StringFoo :: Web Development Resources » Opinion

SOPA Has Me Scared Shitless, and You Should Be, Too

sstringer — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:02:09 +0000

SOPA is a truly frightening piece of legislation currently skating through Congress. It wouldn't take much under SOPA to shut down your site, and you would have no recourse. Bottom line: This is a rotten piece of legislation that threatens the Internet as we know it, and could potentially pose a very real threat to your online business. Take a minute and write your representative now and tell them in the strongest terms to oppose SOPA. Read on for details and context.

DishNetwork.com: Thy Name is “Suck”

sstringer — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:28:38 +0000

I try to use this site for positive tips, tricks & posts about web development. No, really. I do. But every now and then I come across a site so horrible, so incomprehensibly broken, that I just need to call them out by name: Dish Network.

This Just In: Microtek is Now Dead to Me (Updated)

sstringer — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:56:30 +0000

I was kindly informed by Microtek that I'm screwed. My s400 flatbed scanner that is barely more than a year old has been bricked since my October upgrade to Leopard. I've been patient for months now, and finally wrote them a kind letter. I got this in response:

Dear Mr. Stringer,Please be advised that the ScanMaker s400 scanner is not supported on Mac OS 10.5 Leopard. We regret to inform you that Microtek will not be releasing software drivers for the ScanMaker s400 scanner to support this new operating system. We apologize for the inconvenience this may cause you.

<rant> Microtek just made my infamous Dead-to-Me list with Sony, the Microsoft Operating System, and the Republican Party. Congratulations guys. I've got your prize right >here<. Look for an mint s400 on eBay soon. </rant> Update: The item is up for sale on ebay. Check it out here.

Dev vs. Dev: Arguments For and Against Unobtrusive Javascript (UJS) [updated]

sstringer — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:08:44 +0000

Unobtrusive Javascript (UJS) is defined in Wikipedia is the practice of abstracting Javascript code to separate function from presentation. To grossly simplify things, it means completely replacing all in-line and page-embedded JS with header or externalized code that uses the DOM to access elements by reference. That said, use of UJS isn't without controversy. Specifically, it's consideration as a "best practice" is not agreed upon by many. While the benefits of abstracting JS code make sense in certain cases, some argue that the overhead associated with UJS makes ongoing maintenance more difficult, and the time to implement the initial code take longer. In this article, I'm trying a little experiment. Rather than sit here and pontificate on what I think, I thought I would invite some "guest speakers" to weigh in and provide varying points of view. My goal is to let you, the reader, decide if UJS is a practice you should adopt.

Talk of IE8 and Standards Compliance

sstringer — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:07:04 +0000

No, really...stop laughing...they mean it this time. Honest. IE8 will be standards compliant. Bwaa-ha-ha-ha! Oh, that's rich! I can't keep a straight face when I say that. Microsoft really must think we're idiots. We've heard this tune before with IE7. Now we're in a morass of backwards compatibility. It would be one thing if Microsoft forced the upgrade to the latest version just as, oh, EVERY SINGLE OTHER BROWSER DOES. But they don't. So I, for one, am dreading IE8 as yet another browser that I have to support. Build it for Safari and Firefox, and smile. Check it in IE and weep silent tears for the angel that just lost its wings. Until Microsoft honestly and truly dumps their coprporate mindset of dragging the last 10-15 years of technology along with backwards compatibility because some fortune 500 IT department doesn't want an upgrade is ridiculous. Nay, reCOCKulous. Now, I hope I'm wrong. Let's hope the 8th time is the charm. I actually started this post for a reason. Ars has an interesting article on IE8's standards compliance. Check it out here: Wisdom and folly: IE8's super standards mode cuts both ways

RSS Feeds: How Many Updates a Day is Too Many?

sstringer — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:00:31 +0000

I'm an avid user of Google Reader to handle my two dozen or so feeds. Among my favorites are Boing Boing and CNet. However, I'm thinking of removing them from my list. Why? They all publish too many stories to possibly keep up with. Which begs the question: how many updates per day is too many? Read on for more...

Your Opinion on the Security of an External Connections File?

sstringer — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:04:49 +0000

Ages and ages ago when I started coding for the web, I read somewhere that it was more secure to keep the file containing your password and sensitive variables outside of the public web root. I've always taken this as law, and I've jumped through all kinds of hoops to structure my sites and framework in this manner. But is it necessary? I'd love your thoughts on the matter. For Dreamweaver users, this is important for two reasons: 1) the Connections folder is placed automatically in your site definition's file root, and 2) Dreamweaver freaks out and breaks in all kinds of new and interesting ways when the file root and the public web root are not the same. If I'm jumping through all of these hoops unnecessarily, I'd like to do something about it and stop banging my head against a wall. To clarify what I mean, let's take a linux install where the home directory is "/var/www", and the public web is served from "/var/www/html". In this case, you'd set the Dreamweaver file root to "/var/www". Thus, the Connections folder is kept outside the public web root. In theory, there's no way this folder could be hacked through human/webmin error (forgetting to turn off apache indexing, for instance), or through some other means. So my question to you, my loyal readers, is whether this is necessary. What are the implications to keeping the Connections folder inside the public web root? Do you consider this to be dangerous, or am I worrying unnecessarily? Thoughts? Discuss.

Why Leopard’s Stacks Fails (Updated)

sstringer — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:18:32 +0000

The old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," applies when it comes to Leopard's new Stacks feature. Stacks has been highly touted by Apple to be a boost to productivity:

Organize files in a neat stack on the Dock.
One click and the stack springs open,
revealing items in an elegant arc or an
at-a-glance grid. [link]

Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that Stacks fails in every way to enhance productivity. This post outlines my reasons behind this belief, and links to an open letter to Apple that implores them on behalf of their customer base to bring back the old, hierarchical docked folders from 10.4. [Update: 11/04/07 4:15p] The open letter described above was pulled from Apples Discussion Forums 42 minutes after it was posted. I've moved the Open Letter here. If you agree, feel free to post your comments below.

An Open Letter to Apple: Stacks is Useless; Bring Back Hierarchical Menus!

sstringer — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:17:15 +0000

This post contains an Open Letter was deleted from the Apple Discussion Forums 42 minutes after it was posted. I understand the need to control your message and keep a lid on bad PR, but if this is a trend that continues, I think Apple is heading for trouble. Biting the hand of your customers--especially those of your evangelists--is no way to do business, in my humble opinion.