For the last 12 years I’ve been a ‘jack-of-all-trades’ as far as production goes. I graduated from Graphic Design and took a post grad in Interactive Multimedia. For three of the following years I worked for myself, and literally did every single task from the inception of a project to its launch. While “Jack” is a master of none, I was very happy with the work I was doing.

When I started at Thrillworks I was hired as a Web Designer, with front end coding responsibilities – it was such a relief to focus on production again and stop doing account work. Finding a niche is very relieving – and that’s totally how this new job felt.

The kinds of clients and work we were getting meant doing a lot more code than design in my first year, and I started to flex my left brain a lot more. If you’re a designer you might identify with these seasons of work, and like you (probably) I started to yearn for more design. I asked for it, and ‘the suits’ gave it to me.

The Problem

So happy ending right? NOPE! It was terrifying. I found that after a year of coding I was having trouble making design decisions.

Code simply works or it doesn’t. You compare your requirements to your product and you know if it’s good. Design is subjective. How do I know when I’m done picking my pallat? Stack Overflow can’t come to your rescue here.

Design is a “use it or lose it” skill, and I am starting to lose it.

I have been chasing two very different disciplines for a long time now. One traditionally technical, one creative. Both change a lot. To keep up with design trends is very challenging. To keep up with the ever changing HTML5 / CSS3 / jQuery landscape is no easier.

The Change

I met with my Creative Director for some career advise, and we came to the conclusion that I should follow my passons, hang up my designer hat for now and pursue Front End development 100% for a while. That was four weeks ago, and it’s been amazing.

The next day I felt like a new man. It feels like my role as a Thrillworker is a lot clearer. I immediately started making lists and gearing up. A few back-burner ideas began to solidify as actual plans – it’s been a wild ride.

Jack is Alive and Well

I am thankful for this new focus, and for the comfort in knowing that Jack isn’t going anywhere. I still tinker with my own site (update coming any day now!), and my design background is hugely important in front end coding.

I’ve been in my “niche” for a month now and I’m already feeling like keeping up with the three basic web languages qualifies as being a jack of all trades! There’s enough to HTML, CSS, or JavaScript to keep someone busy full time. I’m not ready to focus that narrowly yet.

Find focus. It’s not new advice.

“If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both.” – Native American proverb

I was surprised when .net Magazine emailed me a few questions on the topic for a post of their own – to see my name on the site of a magazine I’ve been reading for the last 6 years was pretty astounding (I’m on a last name basis with Magazine!).

The Debate

The really great thing that came out of this was the discussion. A few people (notably Bruce Lawson) pointed out that a browser monoculture would be a terrible thing (he linked to an amazing post about South Korea which basically has this in place now with Windows XP). I conceded the point in my comments and added an amendment to my post, stating that I was getting a bit too focused on the means rather than the end.

I need to be more careful in the future when getting into editorials. I should have been more clear that it’s not so much the IE browser that I have issue with, but rather how it renders CSS. IE7 has been a pain in my neck for ages. How much time have I spent on work-arounds for it now allowing display:inline-block?! I have only just started looking at IE9 when I was finding some of the same bugs on a site. My point was that WebKit would never have this issue; and if it did, enough major platforms used it that it would be default in the mind.

Another problem I created for myself in my post was that I was speaking about the default browser on mobile platforms. I was disregarding third-party browsers like Opera and Firefox – which to their credit seem to get along fine with the CSS WebKit does well with.

My Take Away

I never intended to come off saying I wanted WebKit to rule the world, but I guess I kind of accidentally did. I agree that browser competition can be great (but I don’t think innovation enters into the equation as far as rendering CSS goes).

Another thing I never said in the post, is that I am actually resigned to the fact that I’ll be making IE specific stylesheets for mobile in the not-too-distant future. I can see this isn’t work I can avoid. This can still be a browser war, and we’ll need to draw the line somewhere. If (when) Amazon makes a browser will we support that too? OK, fine. What about when Sony does? Sure? What about Joe the Plumber? Ugh. There’s enough information online that I could probably make my own browser – I feel like the onus is on browser makers to comply with some set of CSS standards.

In summary what we need is more browser standards. I think everyone can agree with that!

If browsers don’t render the fundamental CSS properly this could lead to one scary thing – lazy developers going back to predictable, ‘safe’ tabular layouts that can be easier to make universal across browsers. And no one wants that.

I just received a call from my bank. You know the one, some telemarketer is excited to tell you about some great new program that’s being offered. This was a great example of bare minimum communication.

The call came as I lay on the couch dead tired from a very busy couple days at work. The caller’s verbal rhythm betrayed the fact that her half of the conversation was entirely scripted. I interrupted what sounded like the beginning of a very long monologue to tell her that I wasn’t interested. I gave a flimsy reason, which evidently had a scripted reply (kind of like the worst Choose Your Own Adventure story ever written)

“This program actually doesn’t related to finances and could be of great benefit to you.”

“Can you sum it up for me in one sentence?”

“Um… if you’re not interested I’d rather just leave it at that.”

I was glad. This means either she didn’t care, or she didn’t understand it well enough to explain it without her script in a simple sentence. I saved us both some time and agony.

There’s a lot of noise in the world, and we are constantly bombarded with messages. If you have something to say make sure you can sum it up. If you can’t explain the gist of something in 140 characters (or a single sentence) then you don’t understand it well enough.

Over the years I’ve seen a lot of great images, and when the staff-mail starts flying with witty attachments I’m often at a loss to find the perfect image.

Well no more. I’ve started collecting some of this nonsense in one directory. The purpose of which is mostly for social media, IM and emailresponses. I hereby acknowledge that this is a waste of time.

http://rle.me/x/

It’s a nice font, but it’s a nicer idea. http://guilder.sursly.com/

It’s really really really easy to make websites that work they way I (and almost every single person that I know) use them. Having sight, hands, and hearing are some wonderful gifts that are just so easy to take for granted, along with a positive experience on the average site. This conference is just focussed on making the digital realm equally available to everyone – including those without the abilities I take for granted.

This was a much needed shift in thinking for me.

A part of my issue with shallowness stems from (previously) not knowing anyone with a physical disadvantage that hinders their online experience. There were some interesting demonstrations of the various tools that people use to help them get by, ranging from the impressive accessibility features that come stock on mobile devices to Active Braille readers (these dynamically change braille text while the user reads – I had no idea this technology existed (or would be so expensive)). While these tools are immensely useful, there’s a lot that needs to be done to websites themselves. That’s where web designers and developers come in.

Jutta Treviranus (Director and Professor at Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University) kicked off the event with a poignant metaphor about the aforementioned technology as a poor solution. “Web accessibility is like agreeing to bring your own expensive ramps to online entrance ways. The only difference is there’s no guarantee it will work.” (admittedly this isn’t a real quote, it’s reworded from my pathetic shorthand notes). Her final point resonated with me as an exclamation point on the fact that I have some learning to do: “Nothing can be declared ‘accessibility’ until you know who it’s for, and what it’s going to be used for.”

The conference had some practical advice for people like me who make websites, some exciting prospects of the accessible semantics of HTML5, but more importantly an angle of perspective and empathy that I won’t forget: the Internet can be for everyone.

We just have to make it better.

Just before bed I pop onto Twitter for one last check of what’s going on. You can imagine my surprise last week when I saw this:

Whoa whoa whoa… hold on, what does that even mean? Like does that mean… oh wait, someone else just asked:

Before you could say “overreaction” I had the family huddled in the corner of the basement while I clumsily tried to get the air mattress in a state to support human life. I made the most of our surely-waning electricity to follow the end-of-the-world #onstorm tweets on Twitter. It really seemed like disaster was upon us! I even began to resign myself to the fact that my blue box would surely be the first victim; never again to be seen.

The storm passed and the panicked din of social media resumed its normal pattern of making light of everything, as though taunting nature to try harder next time.

It led me to wonder; was the @weathernetwork “take cover” reaction too strong? Was this a classic example of fear mongering? I obviously know nothing about weather patterns or prediction, and in terms of ‘better to be safe than sorry‘ I would much rather be crashing about in my basement needlessly than risk my family.

Perhaps the real issue is the noise the rest of us rubes make. This post How to tweet (or not) During a Crisis seemed like a pretty good place for us all to start the next time it seems like the world is about to end.

In 2007 I was on Twitter, Facebook, and had a blog. For the last four years I’ve made mostly-work-related tweets and family/friend related status updates. I try to keep things light and playful. Additionally I’ve been known to make blog posts every week or ten to share some insight, invention or outright fabrication. I’ve enjoyed the different outlets for different audiences, and the challenge of trying to consistently create different content for each one.

Even though four Internet-years is a long time, I have a confession: I have no idea what I’m doing.

Google you wily fox!

When a new social site comes along I always check it out (if only to secure the username like a hoarding fiend). Most come-and-go as quick as you can say “cuil“, but Google+ has shown it has some staying power, and I already have friends circling me.

So now what do I do?!  There’s something cheap feeling about recycling my content from another social outlet; especially when facing the fact that most of these people are actually following me on one of those too.

I can’t abide the thought of only half-heartedly using a social network. I can’t walk away from a snappy new toy from Google. Obviously I can only churn out so much inane babble in a day. Dilemma’d.

Make your demands.

As I grappled with this conundrum (man we have it easy in the first world), it occurred to me that all that matters is the people who read, respond and interact with me online. Any content is useless without its audience, and for me – that’s YOU.

So what are your thoughts on social media and the Internet as an outlet? Do you need or use multiple outlets? What, how and where do you catch up with people online. In short, what do you want from me you needy people?!

This is the first content I’ve put across my blog, Twitter, Facebook and Google+. I’d love your feedback… wherever you feel like leaving it.

The way these sites work is pretty much the same: you pay money, and you get some images. Sometimes they add a  extra step: you pay money, you get credits, then you spend credits to get images. Why credits and not dollars you ask? Who knows, why does Super Mario Bros give you 300 time-units (not to be confused with seconds) to beat a level? Sometimes humans invent new confusing standard units of measure for no reason. But I digress.

Prominent stock site iStock has slightly tweaked this tried and tested ‘pay and get‘ model with their own: you pay money, and if you spend all your credits in the allotted time you get some images. For some reason iStock ‘credits’ expire after a year. I have a theory for this. In North America all paper and coin money gets its value from reserve gold. This is called ‘the gold standard’. My theory is that iStock uses a different item of value (which expires) to back the credit; like the Salad Dressing standard or Anne Geddes Annual Calendar standard.

I learned this last week in a shocking email from them letting me know that if I didn’t act soon my paltry 6 remaining credits would be gone (thus making the model the less favourable ‘You pay money. You get no pictures.’)

I did what any distressed citizen would do: I whined about it on Twitter. To their ‘credit’ iStock replied that if I contacted them they’d extend my credits for another year. Sadly, “contacting large organizations” is third on my list of ‘Annoying things about the Internet‘; right after Pop-ups and credits expiring. I decided not to go through the hoops of asking iStock to provide me with what should be the default nature of monetary transactions in the twenty-first century.

I was left with no other alternative: I had to go spend my hard earned credits. With no projects on the horizon needing images I did the only sensible thing. I downloaded this image:

This is apparently the most downloaded picture on their site. It cost me 5 credits for this size. I plan to either use it for nothing, or work it into every single project I ever work on for the rest of my career (funny enough if you Google iStock_000002193842XSmall.jpg or iStock_000002193842* you’ll find lots of examples of people using this image without renaming it)

That left me with 1 measly credit, which is the equivalent of pocket-link anywhere else in society. It wasn’t even enough scratch to buy the coveted One Credit Flower Silhouette (not making this up).

This irksome practice makes no sense to me. This company already has my money, and is offering a commodity that costs them next to nothing to deliver to me. They’ll never have to restock this image, do inventory, or worry about recalls. They could just be content to count their money credits, but instead they hope I’ll go through a pattern of buying credits, and letting them expire. That’s not going to happen. These are images, not the impossible-to-consume 10lb bag of potatoes I keep buying.

Is this iStocks fault? Nope. It’s their site, they make the rules. For all I know, every stock site does this, and hides it somewhere in the lengthy terms of service agreement that no reasonable person has ever read.

Let’s be honest, it’s our fault as consumers for letting this happen.

So my final credit will be expiring in a couple weeks, and my account will likely die with it.

That is, unless iStock buys more of my Patience Tokens.