PSD2CSS

Fri Oct 31

I’m not sure about this, but if it works at all I’ll be mightily impressed:

http://psd2cssonline.com

Looking at the HTML code of the homepage it seems to lack a certain amount of semanticity (is that a word?) but it’s not quite the forest of <div> elements I expected.

What the…?

Fri Oct 24

Hi, Chris.

Stephen Fry (stephenfry) is now following your updates on Twitter.

Check out Stephen Fry’s profile here:

http://twitter.com/stephenfry

A signup form isn’t free

Mon Oct 20

Keeping track of Microsoft’s developments is a tricky task. They are a massive company, with fingers in many pies, and their codenames make it even more difficult to know event *what* they are talking about, let alone any intricacies of the technology.

But someone is here with a regularly-updated list of MS codenames: the journalist Mary-Jo Foley has written something called CodeTracker. Good on you, mary.

However I have one bone to pick, and this is a MASSIVE problem on the modern web. Mary says:

Here’s Version 1.0 of the CodeTracker, hot off the presses. The best part? It’s free.

I’ve highlighted the word ‘free’ because, guess what, it isn’t. Clicking ‘download’ on the download page asks me to sign-in with ZDNet. I don’t have an account so I have to sign up. And when I look at the signup form they want me to provide my:

  • E-mail address
  • Full name
  • Company name
  • Postal address
  • Phone number
  • Job category
  • Job role
  • Job industry
  • Company size

The form says ‘All fields required unless noted’, and the only field marked as optional is ‘Address 2′.

All that personal information to download a ‘free’ PDF.

Now, I can understand why that information is required if you want to subscribe to ZDNet and perhaps receive customised content or be able to modify their site to my tatses. But when all I want to do as an irregular reader of ZDNet is download a document which is marked as free, why should I give all that information?

I find it misleading when people mark something as free when it requires somebody to pay something in the form of their personal data. Free means free, as in free. No hindrance to acess. No information required to participate. After all, it’s easy to track downloads of a document like this using a cookie or IP log so setting up a full account for a visitor is overkill.

Google have talked about similar information blocking, and recommended unfettered access to information they call First Click Free.

But here’s a better way for non-sensitive, ‘free’, information. Don’t ask someone to log in when they want to access something on your site, just give them what they want. Then save a cookie on their computer so your site knows they’ve visited. (Yes, some people won’t accept cookies, but most will.)

Each time they come to your site increment a count in the cookie, and once someone has visited X or more times, offer them an unobtrusive reminder that they can get more content, more features, or a better interface by creating an account. Heck, why not just ask ehtm for their email address and name - you can automatically create a username and password and email it to them, and log them in automatically.

Don’t, I repeat don’t, ask for loads of personal information for people responding to something advertised as ‘free’. A signup form isn’t free.

And lo, the Internets are a confusing place

Fri Oct 17

You may think it’s easy writing website. But just knowing what your sites are being viewed in is a nightmare: see this tale of old for details.

Of course, the answer is to code websites in a browser-agnostic manner. However that takes effort, knowledge, trial and error.

Supporting Dave Walker

Mon Oct 13

A very good friend of mine is currently embroiled in a “cease and desist” situation. The full story is here, and there is a long list of other supporters here.

A letter has been sent to Mr Brewer, the full text is below:

Dear Mr. Brewer

We are writing on behalf of 498 supporters of cartoonist and blogger Dave Walker, a
group which includes bishops, national journalists in the UK and US, lawyers,
clergy, and concerned members of the public.

We would like to ask you please to contact Dave Walker and withdraw the demands made
in the ‘Cease and Desist’ letter which you sent him in July. Your letter, as far as
we know, instructed Dave to remove all his posts about the recent history of SPCK
bookshops or face action for libel. With the pressures of the impending Lambeth
conference, and a very short deadline given by yourself, Dave complied. He commented
at the time: “I have therefore removed all of the SPCK/SSG posts on this blog, as,
although I believe I have not done anything wrong I do not have the money to face a
legal battle. The removal of these posts is in no way an admission of guilt.”

Many of us have read the posts concerned, and are surprised, to say the least, that
they could be called libelous. Indeed, the first three posts make no mention at all
of yourself, the Society of St. Stephen the Great, or anyone associated with you.
The 4th post reports your takeover of the bookshops with the comment “this is
splendid news.” Another post is a simple link to your SSG video on YouTube. Other
items include verbatim reports of your own statements, and in the simple post on the
death of Steve Jeynes, dozens of people used the comments to expressed their grief
and condolences to Steve’s family.

Dave is a reasonable man, and if all critics were as fair as he is the world would
be a better place. If you were able to reconsider, and point out specific statements
and claims you were unhappy with, we are sure Dave would be happy to correct them
where appropriate. This is the normal process of debate on the internet, and in real
life, and follows the strong tradition of free speech for which our countries stand
and are rightly proud.

So this is a polite request from all of us: please contact Dave Walker, advise him
that your ‘cease and desist’ communication no longer stands, and let him report
freely.

Yours sincerely

8 signatories representing the ‘We Support Dave Walker’ group

I fully support Dave and his right to report on current affairs on his blog. The heavy-handed tactics designed to hinder free speech used against Dave are completely unneccesary, and I hope that Mr Brewer and his advisers see sense and work with the people affected to get the best outcome for this situation.

Hang in there Dave.