Categories
Technology

VRML: your time is now

Larry Borsato responded to Om Malik’s glowing review of Hive7 — some kind of virtual community run on Ajax. He writes:

While the AJAX version may be new, the concept isn’t. Almost 10 years ago, back when VRML was in vogue, there were 3D chat programs. You got yourself an avatar, and you could wander around the place chatting with people around you. And frankly, even on those archaic machines, it was a little faster than Hive7 is. Mind you, you couldn’t really tweak it at all. But you got the same general sense.

I remember the VRML 3D chat rooms and designing your own avatar. I loved VRML, and never could understand why the technology didn’t take off. Here you had the ability to create 3D worlds that ran in all operating systems, on most browsers, and which weren’t that CPU or memory intensive. It was such a fun tech–I wonder if we could stick 2.0 on it’s backend and bring it back?

Anyway, I won’t go back to the Hive7 site — it causes all sorts of havoc, and I’m not sure about the ability of other people to control and add content that then gets broadcast to everyone who turns in — I’ve already seen the site taken over with something that redirects the page to a porn site.

Categories
Technology

Jangles

Another good reason to have a weblog is when you come away from a morning appointment that leaves you with the jangles and you just want to find a place to go with the flow for a bit until you can open up your Eclipse installation and write some Java code and tweak an Oracle database, and later in spare time, work on that nifty JavaScript application.

Luckily, one of the first posts to show up in my aggregator today was one titled Your Passion Underwhelms Me, by Dare Obasanjo. Dare responds to a post by Mini-Microsoft on the recent Vista slippage. In particular, he’s responding to Mini’s exultation of the passion of Microsoft employees:

And this partly explains the passion of the comments you will read on this post at Mini-Microsoft.

Skewering the Microsoft leadership. Calling for heads to roll. Frustration. Disgust. Dark humor. Cynicism. Optimism. Pessimism. Rage. Love. Hate.

Another reason — big reason — why the Microsoft commenters are so passionate: They give a damn. Whatever else you may think about their comments, their Give-A-Damn meter is registering in the Green. Sure, it may seem like I’ve got it ass backwards and they’re pegged out in the dreaded Red zone.

Rather than respond directly to Mini’s passionate embrace of the passionate Microsoft employee, Dare points to an must-read post by Rory Blyth: Ten Minutes of Sincerity – Enthusiasthma. What is Enthusiasthma and why is it bad? According to Rory:

Again, like communication, passion is a good thing. It’s good to talk. It’s good to be excited.

But, it’s gotten to the point that the passion has become a sort of disease. I call it “Enthusiasthma” (if you haven’t figured it out yet, that’s a combination of the words “enthusiasm” and “asthma”). People act so excited about things that they can hardly breathe. And they live their lives this way. They show up for meetings out of breath, and present on topics with their voices notched up a whole octave. You can really hear the passion.

Except that you can’t, really.

This notion of constantly being excited is exhausting. It’s not healthy. It isn’t normal. It’s downright stupid and counter-productive.

Rory’s writing is triggered by the recent Microsoft discussion, but what he’s describing is pandemic — it’s scarier than bird flu. It’s this notion that one has to be continuously up, brimming with enthusiasm, embracing new and newer, embuing our speech–written or verbal–with a chain of exclamation points, sticking up like barbed wire at a Gulag. As if by sheer will, by passion we will beat life until it submits to our will, dammit.

What happens instead is we’ll die young, but not so young that we won’t bore most folks around us, first.

I am a tech, and I enjoy working with technology. I enjoy it more now than ten years ago because there’s so many terrific technologies with which one can work: Ruby and RoR, PHP, MySQL, RDF, the fact that XHTML, CSS, and JavaScript finally work with most browsers–I’ve even rekindled my appreciation for Java, thanks to Eclipse. But I find that every time I get passionate about something, my ability to work with my team and my effectiveness to the team decreases as the passion increases. I have a hypothesis as to why: the rushing of blood to my head drowns out what other people are trying to say. The only thing I can hear, then, are the folks who are echoing my words.

More than that, though, is that I come away feeling let down when other people don’t rush to passionately embrace what I passionately embrace. It’s the same feeling you get when you’ve eaten a piece of very surgary cake, and have managed to bounce around the walls for a time, but now the sugar’s out of your blood and you have a headache, and you’re tired and you just want to sit and drink a cup of tea. The primary difference between the two is that you don’t annoy other people when you eat cake.

Categories
Technology

New tech

Today’s adventures in tech: other than pushing some data around, as well as pushing around some JavaScript and doing a bit of writing, I also purchased my first bluetooth mouse: a Logitech laptop mouse for my Powerbook. I like the mouse, but it seems to come disconnected rather frequently. My bluetooth keyboard from Apple doesn’t have this problem. Perhaps I’ll have to get that Apple bluetooth mouse after all.

I also ripped my first DVD, a Firefly show, using Handbrake. I am surprised at how easy it is, and why I never thought of trying this sooner. In addition to being easy to use, Handbrake also has about the prettiest program icon I’ve seen.

That’s it — my day in tech.

Categories
Browsers

The next generation IE

I recently upgraded my Dell laptop to Windows XP — the last upgrade for this particular computer until it needs to be turned into a pure Linux machine. As such, I could download the IE 7 beta.

The very positive aspect of IE is the fact that PNG images actually work with this browser now, including transparent bits being transparent. When I tested it against some older JavaScript/DHTML libraries, the applications wouldn’t work until I used the DOM libraries. So, this means that IE is forward compatible with DOM, but not backward compatible with the Albatross, otherwise known as IE 6.x.

Well, except for opacity, which is a half way implementation between that of Firefox/Mozilla and it’s old filters self. As such, the new fade extension to my library kindof sortof works with it, but should be completely workable with minor tweaking.

Some of the old ‘box’ problems seem to be fixed — at least the one that impacts me, so I’m a contented puppy.

That was the good, now for the bad…

This browser sucks. Is this what we can expect from Vista? “I’m sorry but whatever it is you’re about to do, you’ll most likely do it wrong and screw up this pristine, pure Windows operating system and then you’ll say vile things about Bill Gates, so we just can’t allow this.” Or words to that effect.

I had notifications from Windows XP about firewalls and security software and everything else, but I found where to turn these off. IE 7.x, though–no matter what I do with the preferences, it nags me constantly about how much of a risk my machine is in.

Listen up browser, I like to walk on the edge. Back the hell up.

Don’t even get me started in that bassackwards design of the interface. Those who say it’s cool, have been permanently damaged by solar radiation. Half the time I never know where to type a URL, or where to click a button to reload. Doesn’t matter anyway, because every time I do anything, the little shield icon pops up with

“Would you like to learn how to be safe and secure and never, ever be exposed to anything that might cause you problems? We can take care of you if you’ll…just…push…this…button”.

Thanks, but if I wanted to live like that, I’d vote Republican.

Categories
Specs XHTML/HTML

Ambiguous Specifications do not make Good Technology

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

There is a belief that if it weren’t for the fact that the earliest versions of HTML were unstructured–full of proprietary idiosyncrasies and ill-formed markup indulged by too-loose browsers–the web wouldn’t have grown as fast as it did. Somehow, we’ve equated growth with bad and imprecise specifications rather than the more logical assumption that the growth was due to interest in an exciting new medium.

As such, we’ve carried forward into this new era in web development an almost mythical belief in bad specifications. If we wish to have growth, we think to ourselves, we mustn’t hinder the creative spirit of the users by providing overly rigorous specifications. Because of this belief, we’re still battling ill-formed, inaccessible web pages created by a legion of web page designers who picked up some pretty bad habits: namely the use of deprecated attributes and proprietary elements, as well as the use of HTML tables for everything. Well, everything that isn’t covered by the use of non-standard and proprietary Javascript–use of which results in the annoying messages that one needs a specific browser, or worse, a specific operating system in order to see this Wonderful Thing. Go away until you’re properly equipped.

What we’re finding now with web page designers today, whether they’re amateur or professional, is that it’s just as easy to learn how to do things the right way, as the wrong. What’s important is to provide good, clear documentation, as well as good, clean examples. Contrary to some expectations, adherence to standards, and precise specifications have not killed the spirit of creativity.

In the end, rather than aid the growth of the web, bad specifications slowed it down as a new generation of web pages had to be created out of the ashes generating by burning the old.

Learning how to do things right has such rewards, too. It’s knowing that your page looks good in all operating systems and most browsers; that people can easily navigate your site; that there are a hundred new tools and toys you can use now because you’re using precise and structured markup. Being able to validate a page isn’t a matter of dumping a fairly useless sticker into a sidebar; it means being able to drop in a Google map, or add in-place editing, or automatically pull your calendar out of the page, or any number of wonderfully useful and fun innovations.

We still continue with this belief, though, that to standardize or embed precision into a specification is to stifle the creative juices of the consumer of the specification: whether they be developer, designer, or end-user. Why? What can possibly lead anyone to believe that you can create good technology out of a bad specification?

Some would point to RDF and say that this is a case of a very precise specification that has not led to quick adoption. However, it isn’t surprising that there isn’t billions of RDF/XML documents scattered here and there, and it has nothing to do with the precision of the specification. Some folk didn’t, and still don’t, like the look of the externalized syntax of RDF; others felt that semantics should arise from existing elements; and still others just don’t see the need for it, and won’t until you give them an application that demonstrates this directly for them.

Oh, there’s some pieces of the RDF model we might do without, but precision is not one of them. I look at the precision of the specification of RDF with nothing but relief. I know that the work I do now with RDF follows a model that’s been carefully defined, intimately documented, and rigorously tested. I can trust the model, and know that the documents I create with RDF today will parse just as successfully as documents I’ll create five years from now; more importantly, knowing without a doubt it will mix with your data modeled in RDF.

That’s why I look with some confusion at the backlash against efforts to clarify the RSS 2.0 specification. There is no doubt–none whatsoever–that the RSS 2.0 specification, as currently written, is ambiguous; from what we’re hearing now, in comments and email lists, it is being kept deliberately so. I don’t understand this. This would be no different than to ask Microsoft not to follow standardized use of CSS in the new IE 7.x. Why on earth would anyone want this?

I am just a simple woman who works in technology. Perhaps one of you can explain it to me in such a way that I can understand.

I wrote on the ambiguity in RSS 2.0 as regards to enclosures here, and actually had to modify Molly Holzschlag’s weblog software (WordPress) because her posts with enclosures would cause tools such as Bloglines to break. These are two very popular tools; hence, the ambiguity in RSS 2.0 specification does cause problems. This is a proven fact that no amount of marketing and cheerleading can obfuscate.

Throw as much money as you want at it; write the most glowing reviews; get prestigious names to exult its beauty and power; seek to crush a non-existent enemy if you must–it is still not ‘good technology’. It may have damn good marketing, and lots of dough invested in it, and even have widespread use–but it is not good technology.

I am puzzled as to how anyone, particularly those who work in technology, could say otherwise. I await enlightenment.