Just force the browser on us, please!

As a web developer, I understand the headaches of having to adjust code to properly function or display across several browsers. It's the nature of the beast. It's better now than it used to be, as standards compliance keeps getting better across the board. But when a new version of a browser comes out, why keep the old one around? Just force the browser on us, please!

Ok, I know that forced upgrades can also cause support problems, especially when it causes more bugs than it fixes, or breaks functionality which could potentially break an entire web site.

But, by doing so, developers would be more apt to stick to well known standards, which leads to more solid code, and less chance of breakage.

I'm ranting because IEBlog says IE7 will be optional and IE6 will continue to be supported and patched until the lifetime of the OS it runs on is over. A quote:

Everywhere that IE6SP1 is supported today, IE6SP1 will continue to be supported until the OS it ships with expires. Are you running IE6SP1 on Windows 2000 SP4? You will continue to get support for IE6SP1 until Windows 2000 expires (slated expiration: 2010).

2010? I hope people are not still running Windows 2000 in 2010. So the days where one standard codebase renders exactly the same on all browsers and platforms is still a way away. Although today's most modern browsers are converging, it's the old ones that are still around that hurt us the most.

Let the public adjust their habits to forced upgrades. It won't take long before most people get used to the idea that the browser they are currently running is always the latest and greatest. Other software does this, why not browsers?

AOL: Another Obtuse Lapse

I don't know what the people at America Online are smoking, but maybe they should start selling whatever it is, because they may need to look for a new business model soon. These people released massive amounts of user search data to the public, tied to individual users!

Ok, so the user names are not used. Instead, they use randomized numbers, but you can track a user's searches and navigation by this number, and pretty easily find out who they are by analyzing their search terms. Ego searching is very common.

So imagine seeing that user "1297734" seached for his name, for example "Ted Samplename", then this same user later searches for "Seattle prostitutes". Well, suddenly we can start assuming that Mr. Ted Samplename, of Seattle, is looking for a little on-the-side action. Talk about invasion of privacy!

AOL has since removed the data, but the damaqge is done. It's being mirrored all over the place. I'm just glad I'm not an AOL user, and I feel bad for anyone who is.

Web 2.0 Watch: Connected Innovators - The Supernova 12

According to the Supernova Conference web site, "the Connected Innovators program brings together the creators of exciting emerging technologies with the industry's top technology and business influencers."

Below is the list of the Supernova 12 - twelve Web 2.0 companies chosen as "connected innovators" for the conference.

Attensa	Ether	lifeio
Netvibes	PostApp	PROTOMOBL
Sharpcast	SoonR	StumbleUpon
Vpod.tv	Webaroo	ZiXXo

This is scaring me a bit. I'm getting that old "dot-bomb" feeling again. How many of these companies will make it? Most likely, not many if history is a guage. What is more troubling to me, though, is that out of all the new Web 2.0 companies out there, these 12 don't all strike me as revolutionary in any real way.

Some have very interesting ideas, but is it enough to build a company on? Well, apparently, this time around, most companies are not really out to be independently profitable...they are looking to get bought out by one of the big boys.

The big boys (Google, MSN, Yahoo, etc) are scared to miss the next big thing, and it is easier for them to buy out one of these startups and integrate their offerings than to build it all from scratch.

So this may be a new dot-com bubble, but this time, at least their is an exit strategy. There will be many deaths along the way, but hopefully not a huge nuclear explosion that takes them all out at once.

Let's hear it for progress.

Low usability = high annoyance. Duh!

Sandra Rossi of Computerworld Today (Australia) mentions in her article, What Users Hate Most About Web Sites, that a web site that is hard to use causes people to get annoyed and leave the site.

So what do users hate? Ads, complexity, confusion, distractions, wordiness...you know, the things that everyone hates about anything. What I find interesting is that articles like this make good design principles seem like a revelation. It's not brain surgery, people. It's common sense. If you don't like a wordy, ad-filled web site, there's a good chance many others feel the same way.

Linux still not ready for desktop primetime

Many people in Silicon Valley tout the benefits of using Linux instead of Windows as their desktop operating system of choice. It's faster, more secure, and way cheaper. So why hasn't it overtaken Microsoft in the desktop OS war?

Mark Golden of The Wall Street Journal
puts several Linux distributions through their paces and tells us why. What does it boil down to? Compatibility...specifically with multimedia hardware and software. Have an iPod? You will have to work extra hard to get it to work on Linux. Want to see online streaming video? Not just a click away.

Something not mentioned in this article is how Linux works with the latest PC games. The short answer: It doesn't. The latest hot games are built for Windows and use DirectX technology, something not easily or successfully emulated. Being a gamer, this immediately negates the option of using Linux for me.

Now don't get me wrong...Linux is a wonderful OS that has its place. That place is in the background, running servers. It wins hands down.