One for the other

Of all the things I’ve noticed about software development, it’s that branding and experience don’t always mix well together. Properly designed, well-written software is supposed to be seamless and non-intrusive. When I enter an equation into my calculator, I expect it to provide me with an answer; I don’t expect the calculator to constantly remind me that it is made by “Casio”.

This poses a serious problem because if the brand isn’t in the forefront of the users’ thoughts, how will they recognize it? On my brother’s computer, the antivirus software makes every attempt at reminding me that it is “Norton” and it is tirelessly working in the background. By being so blatantly intrusive, it acts to reinforce the brand and to reassure those who fear viruses.

Ironically, this over-branding is what makes the experience so counterproductive. Norton does a fantastic job at reminding users that the internet is a dangerous place, but this has a negative effect in that it helps reinforce the fallibility of Windows to its users. As a Windows user, I fear it. How is Microsoft supposed to provide a positive experience when its users don’t trust the product?

Second Life

I never understood the fascination with 3D as a means to provide users with an “immersive” experience; especially with a costly taxation on CPU resources. “Second Life” didn’t have any logical incentives to lure users. Yes, it’s a 3D world and yes, you can chat with people in this world, but what else? The 3D world was only available to PC users with specific hardware requirements and operating systems. Without it, this immersive world was a closed eco-system.

As bad as this may sound, I’m actually quite happy Second Life never popularized. If they did, could you imagine the software and hardware engineers trying port this world so that portable devices could access this virtual world? Shortened battery life, lack of processor strength, overheating, and an operating system overhead absorbing valued memory resources. I’m sure the engineer geniuses could make it happen, but should it be done?

This is the same stance I have with Adobe Flash on handheld devices. Several of my coworkers have openly stated that Flash works extremely well with cellular devices *provided* these devices have the “right” hardware. Ignoring the fact that our desktop Macs have been known to crash due to Flash, what exactly is being asked? Have a mouse-less handheld device attempt to provide a user a similar experience knowing that they’re looking at a 4” screen?

That sounds rather painful.

64-bit Woes

Nothing surprises me more than the fact that my tiny netbook (an 11.6" Acer) came with a 64-bit version of Windows 7. Yet even though the OS is 64-bit, there needs to be 64-bit apps to properly utilize it. Currently, the most popular browsers only offer a 32-bit flavour, but it's okay because both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer have been packaged with Windows 7.

Unfortunately, there's no 64-bit Flash player. When will Adobe come out with a 64-bit player? It doesn't seem like it's any time soon.

Adobe or Apple?

It's inevitable that our production team has divided opinions on the Adobe and Apple issue over Flash and its legitimacy in mobile browsing. The Flash developers are sided with Adobe -- mainly because Flash is their livelihood -- while Javascript developers are sided with Apple since we don't rely on Flash. Both Adobe and Apple are claiming their platforms are "more open" than the other but I will try to make my argument based on personal experience.

After working with the Nintendo Wii and experiencing first hand the difficulties in developing for such a platform, I was utterly frustrated by the lack of support provided by both Nintendo and Adobe; there is NO support. Does Flash work on the Nintendo Wii? Yes. Does it work well? No. Were there a lot of problems? YES. Did Adobe fix those problems? Some, but only YEARS after Flash was available for the Wii. Are there still problems? Yes, absolutely.

Both parties are claiming how their platforms "should be considered" as open; which really isn't "open" at all. The goals of open standards are not the same as those for profit-generating businesses. It is currently not in Adobe's best profit-generating interests to fix their issues on the Nintendo Wii so the platform has been left broken. As a result, the developers are left to find web solutions for clients who have been assured by Nintendo and Apple that "Flash works on the Wii"; which it doesn't.

Do I want a similar fate for other mobile devices? Absolutely not.

Creating social networking sites

Several names come into mind when I think of online services offering developers the tools to "create" their own social networking sites from piggybacking off their framework(s). One which has been in the media lately is Ning. From my experience with them, their services and frameworks do seem to give developers the ability to do interesting things; but the question I have is why?

As of yet, I haven't heard of any recognizable brands (Nike, Reebok, Walmart, Coca-cola, etc) who have successfully created a site that has gone critical mass. Yet even with this fact, social networking sites are still in demand by clients who genuinely feel that owning a social networking site is a viable business opportunity which they should invest in; they want to be the next Facebook.

Far be it for me to say that social networking sites are a poor investment decision, but an interesting fact about the web: Ashton Kutcher has almost 5 million subscribers. He doesn't own a website, let alone a social networking site. And as far as I know, I don't recall any recognizable brands like Walmart having even 1 million subscribers (website, RSS feeds, Twitter feed or otherwise); let alone 5 Million.

The grapevine

This morning, the media outlets were all blasting how Apple had been secretly creating their own "Flash alternative" as a means to circumvent their reliance on Adobe products on their platform. I only started reading up on it when someone mentioned "Gianduia".

Apple's Gianduia project is not new. It has been around for about a year and was never a "Flash alternative". It's a framework meant as a tool to assist web developers in building AJAX-driven, rich internet applications. Had these reporters investigated further, they would have uncovered the inaccuracies of the headlines. This isn't journalism; this is gossip. Facts were not checked before publishing.

This is a frightening approach at how media outlets are reporting information; essentially just writing about other writers' articles. There has been a longstanding debate on whether bloggers should be classified as journalists and thus protected by the legislation meant for journalists. This is a prime example against it.

Online Tutorials

I'm always weary of online tutorial websites that teach you how to effectively write HTML/CSS. Although the bios of the authors often refer to the amount of time they've spent working in the web industry, neither does it refer to the type of exposure they've had to different projects, nor does it mention their intentions.

If I were to develop CSS with a strong focus on browser compatibility, it would be far different from developing it with a focus on browser performance (read: Steve Souders). The same goes for CSS intended for longterm use and CSS written to support accessibility. These things are all different.

Websites like Smashing Magazine offer great tips on how to approach the technical issues inherent with web development, but the tutorials should be seen as just that; references. There's no such thing as a one-solution-fits-all. If there was, it would probably be one that far exceeds any clients' budget.