Since I earn my living as a developer, I've felt I should be running a somewhat custom application for my site instead of a some cookie cutter blog software. This is the beginning. A lot of things aren't working, and some 'required' features are missing, but you have to start somewhere.
The next couple days hopefully will find these features being added. The first thing on the list is a feed.
A journal entry feed is now available here.
Also added tagging to the back-end. Still need to expose it via the interface.
Ran into something at work today, that I would have thought I should have run into earlier. There are situations where the same code and user action in Internet Explorer wont sent the referer header, while Firefox will.
I'm not talking about the situation when a user is transitioning from a secure to insecure resource which should not be provided, but when you use javascript to set the location
<a href="#" onclick="window.location='http://example.org/someresource';return false;">Click Me!<a>
Yes, I know this is a good example of improper usage of the onclick, but we were not in control of the offending code. We had worked under the false assumption working with multiple integration points that we would be provided a Referer header. How have I done as much web work as I've been involved with, but never run into this scenario.
This is more of a stream then a post, so take with a grain of salt...
Once in a while, work requires attempts to integrate or utilize social network sites like facebook and it requires the team to create accounts. What follows is a spike in site usage. Connections and account numbers grow as attempts to grow individual 'friends' counts, and this makes me wonder is this all there is? I must have very little in common with the average social network user. I'm technically inclined, 30 something, with an online addiction that is hard to match. Actually kinda sounds like the social network sweet spot, doesn't it? So why don't I get 'it'? What am I missing?
I started this post thinking I just didn't understand social networks, but then I thought about LinkedIn and I see the benefits. Meeting people, reaching beyond your current, and past work locations to find opportunities. I've had a profile on LinkedIn for quite a while, tho I'm not really good about building my network. So, what about facebook turns me off? Lets look at what each site sets as it's focus.
From about LinkedIn:
Our mission is to help you be more effective in your daily work and open doors to opportunities using the professional relationships you already have.
From about facebook:
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, share links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet.
Could the difference between facebook and LinkedIn just be focus. LinkedIn deals in connecting professional individuals with other individuals or employers, Ravelry connects knitters about knitting (and other topics) while facebook is about connecting with friends about no focused subject. Without focus, facebook just ends up being noise to me. All the trivial noise causes me to end up disregarding most of the site as a whole.
Over time I think facebook will either have to spilt up the site into user controlled group chunks like reddit tries to accomplish with subreddits or they will eventually lose the battle to focused social sites - and I may not be the only one who thinks so. Now that there are platforms - like pinax and even facebook itself - available to ease the initial pain of setting up social networking sites, it wont be long. Developers won't feel the need to sit atop the facebook platform.
How those words make most 30 something keeps smile, but that usually ends when I get to the office.
Once in the office, the game only refers to office politics and not a computer game. Regardless of how much one tries to convince oneself, let alone co-workers, we are always playing the game. Being the so-called straight talker, or the political outsider is just another way to manipulate the situation, sometimes with even better political results then a 'seasoned player'. The roles of the straight talker or outsider work well in an environment when change, or insight are to be gained, but what if status-quo is the goal?
When a big enough change puts into doubt the future or possible viability of a team, these roles are less likely to be assets, because stability is necessary not insight. This usually creates an environment where those who thrive on networking and dealings that go on behind closed doors, and over late evening business dinners. Slightly sleazier brand of office politics then comfortable.
This then begs the question, is the environment worth selling a little of ones soul to protect? Is it even possible to protect? Time will tell...
If you haven't checked it out yet, Ubiquity prototype for Firefox 3 looks very interesting. For you OSX users, think of it as Quicksilver for your browser.
A certain saying goes something along the lines of you can see through the water only when it is still. Sometimes rocks keep getting thrown into the water and you don't have the time to wait. What can you see in rough waters?
I happened to be reading an older copy of Men's Health and the editorial introduction to the issue stated something, minus the part about natural charisma, that kinda speaks to me.
The go-to guy on staff isn't necessarily the guy with the authoritative title..., the biggest salary..., or the most power... Sometimes, a leader emerges from among equals, a man whose natural charisma, stability, and sense of purpose make everyone turn to him... And while the man in that role usually doesn't finish his career with the biggest salary, the greatest accolades, or the snazziest title, he usually does emerge with something even more valuable: respect.
In a changing work environment I've been trying to understand certain people's motivations, and this article has helped me clarify my own thoughts about my own motivations. I want respect. I don't want power, titles, or that much more money. Titles, salary, and power can be given or taken by/for people who have never worked with nor understood the day to day activities that define reality. Respect has to be earned, not by words or here-say, but by actions.
Once I identified my motivation, it's clearer now that those whose motivations differ confuse and irritate me. Now I've only identified motivation, I haven't found a way to resolve my disconnect with those who have the other motivations.