In the same time period, the physical size of displays has also generally increased but now includes a lot more variety. A decade ago, 15” desktop screens were common, and 20” screens were about the largest in regular use. Today, anything under 19” is uncommon for desktops, with screens ranging up to 30”. But notebooks with smaller screens are everywhere, netbooks with displays even smaller yet abound, and mobile devices proliferate with comparatively tiny screens. Technology solutions have largely helped deal with this disparity, such as the iPhone’s easy zooming feature for web browsing. And with 1024 x 768 as the current default minimum target resolution, it’s really only phones with lower resolutions.

But there’s another, related issue: with the disparity in screen sizes and resolutions comes a compounded variance in pixel density. While a standard desktop 20” widescreen monitor at 1680 x 1050 has a pixel density of 99 pixels per inch, my 15” MacBook Pro running the same resolution is 128PPI. An older 19” CRT at 1024 x 768 is 67PPI, almost half—meaning that elements such as text are physically half as big on the newer screen. And mobile device disparity is even greater: the iPhone 4’s 3.5” display at 640 x 960 is 326PPI.

Designers need to rethink the scales they’ve always used for design. Increasing pixel density means that 10- and 12-pt fonts are basically illegible on many screens. While we’re accustomed to working to the lowest common denominator (for screen resolution), we need to be actively considering higher-end users in terms of pixel density.

One mitigating factor is that most browsers have now adopted the “zoom the entire page” model instead of “make the text larger”, resulting in a better experience for those outliers who we fail with our designs. But relying on technology to compensate for our failure to accommodate our users isn’t a reassuring thought. There is a definite opportunity here for designers focusing on legibility and usability to lead the way on web design trends.

Here is a little history for those of you who are new to the browser wars. The first major battle was fought in the late 90s between Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) and Netscape Navigator. The result was a decisive victory for IE and what followed can be described as the dark ages of the browser world. Microsoft had over 90% of the market and as a result decided to stop developing IE. IE6 was released in 2001 and we never saw another major browser release from Microsoft until IE7 was released in late 2006. IE6 was a decent browser for its time, but it did have a number of quirks and bugs. These problems didn’t matter much since IE had such a dominant market position so everyone just assumed that was the way the browser was supposed to work.

There were other browsers available. Netscape was still around, Mozilla, which was the open source version of Netscape, and Opera were all other options. I was not a big fan of any of them, especially their interfaces. When I began working at zu, Shane introduced me to a browser called Phoenix. It was essentially a stripped down version of Mozilla. I started to use Phoenix on a regular basis and it opened my eyes to how IE-centric the web had become. Phoenix eventually grew up and became Firefox. Other browsers were starting to be introduced. Apple had the audacity to make their own browser called Safari and Google eventually introduced their own browser named Chrome, which is based on the same rendering engine as Safari.

Each of these browsers offered their own strengths. Opera has always been fast and feature-rich while Firefox has always been lean but had extensions which allowed you to add the features that you wanted. Safari had excellent CSS support and pushed standards groups to add new exciting features such as CSS animation. Chrome had a lightening fast JavaScript engine and each browser tried to copy and improve upon each others innovations.

This has created rapid and dramatic improvements in browser technology over the past couple of years. Standards began to pick up steam too. HTML5 started gaining steam and browsers began to eagerly implement features like the canvas tag. CSS3 development roared back to life after a long period of stagnation. JavaScript performance has increased dramatically which has allowed JavaScript intensive websites and JavaScript libraries to proliferate.

Even IE, the enemy of web developers everywhere, has finally begun to catch up. IE8 still lags in many of the advanced features that other browsers have, but IE9 looks downright promising. There are many web developers that think Microsoft should just replace IE’s rendering engine with WebKit (same engine as Safari and Chrome) or even drop the browser all together. I cannot agree with this point of view. Competition is good, especially amongst web browsers. When Microsoft conquered the browser world, they abandoned browser development. However, if Mozilla, Opera, Apple or Google had achieved the same type of market share that Microsoft did in the first part of the decade, I have no doubt that they would have stopped innovating as well. Long live the browser wars.

What’s the dirt? Well, last Thursday at their iPhone 4.0 event, Apple announced a shiny new iPhone operating system and the fact that they will no longer accept iPhone applications in their store that were developed using non-Apple software development kits.

For some time, Flash lovers had been lamenting the lack of Flash support on Apple’s mobile devices. This was most noticeable in their web browser but also affected the stand-alone applications in the app store.

Then Adobe announced a breakthrough: their new CS5 Flash applications would be able to compile iPhone-compatible apps! Flash and Flex developers around the world (count me in with them) rejoiced like teenagers invited to the cool kids’ party. We all waited in eager anticipation for the party to start (i.e. the shipping date of Adobe’s CS5 Suite) until ‘daddy’ Steve Jobs came home and grounded us, probably forever.

So now we’re in the midst of an uproar. Forums, tweeters, bloggers, and Facebook groups are all weighing in on the issue. Many are very insulted. Even Adobe’s own platform evangelist directed some very colourful language toward Apple. People love to hate the guys with the power, especially when they use that power. Thankfully there are a few level heads out there at the same time.

Maybe if we hadn’t been staring at CS5’s iPhone development carrot for so long we wouldn’t be so mad that Apple is taking it away. As a professional Flash developer, I respect the intention behind many of the arguments wanting Apple to allow for a more open platform. I also respect the passion of the Flash developers, because many of us would likely compare ourselves to artists, with Flash being our medium of choice. We feel hurt when someone wants to take away something that gives us so much creative freedom.

But let’s not take it personally. Apple is not anti-developer and anti-consumer as the Facebook group would have you believe. They’re not out to get anyone, offend anyone, or destroy any particular platform. They shouldn’t be expected to do things “for the common good” as some people want. It would have been nice if they would have developed this new policy sooner, certainly, but it does take time to get decisions made sometimes. Apple is a shareholder-held company that exists primarily to make money.

They know how to make money by using market positioning. When their ‘suits’ sat down to figure out their official policy, they knew there would be an uproar. They also knew they didn’t want the iPhone to be just another platform that plays the same applications that every other platform plays. Apple has historically prospered when they strove to be different. So, as the level-headed blogger pointed out, “it makes sense from Apple’s perspective — and it was Apple’s decision to make.” They chose to be the ‘other’ platform, and to reap the consequences.

The Facebook group goes so far as to accuse Apple of being anti-competition. I ask them: isn’t every company that wants market share anti-competition in some way? You can’t paint Apple as the bad guys just because they are winning the smart-phone competition right now. In the same way, you can’t fault Adobe for being tops in the web multimedia game. If you want competition, go out there make products that are better than theirs which attract their own market share. That’s real competition, and that’s what Apple is trying to do.

So whether you agree with Apple or not, let’s just see how it pans out. If they were wrong, then their market share will suffer and they may or may not change their policy. If they were right, then iPhone will remain a popular product with a user base that actually wants to be different, and maybe Adobe will have to face the fact that Flash isn’t supported as widely as they would like. Either way, technologies will continue to change until the end of the age. May the best product win, and may the best developers adapt.

The iPad is my first “living room” computer. I have a laptop at home, but usually sit at a table or desk to use it. The iPad does almost everything I need to do at home but it is much lighter than a laptop which means I can use it on the couch, much like I would a book. I use the iPad for late night emails, keeping up-to-date on tech blogs, RSS and to follow the world on twitter.

The iPad has great video quality that allows me to watch video podcasts from the patio, couch or basement. Before the iPad I was tied to AppleTV or a laptop. I think the quality of the video is my biggest surprise.

A smaller surprise was the battery life, which has exceeded my expectations. I should also mention that the keyboard is easy to use and the iPad is fast, much, much faster than the iPhone which I find oddly slow now.

We purchased an iPad at zu and have already started to develop some apps for it. Currently there are a relatively small number of iPad apps available and I can’t wait to see what innovative tricks other iPad developers will come up with.

I drew this picture using the app ‘Draw’. You can draw anything with your fingers and easily export it to your photos. Also on this app are the games Dots and Tic-Tac-Toe for those times when you’re sitting on the couch with a date watching Dancing with the Stars.

The iPad is a winner and I can foresee a time when it dominates the market much like the iPhone does. Don’t believe me? Stop by our office for a test drive.

I loved that TV. I remember many a night falling asleep by its glowing light. I even recall falling asleep with it on after watching The Ring. I woke up in the middle of the night to sheer darkness broken only by a hissing, static-filled screen. I’m not too proud to say I turned on a lot of lights, shut the TV off, grabbed a hockey stick – because hockey sticks are the best defense against ghosts – and huddled in a corner until dawn.

But though I loved my TV, the pull of big screen HD sets was getting stronger. The technology had gone beyond the realm of early adopters and was starting to firmly entrench itself not as a luxury item, but simply as a consumer staple in a privileged country.

For months, I would spend hours walking through our local tech stores analyzing prices and features and marveling at just how stunning sports and nature shows were in HD. This went on for so long that one day Albert had heard enough. He said, “I know you don’t like impulse buys. I know this. But we’re gonna get you a new TV today.”

We headed out to a store which shall remain nameless and I was just about to finalize the deal when I got annoyed by the salesman and called it off. I told myself it was a sign from the universe and resolved to use my weathered old friend until it gave up the ghost. Three days later, the picture tube blew. I now watch all my sports on a 50” HD screen.

It would appear I got in right before the trend hit critical mass. In fact, one could argue that the trend hit critical mass right after I got in.*

Now, I told you that story to tell you this one.

When I first met Katherine about three years ago, she was the proud owner of a Motorola Razr. At the time, it was the talk of the tech world. Slim, light, strong and sexy, it hit on all the right buttons.

But though she loved her phone, the pull of smartphones was getting stronger. The technology had gone beyond the realm of early adopters and was starting to firmly entrench itself not as a luxury item, but simply as a consumer staple.

A couple weeks ago, she and I were discussing mobile devices and the unique challenges they present for websites and, once again, I tried to slyly convince her to get a smartphone. She was nearly over the fence but just couldn’t get past the fact that her current phone worked just fine.

She revealed she had nearly pulled the trigger a couple weeks ago and backed out for that very reason. She had resigned herself to fate and decided she’d use the Razr until it died. Three days later, she dropped her phone and broke it in half. She’s now the proud owner of a Blackberry Tour.

And while my involvement in this cosmic message was minimal, it will have a similar result. Smartphones are hitting critical mass and it won’t be long until they’ve gone beyond the realm of luxury item to a consumer staple, with one key difference. This won’t be a consumer staple only for privileged countries. This is a global trend that will extend farther than TV could ever hope to reach.

It’s time for a smartphone!

*One would not win that argument, but it helps tie the story together.

You’d be hard pressed to see me walking into a bookstore and not walking out with a new book in tow. But about a year ago I decided to try switching to ebooks to see if they could take the place of my book buying compulsion, if only for a short while.

I’m continuing to work at it but I’ve yet to make the full switch. There are many reasons including price, DRM and device and format compatibility, but the real issue came from one specific niche of the book industry—comic books.

Case study
When I first opened my freshly delivered copy of The Absolute Sandman—Vol 1, my senses were overwhelmed. The look, feel and smell when I first opened it were an overload to my system and I had to sit back for a minute to compose myself. And when I finally set my eyes on the first page of panels, I nearly started crying. I’ve yet to have that experience replicated by an ebook and device combo when reading a comic book. Or any book for that matter. And until an ebook reader comes out that can show a comic as utterly resplendent—yes, it’s so good that I had to pull out the thesaurus—as The Absolute Sandman print version, I won’t make the full switch.

Opportunity knocks
While I was catching myself up on a long-running comic series I’d neglected for the last couple years, I had a dream. And in that dream it would be possible to subscribe to my favourite comics and have them delivered directly to my ebook reader as soon as they’re published.

I only follow a few series but keeping up with releases is a pain and when you want to try and follow crossover arcs, it’s an exercise in futility for all but the most devoted fans. Why not make it easier for people to buy that content?

If a Batman story ties in with a Green Arrow story, I’d be much more inclined to buy the tie-in if it was presented to me just as I finished the Batman story and I could buy it at that exact moment. Take advantage of book lovers at their weakest—when they’re fully engrossed in a plot—and keep them reading! Ebooks present an amazing opportunity for comic book publishers to develop a platform to deliver their content right to their readers and help make sense of the tie-ins. They’ve even got a chance to develop their own niche-market reading device.

Marvel is getting close but they still haven’t nailed it. With things picking up in the digital world for comic books, this is a step that publishers can’t miss.

Related Links
Stan Lee and Walt Disney Partner on Digital Motion Comic Series
Digital Comic Books Now Available for iPhone and iPod Touch
Readers Say Paying for Digital Comics is the Future

twitpitch: The future is #ebooks. @thebatlab explores opportunities for #comic book publishers to deliver content.

Obviously, I have not used every single CMS available. I have used a few, both commercial and open-source, as well as building my own. Off-the-shelf CMSs have some great features. The app is usually well-tested, mature and very stable. There are often many advanced features that are built-in such as flexible workflow and multi-language support. Many are quick and easy to setup for small projects. However, you are also getting a lot of other undesirable things. They are usually tough to customize, especially the admin interface. You often have slow turnaround time to fix bugs. There are often many features which you don’t need on every project which adds unnecessary complexity for the users. And the instructions are often non-intuitive. Additionally, many off-the-shelf CMSs work great for the IT guys, but non-techies have troubles understanding the interface and find them difficult to update. This is very evident when you support an off-the-shelf CMS.

If you, or your interactive supplier, build your custom solution correctly, you can have the best of both worlds: a stable, feature-rich CMS that perfectly meets your needs.

A custom CMS is not always a cheap solution, though. I don’t advocate trying to build a custom CMS for a client that is not willing or able to spend the money. However, a custom solution can be built for the same price it takes to purchase and implement a large commercial CMS. Using some pre-built components will be necessary to keep costs in line. There are many open-source frameworks and libraries that can be used to speed up the development process and therefore keep costs down.

To develop a competitive-cost CMS, you need the right interactive firm, team and people to build the solution. There are many inexperienced or inadequate web developers who promise the world, but can not deliver. Much of this is due to inexperience. Most custom CMS solutions fall short of delivering the tools promised in an easy-to-use system. This is why companies fall back to pre-built CMSs; they are scared to spend a large sum of money and end up with a terrible solution—or, even worse, no solution at all.

How can a company get around these fears?

Experience
If your web developer has a track record of providing quality solutions, then it will be easier for your company to trust that the project can be delivered.

Process
There must be a well defined process from start to finish. This will allow the developer to provide the client with more accurate timelines and estimates.

Communication
From the web developer’s perspective, you must keep the client informed at all stages of the project and be completely honest in communication. If there are problems or delays, advise your client. By hiding those and then failing to meet targets and deadlines, a web developer is only going to cause mistrust with the clients.

Documentation
For the developer and client to agree on a timeline and price, they must both understand what exactly is going to be build. The developer must provide on paper exactly what the system they are going to build.

One thing a business may be wondering is how big the project must be to make a custom CMS worthwhile. I cannot answer with a number or any definite rules. I will just say that every project is different and every project has a different solution. There is a lot of work that must go into breaking down the problem and finding the best solution. This process in itself can cost lots of money. If you want to provide service to a range of project sizes and types, you cannot support only one solution. You must be open to all solutions.

In fact, the makers don’t even refer to it as any sort of search engine, web or otherwise. They describe it as a “computational knowledge engine”. But what does that mean?

First and foremost, it means they aren’t trying to take down Google. What Wolfram|Alpha is trying to do is to map knowledge—all of it. And in the process they provide a service which lets people query that knowledge and compute it in whatever manner they need—for free.

I was in Edmonton over the weekend and was asked how the size of Edmonton compared to the size of Saskatoon. Of course, I made a humourous remark about Saskatoon fitting nicely into West Edmonton Mall. (Ok, you caught me. It wasn’t that humourous). What I could have done was gone to Google, searched “population Saskatoon”, memorized the number, then searched for “population Edmonton” and then compared the two in my head. It’s a bit cumbersome and provides limited results but it’s doable.

With Wolfram|Alpha, I can search “Saskatoon vs Edmonton” and be presented with data and graphs showing how the two match up in population; how far apart they are; how long a flight between the two cities would take; what the current local times are and the approximate elevation of the two cities—and it’s all on one page. Sure, it’s missing data like geographic size, economics, nationalities and more—but it’s still a step up.

That’s one tiny example of the knowledge Wolfram|Alpha looks to map. From figures and formulas to facts and football, they’re looking to map as much knowledge as they can. If you watch their Overview video, you will undoubtedly be impressed. But don’t crown them the new wonder child just yet.

While the natural language parser is excellent, there are some seemingly simple queries that leave it perplexed. I can search for my birthday and find out what phase the moon was in on that day, but I can’t find out who was the Prime Minister of Canada on the day I was born. Instead, I’m told “Wolfram|Alpha isn’t sure what to do with your input.”

Does that mean I phrased my query wrong? Or that they don’t have all the Prime Ministers of Canada in their system yet? I like to think that a good way to judge a service–online or otherwise–is to see how it handles failure. Wolfram|Alpha simply rolls over and plays dead.

This is an initial release and they certainly get an A+ for their efforts and vision, but they have a long way to go to become the Google of knowledge. And they better move fast, because Google is interested in mapping more than just the web.

Related Links
Wolfram|Alpha’s Surprising Terms of Service
Wolfram|Alpha and Google Face Off
Wolfram|Alpha Fails the Cool Test

I’ve been using OpenID as my “one login to rule them all” solution for a little over a year now and have been relatively happy with it. But while OpenID provides a fine single sign on solution, it doesn’t always allow you to get behind the pseudonym and connect with a person. With authentication options like Facebook Connect, you get the benefits of a single-sign-on solution coupled with identity integration.

That extra level of integration is key to driving both the adoption of Facebook Connect and the knife into the belly of the anonymous Internet.

The Old Frontier
In the early days of the mass adopted Internet, everything was done with online pseudonyms. The first task at any site or service that required sign-up was “Choose your username”.

My thought process every time was: “You mean I get to choose who I am? I’m not saddled with my current reality? Cool!” And then I’d spend a few minutes debating if I wanted to settle on one pseudonym (oh, the irony!) or pick a new one. And no matter what I picked, that identity was tied back to nothing. It was vapor.

That anonymity empowered people to put forth controversial viewpoints without fear of reprisal or being shown a fool. But those instances were far outweighed by Internet tough guys using it as a shield while spewing out insults to incite a flamewar. And since nobody can resist a good flamewar, thoughtful discussion took a sideline seat to Godwin’s law.

This brings me back to an Online Ethics class I attended at the University of Saskatchewan back in 2001. One of the first assignments was to find all the online information you could about a classmate. At the time, I was a part of many online communities including gaming networks, pre-Facebook social sites (Arcadium, anyone?), Usenet and more. However, a search on my name came back with limited results. A brief, two-word review of Doom (“It rocks!”), my U of S personal homepage and a couple results which weren’t actually me.

If you were to search on my standard online nickname, the results would have been a different story, but divulging that information wasn’t in the spirit of the assignment. And it wouldn’t have helped make my point today.

I was nearly invisible.

The New Frontier
Now it’s a brand new hockey game. I’m involved in fewer communities, yet if you search my name you’ll find exponentially more results than you would eight years ago. You can find my profile on Blogger, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, StepRep and Bleacher Report along with comments I’ve made on other blogs, posts I’ve contributed to other sites, my Amazon.ca wishlist (feel free!) and even my signature on the SaveDoan.ca petition from 2007. You can do a Google Image search and the first result is my mug staring you in the face.

I exist online. I’ve put all this information out there and I’ve allowed it all to be tied back to my “real world” name. It’s a novel idea coming from the anonymous age I grew up in and the social and psychological implications are intriguing.

Back in 1999, there was no way to know if ZeroCool from Arcadium was the same ZeroCool who just dropped a comment on your blog. But today you would know if Shane Giroux on Facebook is the same Shane Giroux who just left a comment on your blog using Facebook Connect.*

When I leave a comment on a site using Facebook Connect, other visitors can click through to see my Facebook profile and learn more about me, while existing friends are able to tie the comment back to my name and profile. And the integration doesn’t end there. I can choose to auto-post that comment on my Wall for all my Facebook friends to see, promoting my involvement as well as driving people to the website. This symbiotic relationship will push sites to support Facebook Connect so they can benefit from this system of friend referral.

So my online identity is now equivalent to my real world identity. They are one. That notion is powerful to both the producer and consumer of that information. I’m more inclined to proofread my comment before posting it if I know it will be forever tied back to my face, my hands, my brain. Me. Additionally, people reading my comments will be able to deduce context from previous interactions we’ve had or other comments of mine they’ve read.

This context will help foster intelligent discourse and make the Internet a smarter entity. And let’s not forget the advertising potential of all this tightly correlated data. Marketers are licking their lips at the prospect.

We exist online.

* no, I didn’t use anything as lame as ZeroCool for my pseudonym.

Standards are important because websites and applications run on many different platforms. Unlike desktop applications, web apps are expected to run on every operating system—plus, every web browser and every version of browser. This creates the challenge of successfully supporting dozens of combinations. Developers are expected to support at least 3 versions of Internet Explorer alone (IE6, IE7 and IE8), so when a browser renders HTML and CSS according to established standards, it makes our job a lot easier.

Here’s a quick tip to accommodate IE users who still experience outdated browser capability: by adding a simple meta tag to your (X)HTML you can force IE8 to render your website exactly as IE7 would. This provides an easy migration path to IE8.

At zu, we have been working hard to prepare for the release of IE8. We have executed an audit of all our existing websites to maintain a high standard of compatibility with IE8. Implementing compliancy standards for our websites has always been a priority for zu. We still maintain support for older versions of Internet Explorer and will continue to do so in the future.