Categories
Diversity Technology

Maids, Mommies, and Mistresses

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Kathy Sierra writes on how to speak at Tech conferences. Some of her advice is good, but I disagree, and strongly, on a couple of assertions she makes. Specifically Kathy believes that if women aren’t represented well in this industry, it’s our own damn fault.

One of her tips for getting invited to speak is attend a lot of conferences:

This is by far the best strategy for getting a talk accepted. The more you know what works and what doesn’t, the better you’ll be at both proposing and especially delivering the talk. However, many of us can’t afford the conferences which is precisely why we want to land a speaker slot–Free Pass! Still, I have a hard time listening to complaints about the lack of diversity from people who aren’t motivated enough to find a way to attend a professional conference. There are always clever ways to get into a conference if one wants it badly enough… (as a master at finagling entry to conferences, and being a conference junkie myself, I’ll do a whole separate post on that some day).

I suppose this will work for those women who happen to live where conferences are held, but for the rest of the country, showing up on the door and begging admittance doesn’t hack it. More, this implies having connection into the insider group in order to get in the door. If you don’t have connection to the insider group, it’s harder to get in.

To get an idea of what the insider groups consist of, pick a topic related directly or indirectly to technology and see how often women webloggers who write on it get referenced as compared to the men.

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

I have a hard time listening to complaints about the lack of diversity from people who aren’t motivated enough to find…–pick one: a job, an education, free passes to a conference, an opportunity for advancement, a ride out of a flooded city. This goes back to that old excuse of the priviledged: those who don’t have opportunity choose not to have opportunity.

Kathy also writes:

It’s tempting to think your proposal wasn’t accepted because…

B) I’m [insert your favorite: female/non-white/too old/too young/unknown/not Web 2.0-ish]

There’s been a LOT of complaining about the lack of women at the conferences, and lot of finger pointing at the conference organizers for having an all-male committe that clearly favored the male proposals. WRONG! From O’Reilly, for instance, these are the stats for the last ETech:
“We received 223 proposals, 15 of them from women, for 6% of the total. Of the women who submitted proposals, 46% were selected; for men, the acceptance rate was 32%.”

In other words, women were MORE likely to have etheir proposals accepted than men. The lack of diversity in conferences — at least the O’Reilly conferences — is because they do NOT get enough proposals from non-white,non-male speakers.

I like Kathy, I really do. I think she’s a hell of a good writer, and I admire her skills: both as a technologist and a marketer. But if she says we’re wrong, I answer back, as emphatically: WRONG.

Let’s look more closely at O’Reilly, shall we?

The invitation list for Foo Camp consists of what? Ten percent women? Less? How about the recent Web 2.0? Doesn’t matter if this was a joint conference or not: the O’Reilly name was on the door. As for the ETech conference, the statistic mentions how many of the proposals submitted by women were accepted. I’m curious: how many of the people invited to speak outside of the proposal system were women? How many women as compared to men were specifically invited by O’Reilly folk to submit proposals?

I took graduate level classes in statistics in college: tell me the point you want to make and I can tell you how you can package your numbers to make it. So let’s walk away from these numbers for a minute…

How many conferences has O’Reilly put on that have had a woman in charge of speakers? How many conferences has the organization even had women on the selection committee? I’m not talking about the women involved in administrating the conference–I’m talking about those directly involved in choosing speakers.

Let’s go even further: how many times do you see women referenced in the O’Reilly weblogs? Even when the topic of conversation is social software, which does have a significant number of women? Good lord, look at the O’Reilly sites and the writers and people: we can only hope that some of the critters represented in the colophons are female.

Too few women submitting proposals to O’Reilly conferences. It would seem the same could be said in regards to books and articles, too. There was a Wired article on Tim O’Reilly recently, hinted that he’s a bit of a country hippy. If so, then he’ll understand the phrase, “You have to prime the pump first”.

I could go on, but the point is mute, and the problem isn’t specific to O’Reilly and I don’t want this to turn into a “Let’s kick the shit out of Tim O’Reilly, shall we?” session. The issue comes down to this: do you believe that the reason women don’t have the opportunities at technical conferences is because we’re not trying? If so, why stop there: the same could be asked of women in technology, and even women in society.

Categories
Technology Web

The time is now 1997

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Back in 1996 and into 1997, frames were big, as was the use of HTML tables to organize a web page. The current look for this site was copied directly from backup files I had for 1996 through 1998. The links, if you try them, will open up various pages to example code, most of which hasn’t been touched in close to 8 years.

If you access a specific post, the page will open up my traditional look, primarily because this design from 1996 made use of frames, and frames play havoc with weblogging templates–the URI parameters don’t get passed to the each frame document. Just one of the many challenges we were faced with, daily, when designing web pages years ago. Back before XHTML and structured design; back before CSS had wide support; back even before Flash–when dynamic scripting was new and cross-browser development was an exhausting adventure into never-ever-again land.

From now through this weekend, I’m going to be revisiting much of my old, old content from the so-called Web 1.0 — revisiting it, republishing some of it, and writing on the state of the technology then and now. I’ll be putting up old designs and linking to associated pages in the Wayback Machine (such as Scenarios–check out the bottom of the pages), which demonstrate even more of the technology and philosophy that ruled the web then.

(I’ll be making screenshots of these pages for including when the design reverts back to the norm.)

For many of us, creating web pages and samples and bits of code to give away in the 1990’s was a true labor of love. We didn’t make any money, and didn’t really expect to; or to achieve any form of fame. We didn’t have ranking systems, comments, and such; the only feedback we had was when a person would send an email now and again and say thanks, or we’d see something we created in use elsewhere (and what a joy and thrill that was).

Back then, our pages were bright colors, because in prior years all the only color we had was white. We embedded images for anything because in prior years all we could add was text. And animated GIFs and BLINK weren’t the enemy the way they are now, because they were the first example of a living page.

All of this was new, and every month it seemed, some marvelous new technology would be released.

Welcome to the Web 1.0. Welcome to 1997. It was a good year.

Categories
JavaScript

What does work

One of the old DHTML examples that still works is this Dance of the Sugar Plum Divs, using animated objects built on top of cross-browser DHTML objects. Just in case anyone is interested, here are the cross-browser objects, and the Animator classes.

This technology is the same that powers AJAX.

Categories
Technology

Crash and burn Mac style

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Unfortunately, I may have to kill my little adventure in Web 1.0, as I installed a Firefox extension yesterday and it has so screwed my system up, even after uninstalling, that I’m having to run disc replair and cache clearing tools. If these don’t work, I’ll have to re-install the operating system.

Which goes to show that Firefox extensions are not as sandboxed as one would think. Hopefully clearing the cache and repairing permissions will be all that’s needed. Right now, I can’t load Photoshop, and can barely load Firefox. I’m writing this on my Windows machine, which does not have most of the software I use.

update

 

Running Yasu to clear my system and user cache and to repair permissions, followed by running fsck a couple of times seems to have worked.

Categories
Technology

History of XML

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Reading the article I just re-published on XML (which isn’t a bad intro all things considered), I realized that my little invented XML vocabulary, derived from CDF, and implemented with a tiny browser-based aggregator actually beat the first implementation of RSS.

So I invented syndication feeds.