Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

Today, I'm reviewing a .NET site for a prospective client.  Like nearly all of the .NET sites I've evaluated, it seems to be a solid showcase of back-end logic and functionality.  Unfortunately, all of this is obfuscated by a UI that appears to have been written in 1996.  Each page is very square and clunky and really only works on one type of browser.  Open the same page in Firefox and it looks completely different (and terrible).

By contrast, when I look at similar sites based on non-Microsoft frameworks, I rarely find weak front-end code.  Their HTML is almost always standard-compliant and elegant to boot.  Why this pattern?

Before coming to work for Capstrat, I hadn't realized how poor my HTML skills were.  This may have been because most of my previous work was on corporate intranets, which rarely need to adhere to standards and address cross-browser issues. Also, I had never worked with a team that had placed such strong emphasis on well-written user interfaces.  And, perhaps not coincidentally, I'd never worked with Apple-centric developers.

This has me wondering.  Why do I and so many of my .NET comrades lag behind the Macintosh cult when it comes to XHTML/css?  Does Apple's emphasis on design attract developers who are more likely to obsess over the user experience?  Or could it be that so many of us .NET developers cut our teeth on projects in which database and business logic development were critical and the front-end was almost an afterthought?

Either way, I have learned that by doing only a few little things, we .NET-types can match the niceties of standards-compliant and visually impressive front-end code to the power of the .NET framework.  Here are a few pointers I've picked up while working among these curious folk with their silvery laptops that have an "Apple Key" where the "Alt key" should be.

1) Stop looking at every web page as a giant HTML table with stuff in the table cells.  The mantra here is: don't use tables for layout.  This was the hardest thing for me to accept because, when you're accustomed to tables, using proper markup and css for layout is soul-crushingly frustrating.  It's worth the effort, though, because table-based layouts can make your life miserable when you need to make site-wide changes or have to make your site work across all browser types.

2) There are free tools, such as Firebug and the IE Developer Toolbar, which make css development a lot easier. They let you explore and modify the HTML and css on a web page on the fly.  I won't even try to explain all the things these two applications do to make your life better.  Just download them and play.

3) There are a number of web sites that will help you on your path to XHTML enlightenment.  I found these two particularly helpful:

• For getting started, Yahoo Grids is a huge help: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/grids/builder/
• Css Zen Garden will inspire you while demonstrating the benefits of separating your content from your markup: http://www.csszengarden.com/

 

A few months ago I weighed in on Microsoft's bid to acquire a stagnating Yahoo. Earlier this week Microsoft, in a 'dear john' letter from Steve Ballmer to Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang, called Yahoo's bluff, pulling its offer off the table.

Mr. Yang could soon be sweating bullets.

April saw a flurry of tense negotiations, but in the end, the two tech giants could not reach an agreement. Microsoft offered as high as $33 per share; Yahoo would not drop below $37 per share.

As trading closed Monday of this week, Yahoo shareholders saw their Microsoft-induced bubble cut in half. Just prior to the January announcement of Microsoft's intentions, Yahoo shares were creaking along at around $20. After months of trading in the high -20s, shares plunged Monday afternoon to around $24.

So why was the sell-off not more pronounced? At $24, shareholders are still looking at a significant premium over pre-bid levels. I'm neither trader nor economist, but this doesn't seem right to me. Is there something I'm missing?

Rumors are abounding that Microsoft's withdrawing was a purely tactical maneuver; that there is more news to come. On a smaller scale I could see this as a possibility. But a deal of this magnitude? Doubtful.

The Google AdSense deal is still on the table. Could Yahoo shares be propped up by the Google's gravitational pull?

Yahoo is by no means circling the drain. But investors will be watching the skies closely, which could put Jerry Yang in the hot seat. I would offer as cautionary tale the downward spiral of Apple following the ousting of Steve Jobs.

I'm on vacation this week. I'm sipping a cup of coffee and looking out on the slopes of Squaw Valley through the living room window of my posh [I'm worth it] condo, home for a week. I told myself I would not think about work. But I'm reading the Saturday edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, and I feel compelled to address the news of the day. Microsoft is beating kids up on the playground again, and taking lunch money.

Seeking to gain a competitive edge in the world of online advertising, Microsoft yesterday made public its intention to acquire Yahoo, Inc. The goal is to position the software giant to more directly compete with Google in the online arena. At nearly 45 billion dollars, the offer, if accepted, would represent the largest acquisition in Microsoft's history. I can only imagine that tensions are high in Silicon Valley today, with the campuses of all three players within just a few miles of one another. Kudos to business strategists at Microsoft; making their intentions public is a strike while the proverbial iron is hot. Amid dismal earnings reports and a slumping share price, Microsoft hopes to play on the fears of Yahoo shareholders and investors to gain support from within. Savvy.

My knee-jerk reaction is to hate on Microsoft relentlessly. Historically unapologetic in its road-blocking of the open source movement, Microsoft's shrewd business tactics and generally crappy products are a detriment to the user-centered vision of the internet that we at Capstrat are so passionate about. I've made it no secret that I would not mourn the death of The Worst Browser Ever Made. And I would rather scrawl on a rock with a sharpened cinder than open Microsoft Word. But in all fairness, the competitive advantage that Microsoft hopes to gain with this acquisition is in the realm of online advertising - all those little banner ads in the margins of web pages that no one ever clicks on. This doesn't really seem to have any negative implications on the average user's online experience. Google currently has this space on lock-down. Yahoo has been unable to provide any sort of competition to the darling giant of the industry, and its overall feebleness in the market has had investors popping antacids for some time now. In time, Google would surely deal the death-blow to Yahoo, right? So why, then, am I so uneasy about this deal?

Microsoft's protracted antitrust battle of the '90s still seems fresh in my mind. Acquiring a competitor of the size of Yahoo is sure to catch the attention of both federal and international watchdogs. Google's impressive market share (well over 50%) will probably work to Microsoft's advantage in any sort of antitrust litigation. But then again, Microsoft's force-feeding of Windows to the global marketplace isn't winning any popularity contests, either. Much like the Superbowl and the presidential primaries, I predict lots of yelling at the television at my house as this saga unfolds.

Microsoft lodges unsolicited bid to purchase Yahoo. Here's my perspective as a person first and as an interactive developer second.

Yikes! OK, well I don't search with Yahoo anyway, so...

But see, I trust del.icio.us with my bookmarks, I trust Flickr with my pictures, I would trust Yahoo as an OpenID provider, and I've included Yahoo-written JavaScript code (YUI) in my work. I'm not so sure I trust Microsoft with those things.

 

Last week on their Internet Explorer blog, Microsoft celebrated the first anniversary of Internet Explorer 7's release by putting out a post touting IE 7's rapid uptake and tightened security.

Predictably, when this hit the blogwaves some experts jumped in to question a few rather dubious claims in the post. But the real news happened a few screens down in the comments section, where a deluge of scorn and frustration was heaped on the Internet Explorer team by the general public - the regular people who use and build the Web.

Microsoft is widely regarded as being pretty good at advertising and marketing it's products, but they've occasionally been conspicuously unable to perceive irony in their messages. Microsoft proclaimed they were fighting for their "Freedom to Innovate" in response to the U.S. Department of Justice's anti-trust action a few years back... action launched of course because Microsoft's monopolistic practices were squishing innovation . But it's one thing to ignore what your customers are asking for, then brazenly lead your marketing with, "We Heard You". It's quite another to bring that kind of thinking over to your corporate blog where unhappy customers are free to call you out.

Why were users upset? Well, consider that in the time since IE 7 was released...

Firefox went 2.0, and released beta versions of 3.0. Scores of extensions - a la carte features Firefox users add in to customize their browsing experience - have been improved or newly released this year.

 

Safari released 3.0 Beta, including a new version for Windows that feels lighter, faster and smarter than IE 7.

 

The strangely overlooked Flock released a 1.0 version. While IE 7 finally adds the same level of RSS support other browsers have had for years, Flock gets social media right, and is a glimpse of what IE might look like three versions from now.

 

Opera has committed support for next-generation technologies like HTML 5, SVG and future versions of JavaScript, while IE is still struggling to fix buggy, incomplete support for decade-old standards.

 

...And for the people who either want to or have to use IE, watching Microsoft let a year go by with no new improvements highlights lessons un-learned - not something to celebrate.

A special variety of animosity came from Web designers and developers who can't ignore IE because of it's broad market share, but are growing weary making Web pages for 2008 that have to work in browsers from 2001 (IE 6), and are frustrated with lack of progress in IE 7. Microsoft realizes it needs these people - what could MS have been thinking when they provided the time, place and catalyst to turn them into an angry mob? They might as well have handed out the pitchforks and torches!

You can learn from your customers with your corporate blog. When it's time for a mea culpa, your corporate blog might not be a bad place to put it out there (hint, hint). Your corporate blog can be a very powerful weapon in your communications arsenal, but as with any weapon, it's never a good idea to point it at your own foot.

 

Steve Ballmer (number two) recently announced that individual social networks :: Facebook :: are just a passing fad. I wonder if he and Bill had any discussions about that. What I admire is the unrelenting tenacity of the hard learners up in Redmond.

The way I see it, the big FB will more likely be the place through which individuals access all their other networks.

Ballmers assessment assumes that people's friends are less important than those who want them to buy something.  

50% margin of error, I guess.