Categories
Just Shelley

Getting computer creaky syndrome

I hurt my shoulder a couple of weeks ago, and it’s been a bugger ever since. I hurt it when I tripped on something on the ground and threw my arms out to try and hold my balance. There was a sharp pain, deep inside the shoulder. Now it’s gotten to the point where I can’t pick up my cat, open or close my windows, or reach above my head.

My left knee, which I injured when tripping over computer cables at the dot-com I worked at years ago, is also giving me problems. Both it and the shoulder seem to be permanently swollen and achy.

I’m getting creaky, and sitting at the computer as many hours as I do in a day accounts for much of it. There is no sitting on your butt, hunched over a small machine, gene. It’s an unnatural act, and no amount of ergonomic keyboards and chairs is going to make the act more natural.

No matter how busy I am, I’m going to have cut back the time at the computer. I don’t know how people can do it, with twitter and blogs and work programming and mailing lists, but I can’t.

Quality, not quantity. That’s the ticket you know. Now I just have to figure out which of my online addictions I can eliminate. Well, aside from the obvious.

Categories
Books

Writing hacks: desist

The book progresses, but not quickly enough. I’ll have to reach to meet my deadline. My biggest challenge from a time perspective is trying to find relatively fresh, fun ways of looking at topics, which have been discussed to death online and in other books. Especially since I’m not known to be either a great photographer or graphics artist.

No, this isn’t fishing for compliments, or reassurances. I have no wish to be a great photographer or a great graphics artist. I enjoy the world of web graphics because, unlike my programming, I’m not dependent on any of it for a living. I’m free to try new things, to tinker around on my own, and just generally have a lot of fun. That’s actually the whole point of the book: having fun.

We don’t seem to have fun with our use of web graphics, and I include photography in this. We’re all too damn earnest. We’re passionate about everything we do, and there’s few things that will destroy fun and a sense of personal exploration more than being both earnest and passionate. I’m rather hoping my book will stand out because it is neither earnest nor passionate on the topic of web graphics.

Oh my, I sound like Jeff Atwood and his don’t buy my book refrain, don’t I?

In his latest, Atwood–after having gone through one book writing process and looking back on the whole thing like the wise old gray beard that he is–writes how tech books are nothing more than dead trees. Don’t buy them, don’t write them, he exclaims.

I particularly liked the part where he states how anyone can be an author:

Even if books make no financial sense, perhaps the ancillary benefits can make the effort worthwhile. I won’t lie: you’ll get a little thrill the first time you ego-search Amazon and see your book in the results. There is a certain prestige factor associated with being published; people are impressed by authors. To me, these are ultimately empty accolades. Anybody can write a book. The bar to publishing a book is nonexistent; with sufficient desire, any would-be author can get published. Just because you’ve published doesn’t mean your book is worth reading. It doesn’t mean your book matters. It just means your book exists. Far from being impressive, that’s barely meaningful at all.

Just to be sure that he hasn’t convinced you enough that all book writers are hacks Atwood re-emphasizes:

In short, do not write a book. You’ll put in mountains of effort for precious little reward, tangible or intangible. In the end, all you will have to show for it is an out-of-print dead tree tombstone. The only people who will be impressed by that are the clueless and the irrelevant.

There is some truth in what Atwood writes. A lot of books don’t earn out their advances in order to get post-publication royalties. Unless you’re one of the few to have a huge best seller in the tech business, you’re not going to make any serious money; you’re barely going to break even with the hourly rate paid babysitters.

Some truth, too, with Atwood’s note about people no longer being impressed with book authors. Too many of us weblog–the old saw about familiarity breeding puppies, or some such thing. He even goes so far as to ensure you’re careful not to exhibit any respect for book authors by stating that those pitiful few who might give respect to authors are both irrelevant and clueless.

Marketing’s the thing, now. Marketing and attention. Don’t have to take my word for it: look at that the so-called Techmeme ‘leaderboard’ and you’ll quickly find that no amount of hard work, quality, or interest can compete with middle aged men having petty temper tantrums because they’re not getting their share of the lollies.

Books that are how-tos, help, or guides just don’t hack it today. Many of the better selling so-called ‘tech’ books don’t offer any practical advice. Most are formed from rants, both for and against, the technology many of the authors don’t even understand. Books have become more clan entry than helpful guide; you share your affiliations by the reviews you write.

Why do those of us who write tech books continue, then? That is the question, isn’t it?

One must, however, take Atwood’s rant with a little salt. After all what better way to generate noise about a book on a subject where too many books exist than to write something controversial at the same time you begin to promote the book. It’s just unfortunate that Atwood has chosen to promote his work by throwing those of us who have written tech books–for whatever reason–under the bus.

Categories
Technology Writing

Notes from the book part two

Summary:   Wherein author picks up both stick and carrot, paying particular attention to the attached metadata: Me relate stick. Me relate carrot. Me class hitting. Stick class hit. Carrot class eat. Me relate Microsoft. Translation: I am hitting the stick with Microsoft, while eating a carrot.

  • Open source developers, providers of free or inexpensive shareware applications, those working on open standards and specifications, or providing documentation, tutorials, and help for all of the above: you almost make me believe there is a land over the rainbow, and that it has fairies and unicorns and we never have to wear shoes. I don’t thank you, as often enough, and as much as you deserve.
  • Speaking of which: whoever came up with the original idea for CSS, you deserve chocolates
  • Everyone is mad at Apple for iPhone, but I don’t care: Safari 3 is a wonderful browser. Color management, far out. And Opera? Thanks for standing up for standards. Firefox, you’re cool, too, but you need to commit to implementing one spec before you start on others. Oh, and it would be really nice if you didn’t crash so much. No, really that would be cool.
  • The WhatWG and (X)HTML5 efforts are, in my opinion, not the best use of resources. We’ve spent years separating presentation values from page layout, only to turn around and make the same mistake with semantics. Accessibility is in; accessibility is outMachine versus human semanticsIndent versus blockquote. Hey! Poem markupSVG isn’t ‘semantically rich’ . When semantics have to be hard coded into the syntax, satisfaction will never be guaranteed. Open models, not new specs. When will they ever learn? When will they e-v-e-r learn.
  • Regarding microformats: Using “rel”, “class”, and “profile”, as the only available means in which to add semantics to markup is the same as using LOLCats to re-define the Bible: it’s pidgin markup. “Me class sitting. Me relate chair. Chair relate desk. Me class watching. Me relate windows. Window relate Woman. Woman class running. Woman relate street. Woman class feeling. Feeling relate weather. Weather class cool. Weather class fall. Me class wistful. Me class wishing. Me relate woman.”–this is my sad attempt to describe my sitting in a chair at my desk, looking out through my open window at a woman jogging along in the wonderfully cool fall weather, wishing I was her instead me being here at the computer. At some point in time, simplicity breaks down and you want a richer method in which to express your meaning.
  • Chew on this: pictures as data, as well as visual, entities.
  • Canvas is cool, but SVG is better. It’s not just because SVG elements become part of the Document Object Model (DOM) and are easily scriptable. It’s because we can find SVG similar to what we want, copy it, manipulate it, and we don’t have to know any scripting. I wanted images of musical notes and searched on “music notes svg”, which led me to this Wikipedia page and this (as well as this) public domain SVG. I copied the SVG file and deleted the SVG creating the bars–no bitmap tool magic needed to pull the notes separate from the bars. I split the notes into two separate images by coping and pasting the two different elements. I copied the SVG for both into this post, and scaled them into tiny little representations of themselves. Though the browser had to reach to scale them so small, we’re not left with a tiny little bitmap blobsI did think about using the following image, copied from this resource. Oh look, the original SVG contains metadata defined using RDF/XML. Isn’t it marvelous when you can merge rich, well defined XML vocabularies together? Just like that?
  • Silverlight: Why? There’s nothing in Silverlight 1.0 that doesn’t exist as an open standard and can’t be supported for IE applications–if Microsoft would just support them. Silverlight as a 2D graphics system? Both SVG and Canvas are 2D graphics systems. Microsoft supports form controls like buttons? Hey! Guess what we’ve had in HTML for years? Silverlight 1.1 integrates web browser and ASP.NET functionality, which means you can use your Microsoft Visual Studio and Microsoft Web Expression applications to create Rich Internet Applications? Fantastic! It still doesn’t change the fact that Microsoft pushed its browser on the same developers it’s trying to suck into the Silverlight world, and then abandoned it, and us, for five years; effectively holding up advances in internet development for half a decade.
  • Adobe Flex/AIR: Why? It’s true that Flash has done much for us over the years, and we’re grateful, but we’re ready to move into a new era of open standard applications and, frankly, Adobe, you’re rather hit and miss when it come to ‘open’ and ‘standard’. Take your SVG plug-in. It’s cool and we thank you for providing it so that IE users could see what they’re missing using a half-assed browser. Now you’re going to pull the plug-in and your support for it. Why not open source it, and let the open source community decide if it wants to continue to support it? Is it because, as has been noted elsewhere, you want us to consider converting [our] SVG application to an Adobe Flex® application? Golly, I just love these opportunities to get sucked into another bloated, proprietary application environment. It makes me feel so good when you finally, inevitably, stop.
Categories
Books Photography Writing

Lessons from the book

Lessons learned so far from the book:

  • Photoshop, still king. After working with several photo and graphics editors, I can say with a great deal of certainty that Photoshop really does deserve the respect it’s been given. Adobe’s habit of re-arranging its products with every release, paranoia about stolen software (somewhat justified) and high price tags aside, the product is the best.
  • There are other good photo editing tools. Having said that Photoshop is the best, there are other excellent photo editing tools, including GIMP. I tried out the new GIMP 2.4 and was very impressed with the application. What’s important to remember about GIMP is that it’s one of the few that isn’t claiming to be a “Photoshop killer”. It considers itself to be a unique photo editing product.
  • Of the other products I explored, Paint Shop Pro has gotten a lot of flack for only being 8-bit, and deservedly. It still has an extraordinary number of photo effects, though. Paint.NET is not–not ready for prime time, that is.
  • Photoshop Elements is fun Elements is more than Photoshop with much of the guts torn out. Elements really is focused at a different audience. It doesn’t have much of the fine control that Photoshop provides, true. It does, however, support what most people want from a photo editor, and a whole lot of new functionality that most people would find fun. Since I have my TV hooked up to my computer, I adored Element’s ability to generate a widescreen HD-compatible slideshow movie with music of a folder of photos.
  • The next Photoshop will be an online tool. I’m amazed at the number of online photo editors. I’m doubly amazed with all the hyperbole surrounding them. These tools are described variously as the next Photoshop Killer or the next Photoshop, period. Even Adobe is coming out with an online tool. My first test for each of the online photo editors I looked at? Uploading and opening a RAW image file. Puts the whole ‘online’ photo editor thing into perspective.
  • Colorful black and whites. I don’t think I’ve realized how colorful black and white photos really are until I started exploring, in depth, the many ways one can convert a color photo into a black & white. This exercise should be a requirement for every class teaching black & white photography.
  • Snag-It is great for screen captures and Skitch has an interesting social network facility, but my favorite screen capture tool ended up being Faststone’s Fast Capture. I found it more comfortable to use then the other two products.
  • I will accept software that dynamically resizes my photos for online display, only if you let me use my new Grease Monkey script that removes all the conjunctions from your writing.
  • Most important graphics tools. The most important tool both for editing photos and creating graphics is the Gaussian Blur. You can do without most other things, but you can’t do without the Gaussian Blur.
Categories
SVG Writing

Blog pulse

Summary:   beep…beep…svg…beep…beep…

I need to refocus on the book, but you’ll be seeing the tangible aspects of writing a book on web graphics throughout my web sites in the weeks to come. For instance, if you’re using an SVG capable browser, you might notice the ‘squiggle’ line across my header. That’s my ‘blog pulse’. It reflects my updated comment count for the last 80 posts. Of course, you know what this means: if my blog pulse straight lines flatlines, my weblog is dead. You hold the life of my blog in your hands.

Currently the ‘pulse’ isn’t viewable to IE or other non-SVG enabled browsers. The Adobe SVG Viewer won’t pick up the SVG, as I’m embedding the SVG directly into the page’s XHTML. That’s the whole reason I bit the bullet and converted to XHTML in the first place.

I could convert the example to using the Canvas object and Google’s ExplorerCanvas library, or perhaps use Sam’s SVG to Silverlight Workbench. Frankly, even though I have a lot of visitors using IE, as long as the information represented in the graphics is either available in other formats or non-essential, I may just blow off IE.