No Mod Required

JavaScript: The Good Parts: I have to say I was somewhat disappointed with this book from Douglas Crockford, one of the leading voices in the JavaScript community. I normally enjoy Crockford's in-depth, direct style, but in this book it's so stripped down there's nothing to really hang onto. Billed as a book for experienced programmers looking to get into the language, JavaScript: The Good Parts is a decent read that meets the stated goal with a pamphlet sized examination. The problem is, it does little else. The thin size is offered as a benefit and I guess in some ways it is since it's such a low barrier to entry, but for my money, something like ppk on JavaScript, is a far superior introductory book as it presents similar information with enough depth to really provide insight into the intricacies of JavaScript. Not so here. There are large sections of this book that read like a decent web page. Which is great if you're on the web, I'd love to find a resource like this on the web, but not so great if you've just dropped $20 bucks on yet another O'Reilly book.

I don't want to completely diss it as it is a straightforward introduction by one of the language's leading experts that will serve as a fine introductory text for some people. I just can't help but feel like I'm missing out on a hundred or so pages of Crockford's insight.

Reading a new article I co-wrote about social networks?

Yes.*

With tens of millions of active, loyal users and an unprecedented ability to differentiate users based on their interests and affiliations, social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace offer a rich opportunity for events to increase their audience, focus their offerings, and extend the reach of their event beyond the convention hall.

Read the rest:

Using Social Networking to Market Meetings

My published writing credits have taken an odd turn over the past couple of months. Where in the old days they were almost entirely based around movies they now includes an article for Rare Book Review and this article for Association Meetings magazine.

Thanks to Rob Everton for getting me involved.

*and by "yes," I mean no. If the Celtics don't seal the deal tonight I'm going to be a bundle of nerves for the next two days. After the Patriots in the Super Bowl I'm not quite ready for another disappointment and I don't want to get down to a seventh game with the Lakers. Even though I think the Celtics are the superior team, injuries to key Celtics and the presence of Kobe are enough to make me sweat when thinking about a potential game seven.

Phusion, a tech company out of The Netherlands has this burner for their logo:

With a logo like that, you really ought to check them out:

Phusion™, The Computer Science Company

I have nothing to do with this other than the fact that I work there*, but Cramer is starting up a Webcast Series. The first one will be on online video. Here's the blurb:

Best Practices in Online Video: A Platform Approach
Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:00 PM ET

These days, high-quality video is easily accessible not only on desktops and laptops, but also on just about every portable device, such as mobile phones and iPods. For these reasons, video has become the communications medium of choice for both corporate and consumer audiences. But still, many companies have questions about how to create online videos and incorporate them effectively into their marketing mix.

Join Cramer for a live, interactive webcast that explores what every marketer needs to know about online video with a panel of industry experts.

Tune in on June 19th to hear Rich Sturchio, Cramer’s executive vice president, creative services, present a panel discussion featuring industry experts from Brightcove, Permission TV and Interactive Video Technologies.

• Adam Berrey, Senior Vice President, Marketing & Strategy at Brightcove
• Matt Kaplan, Vice President of Creative and Client Services at PermissionTV
• Greg Pulier, Chief Technology Officer at Interactive Video Technologies

You will learn:

• How utilizing online video platforms can enhance your marketing campaign
• How social media supports online video, from viral sharing to user comments and ratings
• When to use professionally-produced content or guerilla-style production
• When to go live or on-demand
• If video is effective in advertising
• About the future of video consumption and what it could mean for your business

A pretty comprehensive set of topics, so if you're at all interested in the subject (and honestly, if you work on the web, you should be) be sure to check it out on the 19th.

*so I can't take any credit if it's really cool

Here's it is.

//height for IE6. Thankfully IE6 messes up height in a useful way
height:350px;
//height for everything else. IE6 looks at this and says "wha?"
height:auto;
//min-height for everything else. IE6 is baffled by this.
min-height:350px;

I can't tell you how many times I've used this exact pattern. It actually works really well, it's just so wrong it bothers me each and every time I type it into a style sheet.

It works because the first height declaration, in pixels, is rendered by Internet Explorer 6 exactly the way the next two rules are rendered by every other browser. Meaning, it starts at 350px and then expands to fill whatever content it contains. Add to that the fact IE6 is baffled by the next two declarations (not understanding auto as a value for height and not supporting min-height in any way, shape or form) and for IE6 height is all you need.

Thing is, every other browser that matters renders the single height declaration (with overflowing content) like this:

Which is where the height:auto and min-height declarations come into play. Add those in and things start acting as expected with the other browsers- the container starts at 350px and expands to fit the overflowing content.

Since there are no "hacks", the above sheet will validate, I just hate the pattern of declaring height once and then immediately redeclaring it- especially to support a seven year old browser.

So… IE6? Are you listening? Can you please give up the ghost so I can put this pattern to bed?

Pretty please?

Dave Shea says:

"Did you know that you can nest your divs so deep that Firebug stops working properly? I do now."

From:

mezzoblue § Design Rants

Personally, I'm surprised because I've seen some savagely nested divs produced by systems like Drupal and while it was a singularly awful environment to work in, it didn't actually cause Firebug to choke. Also, looking through his code, I see nothing that screams to me as being exceptionally deeply nested. I put a comment in. I'll update with more info…

Remember the "Small Site Enhancement" I introduced last month? For a refresher I linked all of the images in my gallery flow. Instead of simply being static, they now link through to the next image in the gallery flow. I did this hoping to increase the number of page views per user by making it easier for them to click around and do those things that users love to do After nearly a month of the change being in place, I have some preliminary results:

For the period from 2008/05/03 to 2008/06/01 I averaged 4.79 pages per visit

For the period from 2008/04/03 to 2008/05/02 I averaged 4.38 pages per visit

Those numbers represent an increase of 9.37% or .41 pages per visit. I'm not going to make Google tremble, but I'll take it.

Answer: When it's a unique identifier.

Check out this class attribute generate by my beloved Wordpress' upload feature:

class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-4590"

See anything suspicious? I sure do. wp-image-4590 is a unique identifier being passed off as a class. Why? I actually have no clue as I'm not privy to the thought process behind that particular piece of code What I do know is pretty much demands to be an ID. When I teach this stuff to people, I say "If it's unique, meaning there will ever only be one of them, make it an ID. If there's more than one or it's a general descriptor, make it a class." So I look at that code block every time I upload an image and I frown. Then I blow away the whole class attribute away, since I use none of them.

This is just splitting hairs, I know. Using a class like that is basically harmless. But, truth be told, splitting hairs helps me solidify my ideas about the way these things should work. That, in turn helps me improve the way my crew and I do our thing. So? Hairs I split and everyone is happier.

I'm just doing my small part to make the web a better place one nitpicky, semantic post at a time.

Since I've got a few minutes to kill and especially since no one asked, here are my top photos on flickr based on:

Interestingness and Comments

Views

(with 12,585!)

Views (of an actual photo)

(with 927 views)

Favorites

(just 5 :()

and with that I say, "hell yeah."

Dear Internet, anyone out there have any experience with lightweight web servers that they'd like to share?

We're (meaning Cramah!) looking to set up an asset server to serve static assets like css, javascript, images, flash (destined for progressive downloads) and mp3s. We want to offload that kind of stuff from app servers as a general architecture approach going forward (my obsession with performance is spreading ) Since it's (at some level) my baby and is something I'm generally interested in, I've taken a little time and starting looking into what the set-up should entail. I've done a little bit of research and it looks like the names I already know are the names that people are using:

• lighttpd
• nginx
• LiteSpeed

Based on what I knew when I started, what I've read since, and a recommendation from a co-worker, lighttpd seems to be the way to go. Thing is, I don't want to jump into anything before asking you, the Internet, if there's anything I should know about it (or the other two) before heading down that path.

So… anyone out there using this stuff and feel like sharing an anecdote or two? Is there some other candidate I'm missing?

All comments are welcome