In my “Standards Heresy” talk I noted pretty bluntly that CSS 3 is a joke. A sad, sick joke being perpetrated by people who clearly don’t build actual web apps. If the preponderance of the working group did, we’d already have useful things like behavioral CSS being turned into recommendations and not turds like CSS namespaces and CSS Print Profile. And I’m not even sure if the “Advanced” Layouts cluster-fsck should be mentioned for the fear that more people might actually look at it. You’d expect an “advanced layouts” module to give us hbox and vbox behaviors or a grid layout model or stretching…but no, the “answer” apparently is ascii art. No, I’m not making this up. It’s sad commentary that you can propose this kind of dreck at the W3C and get taken seriously.
Beyond what’s obviously wrong with the avenues being (inexplicably) pursued, there’s a lot to read into what’s not being worked on. Namely the serious and myriad problems with the basics of how CSS rules are written and applied.
[We were discussing this just yesterday… CSS is really a mess. I wonder if the browser folks could be talked in to supporting something more grounded in people’s needs?]
Source: Continuing Intermittent Incoherency
Adam Wiggins, one of the three partners behind Heroku, has some more “from the trenches” detail in this post on his personal blog.
[Interesting, but potentially painful for all but the simplest stuff (for now?)]
Source: Ruby Inside
I don’t know much about this developing story, but it’s interesting on its face… M.I.T. Sues Architect Frank Gehry – New York Times (and here’s a longer piece in the NYT):
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is suing renowned architect Frank Gehry, alleging serious design flaws in the Stata Center, a building celebrated for its unconventional walls and radical angles.
The school asserts that the center, completed in spring 2004, has persistent leaks, drainage problems and mold growing on its brick exterior. It says accumulations of snow and ice have fallen dangerously from window boxes and other areas of its roofs, blocking emergency exits and causing damage.
Maybe unfair, but one interpretation: award-winning “radical” designs aren’t great if they can’t keep snow off the emergency exit.
[There are all sorts of stories about famous architects and there rejoinders to complaints about leaky roofs… Frank Lloyd Wright they claim told one client who was complaining about a roof leak dripping on his chair to move his chair. Another comment was that you wouldn’t know it was a roof if it didn’t leak. It’s simple really, it’s just a question of priority. If you want something that amazes by its design and look it’s going to require trying new materials and techniques. If you’re trying to build stuff you haven’t built before, there is going to be a learning curve, and unexpected results. It’s the same thing that makes so many software projects “grow”, or “late”, or “overbudget”. Stick with stuff that’s been done many times before and it won’t leak or drop melting ice in front of doorways. But it won’t inspire or delight except in its utility. Fine if that’s what you want, but you don’t hire Gehry for that.]
Source: Good Experience Blog
If I were buying a violin…(or viola, or cello) I would buy it from David. I was once on a list to buy a guitar from him, but things got screwed up and I never did. At the moment it makes no sense for me to sink that kind of money into an instrument. Anyway, his sense of style, and sculpture is what lures me in, and the attention and study of qualities of sound keep me there.
With constrained resources, you realize the value of the marginal hour very quickly. You can’t just goof around with science projects, open-ended explorations, and play time with new whiz-bang technology. Instead, you have to deliver real value, real soon. Otherwise the project is simply going to languish as it loses out to the “real work” of paying clients.
For us, that meant we had to build something for ourselves, something we needed, and something that was valuable enough that we’d assign resources to it over getting billable hours done. It meant racing to running software, deciding that a lot of stuff just doesn’t matter, and building half, not half-assed.
The initial start of extreme resource starvation lead to many of our thoughts on software development. It also lead me to believe that the best work is done when there’s not enough time, not enough money to do it “right”.
Doing it right is a pie in the sky. It’s a misnomer for second-system syndrome and it’s never going to happen anyway. So stop aiming for perfect, start aiming for good enough.
[Always a good reminder.]
Source: SIGNAL VS. NOISE
turnings :: daniel berlinger 