Category: Web

Web technology

Categories
Web

Cite not link

I do have considerable sympathy for 1Thomas Crampton, when he discovered that all of his stories at the International Herald Tribune have been pulled from the web because of a merger with the New York Times.

So, what did the NY Times do to merge these sites?

They killed the IHT and erased the archives.

1- Every one of the links ever made to IHT stories now points back to the generic NY Times global front page.

2- Even when I go to the NY Times global page, I cannot find my articles. In other words, my entire journalistic career at the IHT – from war zones to SARS wards – has been erased.

At the same, though, I don’t have as much sympathy for Wikipedia losing its links to the same stories, as detailed by 2Crampton in a second posting.

The issue: Wikipedia – one of the highest traffic websites on the Internet – makes reference to a large number of IHT stories, but those links are now all dead. They need to delete them all and find new references or use another solution.

As I wrote in comments at Teleread:

I do have sympathy, I know I would be frustrated if my stories disappeared from the web, but at the same time, there is a certain level of karma about all of this.

How many times have webloggers chortled at the closure of another newspaper? How many times have webloggers gloated about how we will win over Big Media?

The thing is, when Big Media is gone, who will we quote? Who will we link? Where will the underlying credibility for our stories be found?

Isn’t this exactly what webloggers have wanted all along?

Isn’t this what webloggers have wanted, all along?

I have sympathy for a writer losing his work, though I assume he kept copies of his writings. If they can’t be found in hard copies of the newspaper, then I’m assuming the paper is releasing its copyright on the items, and that Mr. Crampton will be able to re-publish these on his own. That’s the agreement I have with O’Reilly: when it no longer actively publishes one of my works, the copyright is returned to me. In addition, with some of the books, we have a mutual agreement that when the book is no longer published, the work will be released to the public domain.

I don’t have sympathy for Wikipedia, though, because the way many citations are made at the site don’t follow Wikipedia’s citation policy. Links are a lazy form of citation. The relevant passage in the publication should be quoted in the Wikipedia article, matched with a citation listing the publication, author, title of the work, and publication—not a quick link to an external site over which Wikipedia has no control.

I’m currently fixing one of my stories, Tyson Valley, a Lone Elk, and the Bomb because the original material was moved, without redirection. But as I fix the article, what I’m doing is making copies of all of the material, for my own reference. Saving the web page is no different than making a photocopy of an article in the days before the web.

In addition, I will be adding a formal citation for the source, as well as the link, so if the article moves again, whoever reads my story will know how to search for the article’s new location. At a minimum, they’ll know where the article was originally found.

I’m also repackaging the public domain writing and images for serving at my site, again with a text citation expressing appreciations to the site that originally published the images.

By using this approach, the stories I consider “timeless”, in whatever context that word means in this ephemeral environment, would not require my constant intervention.

Authors posting to Wikipedia should be doing the same, and this policy should be enforced: provide a direct quote of relevant material (allowed under Fair Use), and provide a formal citation, in addition to the link. Or perhaps, instead of the link. Because when the newspapers disappear, they’ll have no reason to keep the old archives. No reason at all. And then, where will Wikipedia be?

1Crampton, Thomas, “Reporter to NY Times Publisher: You Erased My Career”, thomascrampton.com. May 8, 2009.
2Crampton, Thomas, “Wikipedia Grappling with Deletion of IHT.com”, thomascrampton. May 8, 2009.

Categories
Social Media Web

My abbreviated self

I discovered that a URL has to be less than 30 characters, or Twitter automatically creates a Tinyurl version of the URL. This, even if the entire message is less than 140 characters.

There’s no way I can create URLs that are less than 30 character and still maintain my subdomain designations. Therefore I’m not going to try, and will most likely be removing any short URL stuff here. With all the recent “one million followers” foo flah, including the breathless designation that one person achieving one million Twitter followers is equivalent to landing a man on the moon and space flight, in scientific importance, I would just as soon stick with stodgy old weblogging.

Weblogging, where no one really knows how many people are following you, most people don’t care, we can actually communicate complete thoughts, and do what we want with our URLs.

From today’s WhatWG IRC:

hsivonen: I can imagine all sorts of blog posts about evil HTML5 raining on the rev=canonical backpattery parade

svl: Mostly (from what I’ve seen) it’s been “let’s all use this en-masse, so html5 will be forced to include this”.

Of all the items in contention with the HTML5 working group, the use of rev=canonical is not high on my list. Why? Because there’s no real argument for it’s use, and a lot of good arguments against its use, and it’s just as easy to use something else.

This all came about because Twitter was built first, designed later. One of the difficulties to keeping a message to 140 characters is that URLs can take 140 characters, and more. Yet there is no URL shortening mechanism built into Twitter. Not only is there no URL shortening mechanism built into Twitter, Twitter, itself, uses another, 3rd party, service: tinyurl.com.

Now, all of a sudden, people are in a dead cold panic about using a service that may go away, leaving link rot in Twitter archives. I hate to break it to the folks so worried, but it will probably be a cold day in hell before anyone digs into Twitter archives. Most of us can’t keep up with the stream of tweets we get today, much less worry about yesterday’s or last week’s.

But there are a lot of other problems associated with using a 3rd party service. Problems such as the recent Twitter follies, otherwise known as Twitter Been Hacked, that ended up being a not particularly fun Easter Egg this weekend. When you click on a Tinyurl URL, you don’t know what you’re going to get, where you’re going, or worse, what will happen to you when you get there. Even Kierkegaard would have a problem with this leap of faith.

There’s also an issue with search engine link credit, not to mention everyone using different URL shortening services so you can’t tell if someone has referenced one of your posts in Twitter, or not. This didn’t use to be a problem, but since everyone does most of their linking in Twitter now, it gets mighty quiet in these here parts. You might think, sigh, no one likes what you’re doing, only to find out that a bunch of people have come to your party, but the party’s been moved to a different address.

So I think we can agree that third party URL services may not be the best of ideas. I, personally, like that we provide our own URL shorteners. Not only would we get the search engine credit, it should encourage the use of the same URL in Twitter, which might help us find the party we lost. Plus, wouldn’t you rather click a link that has burningbird.net in it, then one that has dfse.com? Implementation of our own short URLs should be simple in this day and age of content management systems. All we need to do is agree on a form.

Agree? Did someone say, agree?

As I wrote earlier, I’ve heard too many good arguments against rev=canonical, including the fact it’s too easy to make a typo and write rev=canonical, when we mean rel=canonical, and vice versa. In addition, rel is in HTML5, rev is not, and I’m not going to hammer a stake in the ground over rel/rev. I’m keeping my stakes for things that are important to me.

Note to HTML5 WG: she has a hammer. And stakes.

As for what attribute value to use with rel, whether it’s shortlink or shorturl or just plain short, I don’t care. I took about five minutes to implement shortlink in this space. I implemented shortlink, because this is the option currently listed in the rel attribute wiki page. However, it would only take about a minute to change to shorturl. I even added the short link to the bottom of my posts, which can be copied manually and used to paste into a Twitter post, if you’re so inclined. See, I don’t have to wait for anyone’s approval; I am empowered by Happy Typing Fingers.

Regardless of what we do, I agree with Aristotle: way too much effort on something that should be easy to decide, quick to implement, giving us time to worry about things that are important in HTML5. Things such as SVG, RDFa, and accessibility.

Other discussions related to rel/rev/tiny:

And that’s my 4424 character take on tiny URLs.

Another reason tiny URLs are getting attention is because of the evil new DiggBar. Goodness gracious, people, why on earth do you use crap like this?

Categories
Web

When can you use…now if you choose

Continuing the theme of moving forward in web design…

  • Several people have linked or otherwise noted Alexis Deveria’s excellent When Can I use… application. You can select from various options, including specifications or by browser, date, and so on, and you’ll get recommendations about what you can and can not use. I tried it by selecting all browsers but IE, specifications that are in recommendation status, and currently implemented or will be implemented in the very near future. The application recommended SVG, MathML, and serving web pages up as application/xhml+xml. When I added candidate recommendation, then all of the functionality I currently use was listed.
  • Robert Nyman says Stop developing for Internet Explorer 6.0, which echos our effort to generate an IE6 End of Life effort last year. Robert is receiving about the same concerns I received, and along the vein of “But the customer wants…”. This is a far cry from the designer community that existed a decade ago that asked for, nay demanded adherence to web standards. Some would say it is a sign of the times, but as my readings of the Great Depression has shown, it is exactly during times like these when great changes come about.

    If we extrapolated the continuing active support for IE6 to other industries, our cars would only get 5 miles to the gallon, our music would only come from stores on flat discs, books would only be available on paper, and we’d all still be developing CGI applications in Perl.

  • Smashing Magazine has a nice writeup on PHP IDE’s, including comparisons. I must admit to being old fashioned, and still using vi/vim. Vi rules.
  • Michael Bernstein has an ambitious plan to public a new web app every Wednesday. I’m currently playing with 1LinQR. I’m not sure about creating a new web application every week, but I am thinking of creating some form of scheduled output, to add structure to my life.
  • Speaking of structure, I received a suggestion to try the CMS Joomla this week, and am thinking of starting another subdomain for that purpose. I’m finding, though, that supporting multiple CMS applications is becoming an increasingly complex challenge. For example, though WordPress and Drupal, and Joomla, too, are PHP-based, they all have significantly different template systems and frameworks for extensions. I’m having the devil of a time wrapping my mind around the WordPress way of doing things now, as compared to Drupal’s. Then there’s the upgrades: I just finished ones for Drupal, and Drupal modules, and now WordPress is at 2.7.1.

    What I think I’ll create is a shell script that backs up all of my sites, databases and files, downloads whatever is the latest of Drupal, WordPress, and Joomla (if I do try the application), and whatever other applications I use, and then upgrades each, even if the software hasn’t changed. Then once a week I could do a blanket run at my entire site. There shouldn’t be broken bits, but if there is, well, then I’ll have a better idea of the robustness of the applications. Running an upgrade on a site with the same version of software currently installed should result in no change in the application.

    Since today is Charles Darwin’s birthday, call the approach CMS natural selection. No, not survival of the fittest, which really isn’t an evolutionary concept. My script process will naturally select for extinction, those applications that fail.

Speaking of which, Happy Birthday Charles, Happy Birthday, Abe.

Categories
SVG Web

Gracefully upgrading

I am reminded in comments of Steve Champeon’s progressive enhancement, which I actually did cover in my book, “Adding Ajax”. My apologies to Steve for seeming to subvert his subversion of all browsers look the same. I tend to think of Steve’s progressive enhancement in light of the use of JavaScript, but it is also focused at design, too. And, I am embarrassed to admit, I forgot about the concept when I started to write up what I’ve done with my site designs. Blame it on enthusiasm, or advancing age—take your pick.

However, if the concept is so popular with web designers, I have to wonder why every time I mention the use of SVG in web design, I’m met with “Oh, but not every browser supports SVG”? Perhaps IE has become, over time, a handy excuse for not trying something new.

Regardless, the idea of starting plain, and upgrading gracefully did originate with Steve.

Categories
RDF SVG Web

Tweaking makes perfect

Not long ago, Tim O’Reilly posted a discussion thread about the importance of practice, and one of the participants in the thread, my long-time editor, Simon St. Laurent, reiterated his interest in practicing this year—both on the trumpet, and in his coding.

I never left programming the way I left trumpet. I simply stopped playing trumpet after eighth grade. I’ve gone back and forth with programming since sixth grade, getting totally into it for a year or two at a time and then departing out of frustration, distraction, or the need to do something else. At O’Reilly, I’m exposed to programming constantly – I edit and write computer books after all! – but editorial is a long ways from actually programming. Even writing books about programming is a seriously meta- activity, one that requires more attention on the communications than on the code. (The code has to be right, but – though this may depend on the audience – the explanations have to do a lot more than the code.) My work isn’t programming practice.

One place I practice is with this site. I still have hopes that I can transform my work with this site into some paying work. At a minimum, I enjoy the tweaking and it keeps me occupied.

In addition, I also frequently re-design this site. Doing so allows me to explore new uses of technology, such as the use of SVG for site design, and JavaScript and RDFa in support of semantics. The practice also helps me improve my use of XHTML and CSS, including how to deal with IE without necessarily having to incorporate massive amounts of workaround code. Luckily, the “in” design concepts today are based on a minimalist design, so if my site is legible and clean in IE, it doesn’t matter if it’s plain.

I’m not practicing with every hot technology; I’ve made choices with how I spend my time. Yes for PHP, Python, JavaScript, CSS, SVG, RDFa, various web services, and XHTML. No on .Net, Ruby, Java, and cloud computing. A maybe on HTML5 and C++. Not necessarily the best decisions, perhaps, as Java and .Net are where the money is made, and the folks in Silicon Valley drool when you mention “cloud”, but I really don’t like the technologies or the environments.

Practice is essential for keeping our skills sharp, but that’s not the only reason it’s important. It’s also a way to constructively deal with the constant barrage of unhappy news we’re subjected to. We may not have any control over warring nations, global warming, or the state of economy, but we do have some control over how we live our lives. And that includes finding pieces of ourselves that can be improved with practice.