What I am reading | "Ultra-Marathon Man"

Ultramarathon Man: Confessions of an All-Night Runner
Dean Karnazes



I finished this book recently. It's a pretty entertaining read. While Dean is obviously not a writer by trade, his stories draw you in. While I have no desire to run ultra-marathons, the stories inspire me to continue my running. I found the marathon to the South Pole to be particularly interesting. In any case, this is an easy read; I recommend it for runners at all levels.

What I am reading | "Don't Make Me Think"

Don't Make Me Think! A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability
Steve Krug

I'm slogging my way through this guide to designing easy to use web sites. I had bought it with the idea that it would provide insight into good (web) application design. However, after reading a couple of chapters, it is apparent that web sites, those that provide content, and web applications, those that do something, are different animals.

The book is fine, and is a recommended read for anyone new to web design. Unfortunately for me, Mr. Krug hasn't provided any new ideas that I haven't seen, tried, or evangelized at some point. It's easy to read with good examples; follow the guidelines in the book and your web site won't suck.

Getting in shape the geek way

I caught a Wired magazine article about Tim Cigelske. He is attempting to run a mile and drink a beer, every day for a year. While my days of drinking beer (nearly) every day are long past, the article inspired me step up my own workouts. I should note that I’ve been a runner on and off for a couple of decades, even completing a marathon in my thirties. So it isn’t a stretch for me to start running again.

Of course, like a true geek, I’m getting help from the Web with my training. I’m using FitBit to keep track of my exercise and diet. FitBit is a pedometer type device that is used in conjunction with their web site. The device is tiny, well designed, and stylish. I can wear it on my belt and it is barely noticeable or I can keep it in my pocket. There’s no bulky nerd case like those that hold phones (or calculators back in the ‘80s). It keeps track of your exercise by counting your steps throughout the day. You may also wear it at night to track your sleep patterns (I find the sleep data pretty intriguing).

The FitBit connects to a web site by syncing through a computer. The process of getting started is very simple, but you have to download a small software program and register on the site. FitBit walks you through this step by step. The device syncs via a USB cable that is provided and comes attached to a cute little stand. The software sits in the background, waiting for you to plug in device in; once plugged in, syncing data is automatic.

But then there’s the really nerdy part. The FitBit web site has forms to enter what you’ve eaten, types of exercise you’ve done, or your weight. Nutritional information has been crowd-sourced, so virtually anything you buy at a restaurant chain or grocery store is listed. Because it’s crowd-sourced, though, there are often many entries for the same thing, the trick is finding the most accurate entry. Of course, if you want, you can enter the nutritional information yourself. The web site also tracks daily weight, body fat, or measurements (like your waistline) and plots them on a graph.

So I am thirteen days into my running streak. Next week I’m off to camp with my son, so I may modify my goal to run, bike, or swim every day. My FitBit came yesterday, so I’ve only just started the geek side of my training. I can see that entering calorie and weight data could get tedious, especially if the graphs trend in the wrong direction. So I’m taking the step of connecting sharing by FitBit data on Facebook and Twitter. I’m hoping that public exposure will keep me motivated. Wish me luck.

Thoughts on Safari (browser)

I just downloaded and installed the Safari 4 browser from Apple and it is, well, ugly! The ugliness is particularly bad on the rendering of its' tabs. The tabs are integrated into the window title bar with clumsy 3-D affects. It also eschews the former brushed aluminum theme for drab beige. I find this particularly disturbing since the software comes from one of the few technology companies that actually pays attention to design.

I was able to mitigate the ugliness a little by hiding the menu, bookmarks, and status bars. However, there's no changing the tabs. At first I rationalized the look in two ways. One, the software is beta so the appearance of the UI may change And two, Apple may be taking digs at Microsoft's Windows XP operating system. On further thought, neither makes sense as Apple should never risk its' reputation for design by releasing ugly software, especially on the most common desktop OS in the world.

That's not to say that Safari isn't a great web browser, it is innovative on a few fronts. First among these is speed, but does the average web surfer notice the speed of their browser? Maybe not, but the speed of Safari allows its' top page and history features to display and scroll pages. This works much like the CoolIris add-in (for IE and Firefox). I've only had Safari for a couple of hours, and I've already found the history search very useful.

The browser wars are heating up again and it's getting interesting. Internet Explorer 8, Chrome, FireFox, and Safari are all great software each with a compelling story. As for me, I use Explorer for all our intranet applications and Chrome as my default browser.

Somebody agrees with my Chrome prediction

When Google introduced its' Chrome browser, I posted a short article on my thoughts (see Thoughts on Google Chrome). One of my conclusions was that the browser which would most feel competitive pressure would by FireFox.

"...If my browsing patterns are common, though, then Firefox will suffer more. In the end, Firefox and Chrome may just duke it out..."

Today I read an article with a similar conclusion. I'm happy that someone out there agrees.

The article, though, overlooks the primary reason why IE will remain the dominate browser; the fact remains that a huge library of browser based applications are not cross-browser (case in point, my team's products). This software is not aimed at the consumer or deployed on the World Wide Web. Instead the applications are deployed on corporate intranets around the world, assuring that IE remains the browser of choice for IT departments.

Meme

My introduction to YouTube was a viral video titled "Boom Goes the Dynamite". As it turned out, the video became part of Internet lore, and the term part of American vernacular. There are dozens of similar videos that have become what is called "meme" (pronounced meem). For those of us who quickly delete chain email, or don't have the inclination to follow viral stories, there is a source for the most significant meme, KnowYourMeme.

Know your meme is more than a collection of YouTube links. They have their own videos hosted by geeks in lab coats. They describe the source of the meme, show clips from the original source, and even follow-up on some of the near-celebrities. Check it out and never get left out of idle conversations again.

Twitter gives up on Instant Messaging (for now)

Twitter, one of Web 2.0's most pointless sites, is giving up on their Instant Messaging capability. According to their status page, Twitter is changing the classification of the feature from something needing a fix to something they will build. Apparently their implementation of the feature is neither scalable nor reliable.

Twitter's existence is based on their invention of "micro-blogging." Micro blogs are short notes posted in response to the question "what are you doing." Beyond the concept of a micro-blog Twitter makes it easy to submit updates through their web site or via an SMS message. Instant messaging is simply another way to post the tiny blogs.

The relevance of Twitter has to come into question. Certainly Facebook's news feed serves the same purpose, and is much more common. In fact, most of my Twitter posting are made through the Twitter Facebook application. Maybe it's me, but I believe the real value to Twitter is it's ability to post comments via several easy to use methods. Instant messaging is one of those sources and should be an urgent capability to add. Otherwise the company will lose any relevance to others providing a similar service as part of a greater offering.

Thoughts on Google Chrome

A couple of years ago, a friend of mine said "everything Google does is excellent". He was showing me Google Maps, which at that time, was revolutionary. Until then, I considered Google another search vendor of Yahoo and Alta Vista ilk. Shortly thereafter I signed up for Google Mail (remember when it was by invitation only), then Google Talk, and later Google Docs.

Although I like Google Docs a lot, using it made me realize that not everything from Google is excellent. And that sums up my opinion about Google's new browser, Chrome. While I like it, and am using it a lot, it's not excellent…yet.

I downloaded and installed Chrome shortly after it was made publicly available this week. Like everything that Google does, the download and installation was fast and automatic. Getting started is easy. Regardless of their claims, Chrome is really just another browser. But true to the Google brand, the browser excels at search. Sure the integrated address and search bar is nice, but IE and firefox let you search from the address bar too. The search feature I really like is the within a page; I like the way Chrome highlights hits on the scrollbar.

Two days is not a lot of time to work with a program, and being a new application in a mature market, Chrome is expected to have flaws. Here some of the issues that I found:

• Sites that perform browser sniffing don't render properly. Hotmail, for instance, only supports its' classic html mode. And our FogBugz issue tracking software refuses to run its' Wiki in Chrome.
  
• Facebook applications behave oddly, in particular I found that links and buttons, such as "Allow" or "Ignore" fail.
  
• Our web applications developed by my teams do not render well, but then they don't render well in FireFox either. We remain a Microsoft shop.
  
• Silverlight applications do not run in Chrome, so Google surfers can't see pictures of my family.
  
• There's no history list, at least not without typing the first few characters of a web site.
  
• There's no button to display a home page; well Ok, there's a setting but it's off by default.
  
• I can't (and maybe it's just me) get back to the frequent-page thumbnails without opening a new tab. I want to make this my home page.
  

I find it interesting that Google chose to enter the browser market. Do we need another browser? It's only been a couple of years since Internet Explorer was the only real player. If Chrome catches on there will be four; IE, Firefox, Safari, and Chrome (nah, I don't count Opera). Personally, I find myself gravitating to Chrome despite its' flaws and am considering making it my default browser. Although I use Internet Explorer a bit less I find that I never open Firefox anymore (I have Safari for Windows, but really, who uses that?); this after only two days with Chrome.

The competitive target of Chrome is Internet Explorer, and certainly the Chrome comic book takes shots at IE weaknesses. If my browsing patterns are common, though, then Firefox will suffer more. In the end, Firefox and Chrome may just duke it out for the (tiny but vocal) anti-Microsoft crowd. I heard a rumor that Google's entry into the browser space is a precursor to their entry into PDA's with Android. In much the same way that Apple leveraged Safari on the iPhone, Google will leverage Chrome. And on a tiny cell phone screen Chrome's quirkiness will be unimportant. The cell phone angle is intriguing, but Google's open platform approach will produce odd devices and applications that will seem crude when compared to Apple's cohesive offering. If nothing else, Google is making the software industry fun again.

eWeek looks at Computing on the Cloud

My paper copy of eWeek is generally fodder for the circular file. In fact, the magazine rarely makes it as far as my office. Instead it stays in our reception area on a coffee table along with other unread magazines. This week, though, I picked up a couple of editions to browse while taking lunch. In the process I discovered some interesting cloud computing technologies.

The first is old news for leading edge developers, but new to me. The June 30 edition ran an analysis on the Google App Engine. The Google App Engine competes with Amazon Web Services in scope and intent. Although Google currently only supports the Python language, betting an application on Google infrastructure seems pretty safe.

In a similar vein, GigaSpaces offers an application server that sits on Amazon's EC2 cloud computing solution. The GigaSpaces application server provides a middleware layer between Java or .Net applications and the Amazon Web Services backend.

A third product, Jungle Disk, has a different goal, but uses computing on the cloud none-the-less. Jungle Disk is a backup and storage solution that works with Amazon's S3 Web Service. I have not tried Jungle Disk, but eWeek offers a fairly thorough analysis that puts the product on my to-do list.

Of course the interesting common thread with all these applications is computing on the cloud. GigaSpaces and Jungle Disk take advantage of Amazon's early entry into the utility computing space. Google, however, does everything well, and should have little trouble catching up. Old timers like myself remember the days of time-sharing on mainframes. Cloud computing proves what's old is new again with one important difference; now utility computing is affordable.

Once You’re Lucky

I often pick books based on reviews from Wired Magazine. This was true when I picked up Once You're Lucky, Twice You're Good. In Mark Horowitz's review, he claimed that "Sarah Lacy…hangs with [entrepreneurs] them, gains their trust, and gets the goods. No other recent chronicle delivers such intimate, behind-the-scene glimpses into Silicon Valley startup life." It's an entertaining read reminiscent of Accidental Empires.

My issue with the current crop of valley startups has little to do with Sarah Lacy's book, although her tales reinforce my opinion. The problem is very few of the companies actually provide a site that is useful. Even Facebook, the current reigning king of Web 2.0, doesn't help its members solve problems or get things done. Of course my days of finding a good off-campus kegger with lots of girls are long past. As Twitter, Slide, or Ning they seem even less useful.

What's interesting about these sites, though, and the stories Sarah wraps around them, is the underlying technology. Maybe an old-timer like myself doesn't see the benefit of social networking. I do see where collaboration and go anywhere sites can be very useful. I'm expecting a new wave of web startups that take Web 2.0 into truly commercially viable areas.

Thoughts on some Web 2.0 Sites

The expression Web 2.0 has been with us so long that we can consider it a Tired term. Founded on the principles of collaboration, and built on highly interactive technology (read AJAX), Web 2.0 sites represent the post bubble rebirth of an industry. Some of these sites offer fairly valuable services and some of them are nonsense. Here are my thoughts…

Facebook is seen as the company with the most potential for long term success. I've been using the site almost daily for over a month and I can honestly say that "I don't get it". Sure, I'm a bit of a dinosaur, having attended college (both degrees) long before social networking came to the web. But in all my use of the site over the last several weeks, it hasn't helped me accomplish anything. Facebook has been pretty successful at positioning itself as a platform for micro-applications. Here again, I don't get it. I've tried many of the applications and always end up with the same thought…"so what?". I read somewhere that everyone eventually has an "ah-ha" moment with social networking; I'm still waiting for mine with Facebook.

On the contrary I saw the benefit to LinkedIn the day I started using it nearly five years ago. This site has helped me find work, consultants, and business leads. I've heard it called social networking for business people, but there's really very little that social about it. The site generally prevents people from contacting strangers, at least without an introduction. Ironically, you can pay money to override this fundamental aspect of the site. Paying members have access to InMail messages and can reach out to people directly. Anyone in a career should be active on LinkedIn.

Plaxo is an odd hybrid of Facebook and LinkedIn. I actually avoided using Plaxo for sometime, opting instead for GoodContacts, but when GoodContacts looked like they weren't going to make it, I switched loyalties. Plaxo suffers from an identity crisis. It started as a convenient way of managing business and personal contacts online. I use it as my main address book, and sync Outlook, my Blackberry, and other sites to Plaxo. Somewhere along the way, though, the site morphed into Plaxo Pulse. The new site is a clone of Facebook, right down to the page layout and color scheme. I still use it to keep my address list, but I don't think this company will survive.

Geni is a cute social networking site for families. I checked it out after reading Once You're Lucky. This site is actually pretty good. It is easy to use and has all the capabilities needed to stay in touch with your extended family. Nonetheless I feel this site is doomed. I make this judgment simply because no one seems to know anything about it. My family is so tired of receiving web site invitations from me that they've all but ignored the Geni invites. And without active participation from my family, the site loses its' usefulness. Add in the fact that there is no subscription or advertising; I have no clue how the site expects to earn revenue.

Twitter is dumbest idea I've ever seen. Still, it's pretty addictive. I checked it out because I am starting a project that requires a similar SMS interface. My project, however, will be useful, where Twitter simply generates noise.

I have a love/hate relationship with Flickr. I use the site a lot by storing all my family's pictures there. I uploaded so many pictures that I had to buy a subscription. Flickr was a leader in establishing sharing, but now its UI seems dated. I find it difficult to use, or at least difficult to learn how to use. And I am disappointed in the site's "badge" ability; that led me to seek alternatives including Slide.

Krugle on the other hand is one of the best and most useful sites I've found. Of course you have to be a programmer to appreciate the site's benefits, but for those of us developing software for a living the site is amazing. Forget Google Code Search; Krugle is the place to go for snippets of code and projects in the public domain.

YouTube is silly and innocent fun. If you're reading this far into this post, then you already know all about YouTube.

Some people claim that Google Docs is meant to replace Microsoft Office. Google, of course, denies such claims by saying that Google Docs are meant to augment productivity suites. Frankly I don't care about the pending Microsoft vs Google wars. I like Office and I like Google Docs. I've read that Google Docs is not as feature rich as Office, and certainly the Google toolbar has nowhere near the number of buttons as the Office Ribbon. That said, I've never looked for a feature in Google Docs that it didn't have. I guess that says something for the feature bloat in Office.

Everybody uses maps online. MapQuest was amazing when it first came out. Google, however, really lifted the bar when it introduced Google Maps. Now all the map providers have full screen maps that pan as you drag them. They all have satellite pictures and zoom. Google has Street View and Live and Birdseye View. Of Google, Live, Yahoo! and MapQuest, I like Live best. But they're all good.

I checked out Slide because I wanted a cool way to show pictures on my web site. Slide has some cool features, but I was a little disappointed. I can't imagine building an entire business around slide shows so I don't look for this site to last long.

Popfly is Microsoft's site to demonstrate how cool their Silverlight technology is. It's kind of cool for developers building mashups and who don't mind using Microsoft technology. That's probably a pretty small group, but since I am technology agnostic, I use it and think it's a pretty cool site.

Delicious on the other hand is about as uncool as you can get. I think the site is ugly and serves little purpose. On the contrary, Trailfire, is of similar ilk but is amazing friendly and helpful. What a difference a thoughtful UI can make. Unfortunately, Delicious is the better bet for longevity in this space as they have the backing of Yahoo! and some web 2.0 brand recognition.

Stay away from Fanbox

I am normally a proponent, and sometimes early adopter, of new technologies including Web Sites and Web Services. I'm also a believer in the value of personal networking. I have accounts all over the web including Face book, LinkedIn, and Plaxo Pulse. I've even signed up for some of the losers such as Friendster, Naymz, and Spaces. I never had a bad experience until I came across Fanbox (notice that I refuse to link to it).

It started with an innocent looking message from a colleague; Dawn has a question for you. When I clicked on the link, I was directed to Fanbox and presented a somewhat racy question that was apparently directed at someone with a much different demographic than me. Ironically I had been introduced to Fanbox a few days early by Sterling Brown and given Sterling's reputation I was intrigued. So I clicked on an answer to the question.

Here's a clue, if you get a message about a question, don't click on it! Answering the question kicked off a wizard inviting my contacts to Fanbox. Fanbox apparently scanned my Outlook Contact list, even though I never click a link for that purpose. It then asked if I me to send a question so I immediately clicked cancel. Later I discovered that Fanbox forwarded the question to my contacts and causing me much embarrassment.

It's really a shame because the fundamental technology of Fanbox is pretty cool. They have reproduced a workstation desktop and point-and-click user interface deployed over the web. The desktop comes with storage, email, and that mimic Microsoft Windows pretty closely. Apparently a Web-based Windows environment is a solution looking for a problem, because Fanbox has jumped on the social networking bandwagon. Outside of social networking, I did not see any real value to the site. There certainly is nothing that would persuade users of Facebook or Google Docs to jump to Fanbox.

So Fanbox has resorted to tricks to obtain members. Grabbing my contact list was akin to spyware or worm tactics. Maybe someday a company with vision will snatch up the Fanbox technology and deploy it provide some real benefit. Until then, avoid Fanbox like the plague.

Hey Google, WTF?

Last month I started displaying ads on this blog using Google Adsense. I did it as a curiosity more than anything else. After all, a low traffic blog like mine will not generate much revenue. In fact, six weeks of Adsense has earned a whopping $9.76. Imagine my surprise, then, when I received the follow notice...

It has come to our attention that invalid clicks have been generated on your Google ads, posing a financial risk to our AdWords advertisers.Please note that any activity that may artificially inflate an advertiser's costs or a publisher's earnings is strictly prohibited by our program policies.

...

Please note that because we credit advertisers for any invalid activity we detect, we may adjust your account earnings for any days during which invalid clicks occurred.

If you were clicking your ads out of interest or to see who was advertising on your site, please note that clicking on your own ads for any reason is strictly prohibited by our program policies. Instead, we suggest using the AdSense preview tool as an alternative.

...

Ok. I understand that advertisers will not be happy about publishers clicking away on ads for no other purpose than to inflate the click-throughs. Higher click-throughs result in higher fees. In my case, however, it's pretty obvious that I'm not stealing advertisers blind. I would think that Google, for all their sophisticated engineering power, could derive an algorithm that ignore sites with a minimum number of clicks. Less than 10 in a month in my case.

Now here's the rub; I clicked on the ads because I had a legitimate interest in the products offered. It's a compliment to Google that the ads they choose by my blog have relevance to the topics I discuss. I've even downloaded whitepapers and started conversations with sales reps. I expect that Google's fancy algorithms will never determine that.

Google's note refers me to their preview tool, but it isn't supported in my browser. In short, Google's strict policy prohibits me from viewing information that has peaked my interested. Given that I am a buyer of technology I exactly represent the target market of my advertisers.

When it's all said and done, I will continue to click on ads that interest me. If Google revokes my Adsense, then so-be-it. It's a sad testament to a company that many hold in high esteem, but frankly this web behemoth seems more and more like vintage 90s Microsoft.

The end of an era, say goodbye to an icon

I was shocked last week when I received my copy of InfoWorld. Printed in the corner of the cover was the announcement: "The Final Print Issue."

I have been reading InfoWorld for nearly twenty years. I remember when it was printed on large newsprint. In the early days, the paper was the premier source of information on technology. The articles, reviews, and news were relevant to the industry. I loved Robert X. Cringley when he provided insider information wrapped in his unique humor about Pammy and his Studebaker Hawk.

But the years have not been kind of the paper. The content simply has not retained the same quality and relavence it had during the 90s. Even Cringley digressed into useless gossip from readers and ranting against Microsoft. From my perspective, only Tom Yager remained insightful.

InfoWorld spins the change as evolution; a move away from the print world and strictly into the online world. I see it as evolution toward death. The move ignores the fact that people read newspapers and magazines for the convenience of the media. It's very easy to skim through a paper, absorb the headlines, and drill into interesting articles. No one will skim online content in the same manner.

Everyone knows the web is a tremendous source of information. And every provider of news, technology or otherwise, must have a web presence. The online experience, however, is very different from the offline experience. InfoWorld, for example, was delivered to me. It's the perfect push technology because once it is in my hands I always flip through it. InfoWorld also sends me email with links to their site. These are very easy to ignore, unsubscribe, or filter as junk. I generally ignore them.

I don't see InfoWorld reinventing themselves into Digg. It is still old school and its' web site doesn't put them on the Web 2.0 radar (which is getting tired anyway). In fact, their web-site feels more like CNN than Digg. As for me, it looks like I will be getting my technology news from eWeek and Wired.

Hey Spencer F. Katt, I miss Pammy and the Studebaker.