According to Ajaxian, the beloved tradition of learning by peeking at someone else’s source code is on the brink of extinction. Because Google is rewarding websites that load faster, people will stop at nothing to look good in the big G’s eyes, including code compression and more notably, obfuscation. This renders View Source useless.
While I feel it’s too early to call doomsday on View Source because of such speculation, like many I feel protective over it. It’s no surprise then that the Save View Source movement has been formed this early. The discussion is sparse, but Alex Russell elegantly explains why View Source matters, also reminding me why I love developing on the Web:
View-source provides a powerful catalyst to creating a culture of shared learning and learning-by-doing, which in turn helps formulate a mental model of the relationship between input and output faster. Web developers get started by taking some code, pasting it into a file, saving, loading it in a browser and hitting ctrl-r. Web developers switch between editor and browser between even the most minor changes. This is a stark contrast with technologies that impose a compilation step where the process of seeing what was done requires an intermediate step. In other words, immediacy of output helps build an understanding of how the system will behave, and ctrl-r becomes a seductive and productive way for developers to accelerate their learning in the copy-paste-tweak loop.
Even in compiling languages people learn better by looking at example code, but the culture of open learning can be felt strongest on the Web. Ajaxian posts a follow-up, in which I couldn’t agree more with this:
I personally feel like the ability to view source fit in perfectly with the culture of the Web, and was especially important early on. I am willing to bet that we have all learned from the notion of view source.
The freedom of access to tons of information on the Web is what it all boils down to. View Source is a sturdy consequence of that. It seems wrong to compare performance versus learning, but between those two, learning should prevail.
Then again, who can stand in the way of site owners desperate to turn up traffic and profit? Sounds like standards versus SEO all over again. What do you think—is the Save View Source movement an overreaction or a preemptive strike?
It’s begun.
Actually, since list-style blog posts on design trends and other pretty things have been popular for a few years now, I’m sure the backlash has been happening for a while.
Now, it does make sense to organize your a complex article into easily digestible chunks, especially in a not exactly 100% comfortable to read environment such as the Web. It’s good to keep tabs on great new typefaces and graphics in your arsenal.
However, list articles have gained a bad reputation for other reasons because quality is put on the backburner. And there are a number parties responsible:
- The marketers: It’s easy to thank SEO for this phenomenon. A significant portion of internet marketing involves social media, and high-traffic sites like Digg just love the list format. It’s killer linkbait.
- The readers: The problem is lists don’t always contain what people need to truly learn. A lot of these people don’t know any better, and the explosion of lists distracts them from laying the foundations first.
- The internet: Why? There are great lists out there; people will need to separate the wheat from the chaff. But maybe, it’s the very nature of the Web that mutates the need to find the good stuff into the need to find as much stuff as possible or the quickest, easiest solution to a problem.
To commemorate the closing of internet dinosaur and free web hosting service Geocities today, October 26, geeky web comic XKCD “redesigned” its site to match the horrible aesthetic (or lack thereof) rampant during the ’90s. Low-fi images (including the requisite “under construction” sign), web-safe colors, <table>s, <blink>, <marquee>, a hit counter, and a “best viewed in Netscape Navigator” disclaimer—it’s all in there. I think the only thing missing is an actual comic about Geocities itself.
Is it safe to say we are finally rid of those horrible-looking and horribly-functioning things now that Geocities is gone? We will always have that side of the spectrum. But it’s a good reminder of how far we’ve come:
- IE6 is now the most outdated browser instead of the most modern. (That doesn’t make its continued existence a good thing though.)
- If you disable images and stylesheets, webpages will make sense.
- Descriptive hyperlinks matter (mostly to curry favor with Google, but still).
- Despite Yahoo!’s terrifying propensity to run its acquisitions to the ground (worried about Flickr and Delicious yet?), it’s easier and cheaper than ever to run your own website.
Still, the timeless adage remains: back up and be prepared! You never know when life will go Geocities on you.
When setting up your website one of the most important aspects will be to choose a domain name. It’s that domain name that will stick with you for the lifetime of your site. You can change the template, change the purpose of the site, fire a designer, hire a designer, but you just cannot change that domain name (unless you scrap it and do a redirect). Finding an available domain name that you like and that is appropriate for the purpose of your site is complicated. Here are a few things to think about when choosing a domain name:
1. Match the domain name to actual name of your site
One of the easiest and best alternatives is to get a domain name that matches the actual name of your site. It’s a duh statement but so many people forget to match the site. You will increase your branding as well as make it easy for visitors to remember the name of your site. The worst thing that can happen is if people fall head over heels for your site but can not find it again simply because the domain name is not the same as the name of your site. For example if you have a bakery site, don’t call it StubbornNelly.com. No one will have a clue what your theme is. Call it, TastyPastry.com, or even Anne Cookies around the corner.com.
2. Keep it short – and Keep it Simple Stupid (KISS)
Keeping the domain name short is a challenge if you are looking for a .com domain as all three and four letter words are already taken. Yep, and all standard English words are gone too (designer.com, awesome.com). Coming up with a name that is short will be easier to remember and pass along by word of mouth. But remember, a domain name should however not be kept short just for the sake of keeping it short. Do not use acronyms as a url if they look bad as an acronym. Think of all those failed websites because people did not see different words as one word. Like don’t come up Patterns, Octogons and Other Pics and give it POOP.com. That’s a failed domain name.
Some great short named domains:
- IBM.com (why call it international business machines)
- digg.com (i dig you, you dig me)
- Match.com (find a matching partner)
3. Use keywords
Optimizing your domain name for search engines is a big help. In using one or two of your single most important keywords you will have better chances of getting a higher rank on the search results, thus increasing traffic. This will not be easy, as most “natural” names already are taken. Combine an important keyword then with something secondary. These sites came up with great names:
- GraphicDesignBlog.com
- TutorialMagazine.com
- Dev-Tips.com
4. Describe your site
Your domain name is an excellent way of describing what your site is all about. Say for example that you manage a site about fishing. Your domain name should in some way describe that fishing is exactly what your visitors will find on the site. Again, fishing is a major keyword of your site, so exploit it with a well picked domain name.
5. Avoid confusion
In general, domain names are not expensive. Register domains with misspellings of your original domain if you want to make sure you catch most type in domain traffic. Redirect those misspelled domains to the main website. This is a great for sites that use hard to spell words or need to protect their brand identity. Examples:
- Google.com
- Googel.com
- Gogle.com
6. Consider alternative domain extensions
If it is impossible to find a good domain name with the prefix .com you might want to consider using an alternative domain extension. Many countries have opened up their country code top level domain for international registration. This is perhaps your chance to create the perfect domain hack. Examples:
- Del.icio.us
- Ma.tt
- Designm.ag
Picking a domain name will take time, energy and some creativity from your side but its worth it in the end. The last tip is to checkout recently expired domain names at snapnames.com – many names will be awful or cost a fortune, but once in a while you will be able find a real gem at a reasonable fee. Good luck on finding the domain of your dreams!
Everything old seems to be new (and hip?) again. And I’m not too sure I’m happy about it.
Short URLs
Shorter URLs are all the rage these days because of Twitter and its 140-character limit. If you’re one of the top sites on the web is practically mandatory for you to roll out your own URL shortening system. Ars Technica, for example, whose official URL is arstechnica.com, also has arst.ch. If you’re on a CMS like WordPress, you’re advised to give out the post ID permalink instead of the keyword-rich permalink of your blog post for the same reason.
Not too long ago, SEO and usability experts were on the same side and recommended readable URLs. Now that Twitter is the new internet marketing (I think they call it social media now) battlefield, the rules changed. When the next killer Web 3.0 app comes out, will we compromise and adjust once again?
But then again, has the Web ever stood still? Maybe I just thought it was beginning to.
WebKit’s CSS animations and scrollbars
You can now style scrollbars and perform animations using CSS in WebKit browsers.
I remember when Internet Explorer started to support scrollbar styling and almost every personal site took advantage of it. But then they grew out of it and were told by the gurus not to mess with the browser chrome.
I also remember <blink> and <marquee>.
But then again, “styling scrollbars isn’t messing with the chrome anymore than styling a button is.” Would the world be a saner place if browsers behaved the same way and all looked alike?
DiggBars
Digg has come out with its own version of the external page framing mechanism which they call the DiggBar.
Said mechanism is nothing new, and never really died out even to be considered a comeback, but Digg has a powerful following by all that which is noisy in the blogosphere to build a considerable amount of buzz. And no matter how you look at it, framing external pages is still framing, reminiscent of the era when HTML framesets were considered cool.
But then again, perhaps in this new era listening to the clamor of the crowd is no longer a fluke, but a very real way to improve one’s business.
Here’s the conclusion that all the web gurus seem to have drawn over the past months: HTML5 is the future, and that future is slowly creeping into our midst. This article by Dave Shea is the latest proof of that. Then there are inspiration galleries and blogs dedicated to the use of HTML5 for markup, plus hardly any mention of XHTML2 anywhere else.
rel and more meaningful links
But I’m not going to get into the war between the two here; I’ll just focus on a specific development in the arena: link relations. There’s more to it than rel=stylesheet and rel=alternate. About a dozen more.
For example, the Google-imposed rel=nofollow will be officially added in HTML5, but the seemingly convenient rel=feed may be dropped due to browser implementation. Other interesting link relations mentioned are rel=search, which obviously points to a search page, and rel=sidebar, which refers to a document “shown in a secondary browsing context (if possible), instead of in the current browsing context.” More are being proposed here, including rel=accessiblity.
rel seems to be what plugins are to web browsers, so it’s interesting to see how they can make a markup language as extensible as possible.
rev and a less rotten web
Still related to link relations is the rev attribute, which stands for a “reverse link”. It hasn’t been as popular as its cousin rel up until microblogging boomed, and consequently, URL shorteners and the threat of link rot.
Considering just how popular Twitter is these days, particularly as a social media marketing and SEO tool where links are the mode of currency, using rev=canonical to indicate one URL is a shortened version of the other:
Google introduced rel="canonical" recently. It’s a way of pointing from an alternate URL back to the canonical URL of the current document: the relationship of the linked document to the current document is “canonical”.
If you’re linking from the canonical URL to an alternate URL (like, say, a shortened URL), you could use rev=”canonical”: the relationship of the current document to the linked document is “canonical”.
People are also advised to check long URLs at this RevCanonical app to determine whether they already contain shortened ones.
Make love, not war.
Round one: logo vs. title inside <h1>
I like that The h1 Debate was created to tackle a very specific issue in HTML that affects standardistas and search marketers alike. It asks the question what should go inside an <h1> tag, a logo or page name?, then you cast a vote by tweeting.
I expect lot more discussion than that, though; a poll is not enough. How about answering this question: should the <h1> tag appear exactly once on a webpage? For the record, Molly Holzschlag disagrees:
@fineartdavid it is SEO folks who IMO started the “only 1 h1″. I see cases of multiple h1 use such as in projection media: h1=slide header 1
That’s comforting for me to hear, but it might not be for you. But don’t take it as gospel—unless you consider Molly as god! If you’re an SEO guy and have some other god, then by all means.
Round two: generic vs. semantic CSS classes
If you squint long enough, you'll see a dog. And a rabbit.
The h1 Debate reminds me of a recent post at Devlounge that condemns generic CSS classes. Sure, separation of content and presentation is supposed to make webpages more efficient and future-proof, but if you avoid using unsemantic names like “left”, “right”, “center” and end up with convoluted markup, are you really writing sensible HTML? You have a choice between being purist and being practical. As Simon Collinson says:
Leaving the h1 debate now. I do it my way for reasons I believe are common sense. The day there is one way to build websites I will quit.
Which one are you?
Round three: CSS vs. tables (again?)
This is exactly what iamelgringo is talking about.
And for the nth time this millennium, it’s CSS vs. tables all over again. Apparently the case against tables is not strong enough…
CSS is really cool. It is useful for a lot of things. The basic idea of separating content from presentation is sound. But when it comes to layout, the design of CSS is fundamentally flawed. Use tables instead.
…or maybe too strong:
So I don’t ever want to read how web designers who don’t use pure CSS in their layouts are lazy, stupid, don’t care about their craft, backwards or don’t bathe properly. Never again. People who post such things online are heretofore to be known as CSS Trolls and are to be banished from the internets for all time. Begone yea vile fiends!
I completely agree with Simon in that there is not one way to build websites. That’s the beauty of it. Now I won’t go so far as say that we should all go back to tables. I’m somewhat disappointed it’s still an issue but I understand where these people are coming from. Ron Garret is giving up, but iamelgringo is not, and is only pointing out that (1) the biggest websites out there still use tables and (2) the purists (“trolls”) give CSS a bad rap.
Now I won’t be swayed by the source code on Google.com as I don’t think it matters. Does it matter to you?
The winners? It’s your call
What are your priorities? Web standards? SEO? Efficiency? A clear conscience? Sanity? You don’t have to be a purist or a pragmatist all the time, and shifting gears on each project doesn’t mean a sellout either. List those down and rank them based on your needs and your client’s. Then code accordingly.
