MarkWunsch.com

Twitcher

2009-10-27T13:39:41-04:00

Twitcher is a tiny little JavaScript library I made for consuming the Twitter Search API.

And that’s it. It does not do anything else.

I made it for a variety of reasons, only a couple of which have anything to do with Twitter. Following along in the source code:

I wanted to experiment with JavaScript patterns.

I looked at a bunch of different libraries for inspiration (mostly jQuery). The Twitcher library is built in an anonymous function, or a closure. Everything is defined within and then a small hole is poked into the global object, like so:
```
window.Twitcher = function(query, parameters) {
	return new Twitcher(query,parameters);
};
```
This makes it so that calling Twitcher() instantiates a new Twitcher object without using the new constructor.

Then, I extend the window.Twitcher object with the quarantined Twitcher:
```
Twitcher.Extensions.extend(window.Twitcher, Twitcher);
```
So we end up giving the window.Twitcher object all the power (and prototype) of the quarantined Twitcher. Not sure why I decided to do that. Seemed like a good idea at the time and I am pretty happy with the resulting API.

I wanted to experiment with JSONP.

I wanted to crack open jQuery and see how it did JSONP. The result is Twitcher. Twitcher is really just some Twitter specifics on top of a minimal JSONP interface. Here is the JSONP method, simply:

	
jsonp: function(url, callback, callback_name) {
  var head = document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];
  var script = document.createElement("script");
  script.type = "text/javascript";
  script.src = url;

  window[callback_name] = function(data) {
    callback(data);
    window[callback_name] = undefined;
    try{ delete window[callback_name]; } catch(e){}
    head.removeChild(script);
  };

  head.appendChild(script);
}

I wanted to experiment with JavaScript testing.

I like the idea of a strong testing suite, Behavior Driven Development, unit testing, and all that stuff that goes along with it. I use RSpec for Weary and wanted to explore doing tests in JavaScript. I decided on JSpec, only because it seemed familiar. JavaScript testing is hard. It’s hard because Browsers suck. All of this stuff gets in your way and it makes testing a mental hurdle. But once you get past that obstacle, it’s a great idea. I found that testing encouraged me to break up methods into smaller and smaller parts, which is a good thing. I’d like to test more, but I am running into the same hurdle I reached with testing for Weary: it is hard to test web services. I’ve had some ideas though and my experience with JSpec was a pleasant one.

So that is Twitcher. A library-agnostic Twitter Search API. The only thing it writes out to the DOM is the stuff it needs to perform the Ajax call. It returns data, and that’s it. I created Twitcher as a proof of concept and hope you find a use for it. Or not. You could just use jQuery.

The New New MarkWunsch.com

2009-10-13T15:38:13-04:00

I am, at best, an intermittent publisher. In the last iteration of the site, the last blog post I had written accumulated cobwebs for close to 11 months. So I am not the most fastidious author in the world. Sue me.

This blog has languished during that time, and I wondered what would it take for me to become interested in writing a full-on post again. I just did not want to write. And it occurred to me that I don’t particularly enjoy the act of writing. I made a small list of the self-imposed obstacles that keep me from wanting to write:

Obtuse Publishing Systems

This site was previously running on ExpressionEngine. I have nothing against ExpressionEngine. It is my preferred out-of-the-box CMS tool, but that’s not really what I wanted for this site. WordPress is such a huge beast, using it for a tiny blog is downright unwieldy. Tumblr and Posterous have stepped up as great lightweight web publishing tools, but I wanted to build something that was entirely mine: my own templates, my own workflow. I kind of miss the early days of web publishing — hacking out raw html in a text editor, publishing manually.

I am not afraid of HTML and if I wanted the control I desired, none of those other tools would work. Then I read Blogging Like a Hacker by Tom Preston-Werner, one of the founders of (beloved) GitHub. Jekyll is now powering this site, and I am really pleased with its simplicity and flexibility. It scratches all my aspirational hacky itches. A series of custom Rake tasks keep my workflow humming along nicely.
Bad Writing

For every workaday hacker or designer there are twelve bloggers ready to trivialize their ambitions. CSS developers and designers have a multitude of “CSS Galleries”. Other developers have the trolls on Hacker News and Proggit. And somewhere in between is a battery of Top 100 lists and social media marketers. It is a scary, intimidating, noise-filled world for those who dare to dabble in development, design, or authorship. All across the web is a cesspool of hacks all telling you how right they are.

It is easy to believe that in order to succeed, you have to contribute to the noise. Web publishing has evolved to the point where it’s no longer about how you speak your voice, it is a matter of how loud you can project.

There is a fantastic little post by Chris Wanstrath (also of GitHub; they are awesome) that really helped pull me out of the notion that in order to be a good programmer, you have to be a loud, talkative programmer. Do not be intimidated by the army of “social media experts” telling you how to do it.
Good Writing

Where the default is noise, the signals stand out that much clearer. With writers as good as Zeldman, Gruber, and Mann it was really all to easy for me to say “why bother?” They are so good at what they write about, and so distinct. I felt that in order to say anything, I would have to say it at least half as good as these guys could. That’s hard!

There are a large number of people I respect who write online. They are witty, concise, and sharp. If I could write that way…

Well I can’t and/or don’t. So what? I try my best to focus on my projects and when it comes time to have to write about those things, I will do it in my voice the best way I know how. Just admitting that is a huge step in becoming a better writer.
Good Design

When I first broke into web development, it was because I wanted to be a “web designer”. I don’t think that title is real nowadays. My official title at Scripps Networks is “Front End Developer”. For a while I felt that in order to prove my skills with HTML and CSS I had to have a mind-blowing, gallery-worthy design.

Jason Santa Maria is changing the way designers think. Khoi Vinh’s Subtraction is the textbook on design for the web. Tim Van Damme is the designer everybody wishes they were. Dan Cederholm is a pixel magician. Shaun Inman is both prolific and meticulously detailed. I need to face facts; I will never be as good of a designer as these guys.

And that’s okay! I’ve been inspired by the aesthetics of Alex Payne. I can dress this up however I like. It’s mine. It can change, my tastes can change. That is okay! What is important isn’t the design, but that I don’t hold off on publishing important information about my open source projects because I am not happy with the typographic grid. That is just dumb.

So I have reworked MarkWunsch.com to be something for me; by me. It is published through a series of Rake tasks written in Ruby, so that I can exercise my programming muscle. It uses some of the new features of HTML5, so that I can tinker with the new tool of my craft. This site is built to minimize the mental barriers that have kept me from writing about what I am working on.

I do not promise a regular publishing schedule, instead I want to focus on making things worth writing about. In migrating to the new system, most of the previous articles have been taken offline. I thought they were just poorly written noise, and I am trying to avoid that.

Design Q&A with Charles Eames

2008-09-27T22:25:53-04:00

Not to long ago, my wife and I added “The Films of Charles and Ray Eames” to our Netflix queue. We are admirers and we were curious if there had ever been a documentary or anything done on them. A simple search of “eames” turned up the six disc set. Apparently, not only are the husband and wife team some of the greatest contributors to furniture and industrial design in the 20th century, they were also prolific filmmakers. I wanted to share a transcript of one of their films with you. Charles Eames provides some incredible insight in “Design Q & A.” Questions by Mme. L. Amic. Answers by Charles Eames. On the occasion of the exhibition “Qu’est ce que le design?” (or What is Design?) at the Musée des Arts Décoratifs, Palais de Louvre.

Q: “What is your definition of ‘Design,’ Monsieur Eames?

“One could describe Design as a plan for arranging elements to accomplish a particular purpose.”

Q: “Is Design an expression of art?”

“I would rather say it’s an expression of purpose. It may, if it is good enough, later be judged as art.”

Q: “Is Design a craft for industrial purposes?”

“No, but Design may be a solution to some industrial problems.”

Q: “What are the boundaries of Design?”

“What are the boundaries of problems?”

Q: “Is Design a discipline that concerns itself with only one part of the environment?”

“No.”

Q: “Is it a method of general expression?”

“No. It is a method of action.”

Q: “Is Design a creation of an individual?”

“No, because to be realistic, one must always recognize the influence of those that have gone before.”

Q: “Is Design a creation of a group?”

“Very often.”

Q: “Is there a Design ethic?”

“There are always Design constraints, and these often imply an ethic.”

Q: “Does Design imply the idea of products that are necessarily useful?”

“Yes, even though the use might be very subtle.”

Q: “Is it able to cooperate in the creation of works reserved solely for pleasure?”

“Who would say that pleasure is not useful?”

Q: “Ought form to derive from the analysis of function?”

“The great risk here is that the analysis may be incomplete.”

Q: “Can the computer substitute for the Designer?”

“Probably, in some special cases, but usually the computer is an aid to the Designer.”

Q: “Does Design imply industrial manufacture?”

“Not necessarily.”

Q: “Is Design used to modify an old object through new techniques?”

“This is one kind of Design problem.”

Q: “Is Design used to fit up an existing model so that it is more attractive?”

“One doesn’t usually think of Design in this way.”

Q: “Is Design an element of industrial policy?”

“If Design constraints imply an ethic, and if industrial policy includes ethical principles, then yes—design is an element in an industrial policy.”

Q: “Does the creation of Design admit constraint?”

“Design depends largely on constraints.”

Q: “What constraints?”

“The sum of all constraints. Here is one of the few effective keys to the Design problem: the ability of the Designer to recognize as many of the constraints as possible; his willingness and enthusiasm for working within these constraints. Constraints of price, of size, of strength, of balance, of surface, of time, and so forth. Each problem has its own peculiar list.”

Q: “Does Design obey laws?”

“Aren’t constraints enough?”

Q: “Are there tendencies and schools in Design?”

“Yes, but these are more a measure of human limitations than of ideals.”

Q: “Is Design ephemeral?”

“Some needs are ephemeral. Most designs are ephemeral.”

Q: “Ought Design to tend towards the ephemeral or towards permanence?”

“Those needs and Designs that have a more universal quality tend toward relative permanence.”

Q: “How would you define yourself with respect to a decorator? an interior architect? a stylist?”

“I wouldn’t.”

Q: “To whom does Design address itself: to the greatest number? to the specialists or the enlightened amateur? to a priviledged social class?”

“Design addresses itself to the need.”

Q: “After having answered all these questions, do you feel you have been able to practice the profession of ‘Design’ under satisfactory conditions, or even optimum conditions?”

“Yes.”

Q: “Have you been forced to accept compromises?”

“I don’t remember ever being forced to accept compromises, but I have willingly accepted constraints.”

Q: “What do you feel is the primary condition for the practice of Design and for its propagation?”

“A recognition of need.”

Q: “What is the future of Design?”

Throughout the film the questions are posed in white on black titles. Through the answers, photos are shown of the Eames’s work. With this last question, on the “future of Design,” photos are shown of fruit, flowers, and nature.

You can purchase the full set of The Films of Charles and Ray Eames on Amazon. There are some really fantastic, clever short films in there. Look out for “Powers of Ten” and the brilliant, animated “Mathematics Peep Show.”

MarkWunsch.com

Twitcher

The New New MarkWunsch.com

Obtuse Publishing Systems

Bad Writing

Good Writing

Good Design

Design Q&A with Charles Eames