When Obama Wins scours and displays tweets containing the phrase 'when Obama wins'
I’m fascinated by the single-purpose websites that have been cropping up for the past year. I’m not much of an internet historian to track down exactly when the first of its kind came out, but they officially entered meme status when Jason Kottke wrote about it back in February.
In the era of 140-character microblogging and 10-inch subnotebook computing, brevity is king. But these straight-to-the-point sites aren’t exactly the iPhone-friendly versions of our increasingly bloated, self-centered homepages and bookmarks. (That’s a different phenomenon altogether and worth discussing in a separate article.)
They’re in a different group themselves, in a peanut gallery of sorts, poking fun at the rest of the all-too serious internet population. Stop worrying whether websites need to look exactly the same in every browser, you should use tables for layout (give up?), Diet Coke will kills us, graphic design is art, Barack Obama is Muslim or muslin or President, or it’s Tuesday, April Fool’s, Christmas, or a leap year yet.
The color of the Empire State Building on November 11. On November 11 it was Purple, Purple, White. As of writing it's White, White, White.
Of course some of these one-trick ponies are web apps and mashups that do exactly one thing really well, whether it’s helping you look forward to the day when Obama wins, decide if you should bring an umbrella today, bitch and moan about our dear Adobe, or figure out whether Twitter, Gmail, the Apple Store, or some other site is down or it’s just you.
Not to mention spell definitely and other words correctly, insert angled quotes », «, ›, ‹, discover your IP address, and play a instant rimshot.
Visit A List Of Sites for more of the madness! Or go through them randomly ala StumbleUpon.
I’ve written about emerging gallery-style websites like image bookmarking and information design. Here’s yet another trend: niche web design inspiration galleries. Here are examples of those classifications:
Most of these sites aren’t really new, except that enterprising webmasters are coming up with new categories more often—seemingly every week!
Do we really need new sites for all these categories? I would say yes. Despite the presence of categories and tags, custom search engines powered by Google, gallery aggregators like Most Inspired, you can never have an excessive supply of inspiration.
Plus, visual search using mere keywords is still ineffective. Usually because there isn’t enough care given into describing images. You can never really tell how many tags you can add to properly describe the look and feel of a website.
In fact, since websites are basically interfaces and not just 2-dimensional designs slapped onscreen, showcases and galleries should also focus on their interactive elements. That’s probably where pattern galleries like Pattern Tap comes in.
By “normal people” I mean those who are mere computer users, not literates nor enthusiasts nor experts. Cabel shares a striking example: in Japan, advertisers instruct potential buyers to enter specific keywords into search engines instead of their company URLs.
Clearly, a sufficient amount of search engine optimization is necessary for this to work, especially for the really famous and common-name brands. But this behavior of accessing websites did not arise because these companies have told us to do so. Neither is it limited to this Asian country.
I am sure you have at least one friend or loved one who has not grasped the concept of URLs and remains highly dependent on Google for finding their way around the web. If you’ll take a closer look at their web browsers, you’ll see why it really isn’t their fault.
Google invades the browsers
Most of the weird behavior we observe from other people is because they have Google as their homepage or built into their browsers. (You can also change the word “Google” to your favorite search engine of choice.) This usually comes in three flavors:
- the Google homepage (whether it’s plain vanilla, a Firefox-Google hybrid, or iGoogle)
- the Google search engine add-on (a common feature in all modern browsers)
- the Google Toolbar
As a result, users now have several blank input bars staring back at them—the address bar, the browser search bar, the Google Toolbar search bar, and the Google homepage search bar. Guess which one they’ll choose?
With the icons and text that draw one’s attention toward the Google search bars, the address bar fades more and more into the background. And since non-techie people are usually afraid of “breaking the computer”, they stick to a method that works well, which is to keep using Google.
Ignore or eradicate?
We can’t blame Google for trying to be the #1 product in our virtual lives; we can only be wary. But it should share the responsibility of educating users of how to use the Internet (how silly does that sound?) with the browsers. Unfortunately neither parties seem to care because: (a) Google would much rather have users search for sites than visit them through URLs directly; and (b) the browsers are earning money precisely because Google is paying them to have their search bars built-in.
Now, learning how to use the interface that lets one use the Internet is only halfway of the journey; choosing to use Google to wade through the Web is not necessarily a bad practice, as Jakob Nielsen predicted that this would become commonplace. But he also believes URLs will have to go.
In the long term, it is not appropriate to require unique words to identify every single entity in the world. That’s not how human language works.
The very nature of URLs seems to be another major stumbling block. Ordinary people don’t understand the use of a “www” and a “.com”, or that the “@” symbol is used only in e-mail addresses. They don’t know how to share websites through URLs either—unless there’s a button with explicit instructions that tell them how.
Add to that the explosion of all the domain suffixes like .me, .travel, and even .xxx. Not to mention all the malicious parties that wish to take advantage of their ignorance—stealing and spoofing personal information through misspelled URLs, search keywords, and deceptive e-mails.
The question is, if normal people aren’t using URLs anymore, what system can be built to replace them? Will it work? Or is Google doing a fine job already?
A few weeks ago Google announced that it can now extract and index textual content from Adobe Flash files. We all know that creating websites in pure Flash is a big no-no if you care about being found through search engines. So is there nothing left that’s stopping web designers from switching from plain old HTML and CSS to rich interactive Flash? I have yet to find somebody who agrees with a resounding “yes!”
Rand Fishkin, CEO of SEOmoz, believes that this new development isn’t compelling enough to start building sites with Flash.
Flash content is fundamentally different from HTML on webpage URLs and being able to parse links in the Flash code and text snippets does not make Flash search-engine friendly. I think it’s great that Google’s digging deeper into Flash, but I don’t believe web developers should be any less wary than they’ve been in the past about Flash-based websites or Flash-embedded content.
If anything, I commend Google for continuing to convince web designers and search engine marketers alike to embrace web standards by pushing for the best practices in coding websites. Of course it’s the most logical thing both parties: search spiders need to parse content properly so that they can index it, and a well-formed webpage makes this possible; webmasters need not wade through nested tables and unnecessary tag soup when there’s a better way. And Google should, since it’s way more influential than Opera or any other web company out there.
However, Google’s efforts to read Flash still seem to be in the premature stages. Typical Google, they always release their products in beta without being wary of the consequences.
By consequences I mean clients who are now running around telling their web designers to create animated intros and the extravagant interfaces for their websites. I can’t really shoot down this little achievement by Google—except that it’s getting scarily smarter everyday and should try to have more features than issues when they launch a product.
More importantly, I can only continue to condemn those who misuse Flash without any regard for accessibility, much less usability, whatsoever.
The Opera Web Standards Curriculum is a comprehensive online course that teaches you standards-based web design. This includes not only coding in the web’s foundational languages, HTML, CSS, Javascript, but also design theory.
One of the authors, Chris Heilmann, describes it as “probably the most thorough and up-to-date web standards curriculum on the web”. He writes:
During the whole course the main focus is on usability, accessibility and writing maintainable code. We deliberately left out browser hacks and backward facing solutions and build on the ideas of progressive enhancement and unobtrusive JavaScript.
I must also point out that WSC is part of Opera Education, an initiative that pushes for web standards awareness and enthusiasm for the internet industry, specifically in schools and universities. I think it’s important for these two parties—browser software makers and educational institutions—to work together rather than apart in developing the Web. In this regard, Molly Holzschlag believes the course is an A+:
The impressive aspect of the curriculum as it is now is that it’s comprehensive, including foundational topics such as Internet and Web history and evolution. Educators understand that history provides context for real learning. Sadly, this is an area often not available in books and online tutorials because readers typically want to dive right in and learn a given technique.
It’s difficult to find a course that focuses solely on creating things through the internet. It’s almost always integrated with either graphic design (see MTV Engine Room) or computer science. Because of this, there is no focus on employing the best practices in creating beautiful, functional websites. And it will continue to be that way—all the way into the workplace—without those two entities joining forces.
This is why I continue to admire Opera. (Mozilla does, too.) It pushes projects that are interesting and beneficial to the web community. Here’s another example: Opera Dragonfly. Firefox’s FireBug wasn’t created by Mozilla (although Safari’s Debugger is a native feature).
And unlike other browser vendors out there, Opera shows it cares about web standards not by saying but by doing.
ProBlogger’s got a post up by Suzanne Falter-Barns, basically retelling Andy Wibbels’ opinions on why blogs have killed conventional websites in a 13 point list. In other words, the question they’re asking - have blogs killed conventional websites? - i rhetorical to say the least.
The answer, being yes they have, obviously, is also wrong.
No, blogs haven’t killed conventional websites.
New publishing platforms have, on the other hand, killed the need for a webmaster hacking HTML code to update. Some people use blog software or bloggish news sections to get this effect, while others still have the same old conventional layout on their websites, just utilizing modern CMS platform to manage it.
Andy and Suzanne, you’re not talking about blogs killing conventional websites, you’re talking about modern platforms killing the need for a HTML hacking webmaster.
Apples and oranges, anyone?
