techno.blog("Dion")

The new multipane view for Gmail by Vivi will change my workflow for the better. I have placed views to the right of my inbox that show me:

• My starred items (is:starred)
• Emails sent to me (to:me)
• Notifications. This is a big one. These items are things that I kinda want to see fly by but don’t care too much about. In the past they would clutter my inbox as I didn’t want to “skip inbox” and not see them (I never pro actively check out labels). Now that I can have the list scanning by, I CAN change my filter to skip the Inbox which will keep it cleaner!
• Skipped content. I have a bunch of mailing lists that I tell to skip the Inbox. The end result is that I rarely see it, so it is really quite silly. Now though, I can have a small window into that world.

Very cool indeed. There are pain points though. If you are not plugged into a nice 30″ monitor, your real estate gets cramped fast. You can choose to put items on top, bottom, or right, but right is the only option that makes sense to me.

I want to be able to have fine grained control here. Gimme a splitter so I can choose how much space to give. Let me put some on the right, some on top, some on the bottom. Let me show and hide items so I can shoot open my inbox to be full screen when I need too.

Selecting items on the other panes is strained. You don’t have checkboxes and the arrow keys to help you over there. I wish that I could click on a space on the very left and have the “>” item show up there so I can move around and select things. I hate the mouse.

I am curious to see how I like this, and how it changes me Gmail usage. Do you like it?

Google Latitude is cool indeed, and will have folks from Loopt and beyond watching (see Dodgeball didn’t die, it’s just slowly becoming a feature of Maps!).

Even with all of the privacy controls, you KNOW that there are going to be fun cock ups in the future, just like we see on Google Maps Street View. It just has to happen. But, it’s worth it :)

Shame the iPhone version didn’t come out on day one, and the Palm Pre version will be cool :)

Paul Buchheit has a really nice post on the power of code over talk and has one item that resonated with me:

This is where Google’s “20% time” comes in — if you want innovation, it’s critical that people are able to work on ideas that are unapproved and generally thought to be stupid. The real value of “20%” is not the time, but rather the “license” it gives to work on things that “aren’t important”. (perhaps I should do a post on “20% time” at some point…)

That is exactly how I felt about 20% time. It wasn’t about the time. In fact, I didn’t actually know that many people who took the time! The key was the following effect:

• In order for 20% time to work, anyone must be able to see what is out there
• In fact, if you want to get some people working “for free” you need to both advertise your project, and write it in such a way that it is easy to get ramped up and productive (end result: better code)

The end result is the culture HAS to be kept very open. The ability to see the projects that are worked on, check out the code, see presentations and design docs, is a key reason why Google does so well at engineering in my opinion.

Compare this to companies such as Apple where you don’t know what the chap sitting on the other side of the cube is doing. Therefore, even if you have some amazing wisdom that could be game changing for his project, it will never happen.

20% time means that sparks of genius can happen. If you copy anything about it, ignore the “time” part, and go with the open culture part.

Whenever I saw projects that were secret within Google it irked me. It stopped this from happening. It was as though that project was going walkabout instead of joining the party.

Picture via Dunechaser

I still get asked “what Ajax framework should I use?” frequently indeed. I think that people feel that with my Ajaxian postings I have seen every framework in the world and will have a magic feel for things.

I dread these questions, as context is king for making the decision, and “feel” is a major part of it too. The various frameworks have in many ways come closer together over the years, so making the choice is harder, but also maybe not as big a deal as it once was.

That being said, I really enjoyed Glenn Vanderburg talk about why he prefers Prototype to jQuery. This is the kind of subject that is asking for trouble and foaming at the mouth from people on various camps. Glenn has the kind of nature, wisdom, and touch that makes it hard to think that way. He gives thoughtful points and isn’t trying to cause a stir.

These days, without any real context (e.g. skills on the team, what the project does) I kinda think:

• jQuery is fantastic for taking a website and making it dynamic. Easy. elegant. Beautiful. If I was a designer doing a rich site I would stop here.
• Dojo is fantastic for building a large scale application that will do a lot, and end up with a ton of JavaScript. Everything you need will be found there. This isn’t to say that Dojo can’t be used on the small anymore. The new core is small and fast and good.

Prototype, for me, fits in between these worlds. It is small enough to feel small (not a huge library to learn) yet large enough that I don’t jump out into creating a lot of my own code.

On a recent jQuery project that grew fairly big and I found myself surprised that the core didn’t have certain methods and features. Much of it was small things (one example I remember is array utilities). I would find myself looking around for plugins, wondering which ones are good, and generally having a little bit of a tough time. Then there is a the type system. For something that isn’t strapping on a bit of code to the web site, I actually like Class.extend and the like. With jQuery I would use Traits or Base or something which is fine…. but not just there in the same way.

I get used to myArray.last() and having the convenience methods available to me directly on the objects, even if the puritan in me feels a little strange. Just as Ruby “felt right” to me. Prototype does too (duh, since its heritage). A blend of purity and pragmatism. More often than not Prototype surprises me “oh, wow, it has that function already!” On another recent project that got converted to Prototype, I was able to delete a LOT of code. Utility classes went away. Libraries went away. There is nothing better than the feeling of deleting code. Am I right? :)

So, I agree with Glenn. For me, Prototype is the right balance for many of my projects. I still enjoy playing and using others when the project calls for them, and I am ignoring the huge number of other great frameworks (YUI, GWT, MooTools, Ext, SproutCore, Cappucino, man I could go on forever here).

Wordpress 2.7 is such a breath of fresh air. The admin interface feels great and they fixed so many small things that used to drive me nuts.

One of these items was the file uploader. Here is Wordpress 2.6:

My use case is that I use the full size image 99.99% of the time. I never want to link to the image itself in the hyperlink. However, the admin interface tries to force me down that path EVERY darn time. I would find myself hacking up the Wordpress code to give me what I want, and then when I upgrade I had to do it all over again. Grr.

Then I upgraded to Wordpress 2.7 and got:

It remembers. Imagine that! Kudos to the Wordpress team.

I have a project that deals with JavaScript commands that anyone can author, so I decided it would be smart to take more time looking and integrating with Ubiquity which recently got another beautiful upgrade.

Ubiquity really is the “other” command line of the Web (the URL bar being the first one). It gives me Quicksilver like access, but also has huge improvements: Writing plugins is simple JavaScript, and you can subscribe to commands from other people. This is huge. A social command-line!

There is a built in tinyurl command, but I use tr.im one these days, so I quickly wrote one:

CmdUtils.CreateCommand({
  name: "trimurl",
  homepage: "http://almaer.com/firefox/commands/",
  author: { name: "Dion Almaer", email: "dion@almaer.com"},
  license: "ASL",
  description: "Sends your URL to tr.im instead of tiny url",
  help: "Just type in the URL!",
  takes: {"url to shorten": noun_arb_text},
  modifiers: {"as": noun_arb_text},
 
  preview: "Replaces the inputted URL with a Tr.im URL.",
  execute: function(urlToShorten, mods) {
    var baseUrl = "http://tr.im/api/trim_url.json";
    var params = "?url=" + urlToShorten.text;
 
    var custom  = mods["as"].text;
    if (custom) {
      params += "&custom=" + custom;
    }
    jQuery.getJSON(baseUrl + params, function(data) {
      CmdUtils.copyToClipboard(data.url);
    })
  }
});

This chap uses modifiers to allow me to pass in a custom url.

The following said that there will be a url following, and you can optionally say “as customname”:

  takes: {"url to shorten": noun_arb_text},
  modifiers: {"as": noun_arb_text},

I couldn’t find a way to just add to the takes hash, as it would be nice to say:

  takes: {"url to shorten": noun_arb_text, custom: noun_optional_text },

After using Ubiquity for some time now, I am really impressed with how the team is accelerating, and I see this as a great way to extend the Web, and Firefox in 2009.

I find myself in a funny place with the key combos for bringing up Ubiquity and Quicksilver in my mind. I am using Quicksilver less and less (e.g. won’t use it to search the Web or do anything with email) and Ubiquity more and more. As the Open Web takes over the desktop (another prediction;) then Ubiquity will gain usage for me.

Atul has released a preview of Ubiquity 0.2 which has a new architecture and a new Locked-Down Feed Plugin (LDFP).

I was playing with a Web application that did interesting redrawing of the layout (e.g. needed to do JavaScript magic in the onresize event).

I noticed that in Firefox the event took a fair time to fire. Joel Webber (of GWT fame) has also found this and said:

“Firefox and Opera do this wierd thing where they only fire resize events when you let go of the mouse button, or every second or so while dragging. It’s really irritating because there’s no way to get a “real” resize event, and it makes your ui look crappy when it goes through intermediate wrong-sized states.

I’ve always assumed this was to cover up layout performance issues. WebKit and IE fire resize events immediately.”

I wonder if the layout issue is correct, and if so, it would be nice to be able to somehow say to the browser “yup, I am in control of layout so please fire faster” or maybe by defining onresize you are saying that.

With decorators/annotations you would say:

@FireFrequency(ms=10) window.onresize = function() {
  // ....
}

Turns out that Ben was being a good citizen and in going to file a bug, found a couple out there.

<html>
<head>
<script>
 
document.write("This page should show you your twitter info if you're logged in. (If you see a login box make sure you're logged into Twitter)<br/><br/>");
 
// forgive the document.write ugliness
function orly(data)
{
document.write("Your username is "+data[0]['user']['screen_name']+"<br>");
document.write("Your real name is "+data[0]['user']['name']);
 
}
</script>
<script src="http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline.json?count=1&callback=orly"></script>
 
</head>
<body>
 
</body>
</html>

What is that is all it took to grab your username and even real name out of Twitter? Try it, it works.

Yowser?!

(via Bill Zeller)

Dave Thomas gave a great keynote talk at RubyConf this year titled F**k Ruby (where the term was for Fork ;).

Dave is a very enjoyable presenter to listen too. He always has some of the British humour that I am of course partial too.

I loved how he managed to use the Scottish term Tath:

The luxuriant grass growing about the droppings of cattle in a pasture.

His talk is embedded at the end of this post. The Ruby stuff was very interesting and great, but what stuck with me was the early talk about loving the tool that you work with every day.

As programmers (Dave always titles himself as “programmer”) Dave talks about how we get a blank sheet daily, and if we don’t love the tool that we get to use to make the creation that day, then we will not do the best that we can, and it will show in our work.

I can totally relate to that. Sometimes we may think “use any tool as long as you create somethin useful.” Stick with Java even if you fancy doing something with Rails/Django/… because it is the safe choice.

If you are having fun and loving your tools then you will create (or adapt, which could simply be with config, plugins, or whatever) something so much better. Of course, as I now run a developer tools lab with Ben I don’t think of “tool” as just a programming language, but much more. Your entire environment. The items in the box.

As 2009 rolls around, I can’t wait to create some tools that I love. Something that makes me excited to start building something new. And not only for myself, but hopefully for some of the Web community.

Happy new year, and let’s listen to Dave:

A lot of people are talking about the interview with John Lilly that discusses the relationship between Mozilla and Google.

People like to paint think black and white. Either Mozilla is Google’s poodle (Mozilla is to Google as Tony Blair was to George Bush) or there is a falling out and they hate each other.

Of course, the answer is grey as John points out. From my standpoint, focusing on the Open Web, I see more areas to collaborate on than to fight over. When I was at Google I knew that the Open Web was very important to the long term future. Now I am at Mozilla, the same is true. At the micro level there will be differences, but at the macro-level there is alignment.

Switching gears a little, I have had some folks talk to me about responsiveness issues with Firefox 3. I have had a fantastic experience, and currently I run Mozilla nightlies / Minefield / Shiretoka (3.1.*) and WebKit nightlies side by side. I am very happy with the shape that Minefield is in.

Of course, the issue with the extension mechanism with Firefox is that you get a window to the entire world (which has also been a reason that lead to amazing add-ons). Since this is the case a bad add-on can do a lot.

Chrome does a good job showing you basic info about a tab (memory etc). What if we did that and more for add-ons. Give me top for the browser.

Now, this is a lot of engineering away, so can we use the crowd to help out?

What if we created an add-on that would track responsiveness information and send it back (anonymously) to the cloud (say, to Weave). We could use math to work out probable culprits and could even ship that information back to the people using the add-on. Thus, you would then find out that FooAddOn seems to be a culprit that slows down the browser. Maybe it could be called Vacinate-addon.

What do you think?