in the standards issue to drum up some support.

However, as I have already said, the Opera antitrust suit is not the most interesting part of this story. The real clincher is the spin off discussion that has emerged sparked primarily by a very provocative post by Andy Clarke. He argues that this suit makes the position of the W3C CSS working group untenable. Andy asks how Microsoft and Opera can work together to create the next generation of CSS when they are in legal action over exactly that issue. This has led to a much wider discussion about how the W3C works and highlighted a divide between how browser manufacturers and designers see the world. Without a doubt there is huge frustration at the glacier speed at which the W3C moves. This is largely due to the challenges faced by browser manufacturers in implementing the specifications.

But the story does not end there. This frustration with slow progress seems to extend beyond even the W3C to also encompass the Web Standards Project which was setup precisely to push for better standards support. Some very prominent figures are even questioning its role.

If we as web designers want to pressure browser makers to provide better standards support then we need to invest in organisations like WaSP. They need to have the kind of funding that political lobby groups have. This will enable them to employ full time staff to constantly lobby and educate browser providers on what web designers need. In my opinion we as web designers need to put our money where our mouth is and start giving financing to organisations like WaSP so they can be more effective.

Boagworld christmas appeal

Talking about putting your money where your mouth is, I would like to thank everybody who has been kind enough to give to our Christmas Appeal. We have been raising money to support an orphanage and school in an extremely poor part of India. The idea is that you pay for anything of value you have received from Boagworld. Ask yourself how much have we taught you on the show? How much have we entertained you? Then decide how much you would pay for that and give that money.

So far we have received £465 and we are still collecting. Even if you hear this show after Christmas we are still collecting! To donate something or for more information go to christmas.boagworld.com.

The best CSS designs of 2007

Not only is Christmas almost upon us, the year is about to draw to a close. This makes it the time of year when bloggers look back at the year just gone and compile "the best of 2007" lists. Normally I am lukewarm about such things however there is a great list over at web designer wall. They have compiled the best of CSS design in 2007. If you are in need of inspiration this is definitely worth a look. There is some truly stunning stuff here.

Talking of rating design you might also want to check out commandshift3.com which is basically hot or not for web design. When you visit the homepage you are shown two designs and you click on the design you prefer. Not only does it allow you to vote for designs it also lets you look at the best and worst based on votes received. This makes it a great site for inspiration and for learning what not to do!

Back to top

Marcus' bit: Quick and Dirty Wireframes

So a couple of week's ago I wrote a post on the use of wireframes in web design. Marcus couldn't come up with a decent topic to talk about himself this week so has decided to reuse my post and pass it off as his own! ;)

Back to top

Paul's corner: Geek Gifts for Christmas

For my segment of the show this week I decided it might be fun to look at Christmas presents. Specifically what you should buy for the geek in your life. In order to avoid it sounding like a wish list for myself the items I have picked are items that I own myself and can personally recommend.

Back to top

Ask the expert: Introduction to the Email Standards Project

Back to top

Happy Christmas!

That about wraps it up for this week's show. We will be back with a slightly amended format as from Wednesday the 9th January. See you then.

Looking for web design services? Then contact Paul directly or visit Headscape

Celebrating the Abduzeedo's first anniversary, I have an interview with Justin Maller, one of the 10 Photoshop Masters I listed a long time ago in an article here on this blog.

Justin Maller is a freelance graphic artist based in Melbourne, Australia.

Advertisement:

read more

Last week I posted a brief article about what you might want to think about when Choosing a JavaScript framework, and mentioned Robert Nyman's DOM Assistant as one of the JavaScript libraries that I have used in production.

It's been just three months since Robert released version 2.0 of his library, but since then he has been working hard on improving DOM Assistant even more. And that hard work has led to this week's announcement: DOMAssistant 2.5 Released - CSS Selector Support, New AJAX Methods And More Goodies Added!.

If you read Robert's post you will notice that there are plenty of new features and performance tweaks, but the most useful addition to me is definitely support for CSS selectors. As anyone who has used a library/framework that has support for CSS selectors will testify, it is often a lot quicker to write a CSS selector that matches the elements you want to work with than doing it "by hand". So thanks for adding that feature, Robert. I'm sure I will be using it a lot.

For a few months I've been using DOM Assistant 2.0 almost daily, and I have been happy with what it does. Unfortunately I have only had limited time to beta test version 2.5, but I'm looking forward to putting it to the test once I manage to find some time.

Anyway, if you're interested in a comparatively lightweight JavaScript library that focuses more on helping you out with the tedious parts of scripting than adding cool effects and UI widgets, give DOM Assistant a try.

And please, no "my library is better than yours" trolling. There are many libraries to choose from, and to each his own. No need for a war.

Visit site to read or post comments…

Add 456 Berea Street to your Technorati favorites.

Posted in JavaScript.

Blogging is ten years old this week! Jorn Barger of Robot Wisdom coined the term “weblog” Dec. 17, 1997 and the rest, as they blog, was history. As you can see Jorn hasn’t shaved since 1997, presumably because he’s been too busy blogging. Wired News asked Jorn to share his top ten tips for bloggers. Many Happy Returns (or trackbacks) Jorn! (Image: William Colburn)

I didn’t know what “forced perspective” was until I googled it this week, according to Wikipedia it’s “a technique that employs optical illusion to make an object appear farther, closer, larger or smaller than it actually is.” Serendipitously I also came across this great music video for Chikinki, directed by Si&AD (aka Simon Atkinson and Adam Townley). If you didn’t understand what forced perspective was before, the giant Chikinki and tiny Chikinki will straighten you out.

As you’re all probably aware, Opera founder Hakon Lie recently filed a complaint against Microsoft with the European commission. The first part of the complaint seems fairly reasonable, at least from a certain perspective. Hakon complains that Microsoft are using their desktop monopoly to force Internet Explorer on users, to the detriment of other browser vendors. You could argue that other desktop vendors like Apple use similar techniques, and you’d be right. However the issue has less to do with software bundling and more to do with the market effect.

Say there was a level playing field with Apple, Microsoft and Linux all having equal market share. If They each bundled their own browsers into the OS, no one company would dominate. So success in the browser market would be a result of normal market forces such as quality, price, marketing budget etc. However with a 90% market share, Microsoft are effectively a monopoly. If they bundle a new application or technology into their OS, they can dominate the competition and own the market with very little effort on their part.

A lot of people would argue that Microsoft has worked hard to gain market dominance, so why shouldn’t they exploit the fact? After all, if Apple were in the same position, wouldn’t they do the same? Well the answer is obviously yes, but that’s not quite the point. This isn’t a Microsoft vs Apple debate, it’s about preventing any company using its size to drown out the competition. Without viable competition, we all end up worse off.

This has in fact already happened in the video player market. By bundling Windows Media Player with their OS and discouraging computer vendors from installing other players, Microsoft were able to build up a dominant position very quickly. Why bother providing content in Quiktime or RealPlayer format when you know that 90% of visitors will have Windows Media Player installed. Thankfully YouTube and Flash has managed to put a stop to that debate and re-introduced some much needed competition.

Interestingly this is exactly how the European Commission viewed the situation, and ruled that copies of Windows sold in Europe should come without Window Media Player Installed. Annoying for Microsoft, but potentially good for competition.

The complaint from Opera seems in part a result of this case. However you do have to wonder why they—or anybody else for that matter—didn’t try this avenue years ago. Back in 2000 Microsoft used it’s monopoly to win the browser wars and pown the market. It’s these monopolistic practices that left web development and the advancement of web standards in the doldrums for so long. With no credible competition Microsoft didn’t need to advance it’s browser technology and left us poor web developers pulling our hair out.

Like many monopolies, Microsoft spent the next few years acting like an absentee landlord and failed to see the groundswell of opinion turn against them–either that or they just didn’t care. Along came Firefox, and while it didn’t quite topple the Internet Explorer crown, it introduced credible competition back into the marketplace. This forced Microsoft to start paying attention to it’s Browser again and resulted in IE7.

Had Opera done this 5 years ago, I think the majority of developers would have been behind them. However Microsoft are now back in the game and things appear to be moving forward, at least on the browser front. Instead of being the champion of progress, this move runs the risk of looking like a marketing ploy or a cynical manoeuvre to claw back some market share.

Despite the possible business motives behind this move, I do think it’s worth exploring some more. If Microsoft were no longer able to bundle Internet Explorer into Windows, what would happen? Well first off, computer manufacturers would be free to install whatever browsers they wanted on the machines they produced. We’d probably see Firefox take an upwards turn, and possibly Opera and Safari as well. Hopefully company IT departments would probably follow suite. Assuming Microsoft wanted to protect it’s market share, they would be forced to pick up the pace of innovation and create a browser that people actually wanted to download, rather than one that was there by default. This would help stimulate competition and we’d all benefit. Unless of course Microsoft decided that the future of the Internet was outside the browser and use it’s dominance elsewhere.

The main thing that irritates me about the Opera complaint is the fact they they bought web standards into the mix. I think standards are important, but I believe they should be voluntary and not enforceable by law. By conflating the two issues, I feel Opera has significantly weakened their argument. The cynical side of me wonders if this was purely a marketing ploy to get the anti Microsoft standardistas on their side. If it is, I fear the ploy may have backfired.

Alternatively it could just be the result of frustrations within the CSSWG. There have always been accusations of stalling techniques being used by companies to prevent disadvantageous features being included in the spec. So maybe this is just a last ditch attempt to force Microsoft to adopt some unpopular features like font embedding. Either way, I do share some peoples concerns about how this will affect the working relationship within the CSSWG. I realise that companies bring about spurious legal claims as a matter of course these days, but this one somehow feels a little closer to home than normal.

That being said, I don’t think the complaint by Opera and the obvious failings of the CSSWG have much in common, so I’ll leave that discussion for another day.

The New York Times has an article up about how faster chips are leaving programmers in the dust. In short, all these multi-core CPU's coming out are really hard to program against. Programmers have to write "parallel programs" to fully take advantage of the additional lanes on the CPU highway that AMD & Intel are laying down. It's complex stuff and Microsoft is putting some of its biggest brains on it.

One of the hottest topics in technology today is the advent of utility computing. Increases in bandwidth and computing power has many industry observers asserting that the bulk of the CPU labor doesn't really need to happen on the PC under your desk. Services like Google Docs & Spreadsheets and Salesforce.com have proven that you can deliver a lot of the common computing tasks in a centralized way. No more installation DVD's. Just visit a URL and start using centrally hosted software.

It's pretty damn convenient. But in its current incarnation, its drastically lacking the richness and highly interactive experience associated with desktop applications. Anyone who's used Excel 2007 and Google spreadsheets notices the difference almost immediately. Of course, Google spreadsheets is brand new and running in your browser. So it's not exactly a fair race...yet.

For Microsoft, it makes a hell of a lot of sense to invest heavily in optimizing their software to run as close to the metal as possible. Today, Google is investing in the web browser as the "platform" to deliver their applications. That's going to have to give at some point if they seriously want to compete with Microsoft. No matter how much you trick out Ajax, it's not going to come anywhere the power and capabilities of applications like Microsoft Word and Apple's Keynote, for example.

So where does this leave the promise of rich internet applications (RIA's)? I tend to agree that applications will stop being installed on DVD's and CD's. Boxed software will undoubtedly go away. But the delivery mechanism doesn't tell the whole story. There's still the issue of "platform." If CPU's are outpacing software development, Javascript, AJAX and the plethora of browsers that sort of play nice are just going to end up playing catch up. They're way too high up on the stack to realistically leverage advances in hardware.

If we're truly looking to marry the power of rich software with the reach of the Internet, then we have to look to the players that have viable platforms that can continue to evolve and stay in lock-step (or at least near lock-step) with the ever-accelerating pace of hardware: Microsoft and Adobe. In Adobe's last Flash update (Update 3), they've added multi-core CPU support. You can also bet that Microsoft's Vista and Silverlight will also play close attention to taking advantage of the latest hardware features.

The challenge for Google - if its really serious about going after Microsoft's bread-and-butter productivity software business - is to somehow find a way to lock into and take advantage of a platform that is: (a) universally available and (b) malleable enough to scale up and evolve as hardware improves.

Two years ago, I half-jokingly argued that Microsoft should buy Adobe. At the end of the post, I winked that Google should buy Adobe instead. I agree that we're headed towards massive server farms and a world of utility computing but that trend shouldn't be confused with the clear competitive advantage of delivering powerful software to the desktop. Think Photoshop. Think mind-blowing 3D games. They can all make it over the wire...but you still need that rig - and the platform that knows how to take advantage of it - under your desk.