Update Your Bookmarks!

I've decided to start the move to my new blog/website earlier than I originally planned, so for all intents and purposes, the blog you're reading now is suspended.

So, pop over to maurymccown.com and bookmark that site!

More Geek: Validation, XHTML, and More

I'm getting really close to being 100% complete with my new (old) site, maurymccown.com, and I've been enjoying building everything to Standards. (If you follow the above link, be aware you may see radical changes here and there as I tweak the back end.)

I use ExpressionEngine as my content management software, and the latest releases default to XHTML 1.0 Strict, so that's what I've been coding toward. With the onset of more and more people using handheld devices for full web browsing (and loads of other reasons), getting one's site to adhere to Strict standards is a good move to make. This, however, required me to change some of my old ways — and I'm still getting used to those changes. Namely...

The "target" attribute is fully deprecated.
I always — always — used "target="_blank"" when adding links, mainly because I never wanted a reader to navigate away from my site and never return. No can do with XHTML 1.0 Strict. The reason is simple: opening a link in a new window assumes the device reading the site has a windowed interface — and that can't be guaranteed, so there's no reason to include it as a standard. Furthermore, my forcing a link to open a new window overrides the user's desire — if a user really wants a new window, they can open the link via contextual menu.

Border specifications are deprecated.
Since I'm an old dog hand coder, it's become second nature to include "border=0" around all my images, but that's no longer valid. To get around this, you simply specify a CSS class for your img tags, saying "border-style: none." Done deal.

Going back to H1, H2, etc.
Since I began migrating to CSS back in 2002, I started ignoring the long-standing heading tags like H1, H2, H3, etc. For my headings, I'd just create a style in CSS and apply it — but it really is better to use heading tags. First off, it helps those with disabilities read your site, because those specific heading tags are looked for when a page is read. Also, most indexing spiders look for content in your heading tags, so that can help with page ranking in search engines. Lastly, it's just good form to use them, so that's what I'm doing.

The death of tables as a crutch.
I'm also having to get over the ease of using tables for navigation bars and the like. Tables are meant for tabular data, and a lot of us old hats use the for all kinds of non-tabular stuff — but CSS can do anything a table can. Instead of specifying cell size to make all your button equidistant, just wrap them is a CSS style. A lot of the alignment attributes aren't allowed in tables any longer, either, so that puts the load back onto using CSS.

And the list could go on. Being the dork that I am, I must admit how nice it is to know all of my pages validate 100% with XHTML 1.0 Strict — and they look exactly the way I want them to on all browsers, in all platforms. That last bit is the kicker. Sticking with Standards sometimes requires a bit more thought and planning — and it can sometimes mean letting go of something you've been doing for years — but in the end, it's the best practice any web designer/coder can go with.

So how does your site stand up against validation? Head over to W3C's Validator page, put in your site address, and see if you, too, can get the "Passed" button:

And no, my Blogger page here does NOT validate, so don't even try...

Wednesday Ramblings, CSS, Etc.

Okay, I'm officially giving Internet Explorer the finger over its handling of text size. *waves fist*

I wanted to play nice and everything, but dadgummit, Internet Explorer makes you jump through so many hurdles to make your site look consistent between it and every other bloody browser out there, and I'm tired of playing with it. So, while I had plans to go with em units for my web fonts, I'm sticking with good ol' pixels.

What does this mean to you? It means that if you think the text on my new site is too small — or too big — you can resize it in every browser available except for Internet Explorer.

Microsoft's "logic" in this is that using pixels for sizing means the pixel size is the size the item should be — therefore you shouldn't be able to scale said item up or down. I agree with this logically, but Explorer is the only browser that adheres to that thinking, and in the Democracy of Browsers, I think they need to get over it (though they kind of did with IE7's Screen Scaling).

So, I'm back to pixels. Windows users should be using Firefox or Safari, anyway.

•••••

You know you're a d0rk when you enjoy unnecessarily commenting your CSS.

•••••

I am oh so very sick of David Cook. I'm wagering the Irish gal or Brooke will be going home tonight. (I'm talking about American Idol, just in case you were wondering.)

•••••

I think I figured out how the wasps were getting into our house. The little twerps were, I think, getting into the attic via the soffit vents, then crawling their way out of the attic door — which doesn't close all the way. Methinks they saw the available light and followed it out. I have reached this determination after taping the aforementioned attic door crack, and since taping (a couple of weeks ago), nary a wasp has been found inside.

Now I just need to buy (and install) a new attic door/ladder thingie. Yay for that.

Random, Quickly

I didn't have much time to work on my site over the weekend, so I'm still using Blogger for my posts — no biggie, though.

•••••

Speaking of web sites, I'm also rebuilding our company site to more modern standards, and I thought I'd take a second to once more state how much I love CSS.


This new designing has led me another crossraods, though: specifying font size. I've bounced back and forth between using point and pixels to specify size, and out of those two, point declarations are deprecated and should be avoided at all costs. Point size is fine for typography, but not for screen resolution.

This leaves pixels, which I like horribly — but they also prevent users from increasing point size if they think my text is too small. At the same time, though, I'm able to absolutely control the look of my content — but again, it's controlled at the reader's expense.

This leaves me with the em, which is something I've never really used on my own design code. But, the em is really "where it's at" at this point in time, because it allows a relatively decent amount of control over layout while allowing the user to increase text size to suit their eyes.

So, I guess I'll be making the transition to the em like a good coder should.

•••••

Having a patch cord crap-out right before you're supposed to play one of the most emotional and personable songs during the church service really sucks. It was pretty much just me on the acoustic and the singer, but I was dead in the water. Thankfully we had our keyboard gal playing, so she was able to fill the position.

•••••

I was asked four times this weekend about why I don't have the images I have in my client portfolio online anywhere. The answer is simple: I rarely request that a person sign a model or subject release.

Since any Bob or Sally with a camera can be "A Photographer" nowadays, the market is flooded with people that just don't know the law or the rules. I'm amazed at some of the sites I visit where people are posting images of other people, using those shots in their online portfolios, posting them on Flickr, etc., all without having those people sign a release. At least in Texas, it hasn't been written into law that photographer must have a signed release — but that day is coming soon. Nevertheless, it's always better to err on the side of caution if you're not dealing with a close friends or family — or if you're taking shots of someone you asked permission to take shots of (as opposed to them asking you for pictures).

So there you go: I don't post some of my portfolio images because I didn't get the client to sign a release — and when you get bit by not having a release, you'll hold onto your pics, too. =)

•••••

Either Doc Cottle or Tom Zarek is the final, unrevealed Cylon. Just wait...

•••••

Metallica is back in the studio. Let's all cross our fingers and hope they get back to their Justice and Black album days.

Thursday Already?

My wife and I are back on our Frasier kick, and we're buying the DVDs of all the seasons as we get to them. Every single episode is funny.

•••••

I fully moved maurymccown.com to the new grid server yesterday, so now I have access to all kinds of neato techie coolness and backends for my site. The first thing I did was install ExpressionEngine — the best dadgum content manager known to Mankind.

I'm now in the process of building my site pages for use with EE's template system, so for now, when you visit maurymccown.com, you're still viewing plain ol' HTML. I have most of it done, and I'm hoping to have it 100% complete this weekend.

After that, I begin the process of transitioning my weblog from here to there, so stay tuned.

I must say, also, how much I love using ExpressionEngine. It works beautifully with CSS, and the ability to assemble parts of a page with any number of code snippets is pure magic. For example, my page title, navigation, post area, background image, META, JavaScript calls — all of that info is reused on every one of my pages. So, instead of having to add that code to every page, I simply build a "header" page that stores and info, then when I build a new page, I just call "embed=site/header" and boom — all of the above is automagically inserted in the final page.

This makes it painfully simple to modify stuff like navigation bars, etc., because I only have to modify one page — and all my other pages get updated.

I love technology. =)

•••••

Something is happening Monday that I'm totally looking forward to — but I can't say what it is just yet. Anyway, it's been almost 10 years in the waiting, and I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl with anticipation.

•••••

I need to sell my Dual 2.0GHZ G5 tower. Any buyers?

•••••

I can't decide if I want to have a cigar before practice, or my pipe with some Finck's Golden Cavendish. Decisions, decisions...

Geek Talk: A Coder's Conundrum

There's going to be some major geek talk in this post, so consider yourself warned. But, for those of you insistent upon reading this just for the sake of not taking out the garbage or cleaning the toilet, I'll define some terms so you'll have a cursory understanding of what I'm going on about. And hey — you may just find it interesting and learn a thing or two.

If you're reading this, you're reading it with a web browser — and looking at my site stats, 54% of you are using Safari, 27% are using FireFox, 13% are using Internet Explorer, and the rest are using other things like Opera, Camino, etc. What's happening to allow you to read this, is that your web browser is reading text files that contain all kinds of code (HTML markup, CSS, ASP, PHP, JavaScript, etc.), and that data is rendered for you to see what you see on screen.

All of those different kinds of code follow (or are supposed to follow) something commonly known as "Standards." These standards define what the various code tags are supposed mean in an attempt to create a baseline of expectations for the web browsing software. The goal is for the diligent coder to be able to create a web page that will look identical regardless of what web browser the user is using to view the web site in question. Of course, one has to hope the web browser programmers are making their software adhere to the standards, but that's not what this post is about.

With Standards comes Validation: making sure your code "validates" properly against the aforementioned web standards. Assuming the web browser is compliant, if my code validates, I can rest easier knowing that my site will look the same at home (on my Mac using Safari) as it does for someone in Brazil using the Windows build of FireFox.

So, as a web coder, it's my job to make sure what I code validates with the standards, and it's my job to get the word out about which browsers are most compliant. And just to get that out of the way, Safari and FireFox are the most standards-compliant, daily-use browsers available (especially the nightly WebKit builds of Safari).

You're still reading this, aren't you?

The problem web coders face today, though, is that all the cool bell-and-whistle goodies that make sites more animated and interactive often require the user's system to have additional software installed. Case in point, Flash. Flash lets you have animations, movies, moving text, and pretty much anything you can think of on your site — but the user has to download and install Flash Player (at the least) to see all those goodies. Without Flash installed, your visitor sees nothing — or you code a different page/site for non-Flash visitors (which means more work).

Another annoyance coders face is the use of JavaScript. JavaScript is a crazy-powerful code language — but it's also much maligned because it can be used to exploit a user's system and their data. A lot of people — especially Windows users — disable JavaScript for security purposes alone. So once again, if a coder builds a site with a lot of JavaScript and the user has javaScript disabled — the user gets nothing.

Couple that with wanting to build an "accessible" site — one that people with disabilities can easily read/hear — and it's becoming increasingly difficult to try and build a site for everyone.

Thus the coder's conundrum.

The solution many of us choose is to stick with as much strict HTML and CSS coding as possible, completely avoiding using Flash and JavaScript. The upside is that we're better assured everyone will be able to view our site, but the downside is that we don't get to take advantage of some of the newer technologies. So what should we coders do?

I think that for now, as I build my new site, I'm only going to use JavaScript when absolutely needed — and if a user had JavaScript disabled, I'll have code to handle it. For example, when a thumbnail image opens to a full size image, I typically use JavaScript have the image appear in a new window all nice and centered on-screen. If JavaScript is disabled, the image simply appears in a new window.

As for Flash, well, I have a several issues. For starters, I just don't like 99% of Flash-enabled sites out there. I do NOT want to wait for a gradient to fill, something to fade in (or out), pictures to sweep and swirl — I just want to see the dadgum content. I like "pretty" and "cool" as much as the next guy, but I don't want to wait for it. Second, I'm still such an old school purist that I just naturally want to stick with the solid foundation of HTML and CSS for my sites. Sticking with the Standards, I don't have to worry about people skipping my site because they need to "update their Flash player" and go through all the hoopla therein.

There may come a day when Adobe allows web developers to bundle their player(s) for auto-install, thus helping to make Flash and its ilk more accessible with less user interaction. But, nothing like that will ever become part of the W3C Standards, I don't believe.

So ol' Maury will stick to the pure road as much as possible, confident that what I see is what you'll see — and confident that I won't be bugging someone or losing a visitor by forcing them to enable or install some bit of software they may not want to. Will my site be less "flashy?" Yes. Will my site get viewed regardless of the user's system? Most certainly. That's a good enough start for me.

Just A Fly

I was closing the blinds yesterday when I spotted this fly sitting on one of our plants outside the window. I grabbed my 40D, which had the macro lens already on it, and snapped this before he flew away. Quality isn't too hot, but it was a quick-n-dirty shot. =)

Wednesday

What a slow week it's been (is?). And I have a migraine. Nice.

•••••

As I wait for Brust's new book, Jhegaala, to arrive in July, I picked up the Spiderwick Chronicles Box Set for a quick and easy read. The movie is out and getting moderately decent reviews, so I wanted to read the story. It was okay. Fairly predictable — as one would expect from a "kid's" book — but it passed the (short) time reasonably well.

While I hunt for other books, I'm spending time delving into Foundation's Dreamweaver CS3 and Flash CS3 tomes — both of which are totally awesome and highly recommended.

•••••

I've fully embraced my pipe smoking ways again. While nothing beats a great cigar, pipes tend to have more flavor and better aroma. Of course, you can't really compare the two fairly, but I find myself tending to prefer the pipe over the stogie lately. The downside to pipes is that they're fussy and you have to keep relighting them, so they're more work maintain over an hour or so.

Regardless, I cleaned up my favorite pipe — one I got back in college — and it's a wonderful piece of work. That's also part of the charm: I've had this pipe for well over a decade, and it's still going strong — and it has plenty of years left in it.

But like I said, cigars are still just as nice — and now I'm craving a Lamb's Club Robusto...

•••••

Speaking of cigars, one of my "smoke days" is Thursday evenings, right before we have band practice. I strike-up a stick and sit out in the parking lot for an hour or so, listening to loud music, then head in for rehearsal. Right across from where I position myself, there's a tattoo parlor — and me and The Guys always exchange waves when they come out for their cigarette breaks.

At some point I will use this to my advantage in a couple of ways. First off, they know I'm part of the church that sits right there because they see me every week. Second, they know I'm a cigar smoker so I must not be too "holier than thou." Third, we're all friendly to one another. Fourth, they enjoy — I'm sure — the music I'm blaring as I sit in my truck.

Now, since I'm more of an art photographer, I've been thinking how cool it would be to take shots of some inking being done — and since these guys already "know" me, I probably have a shoe-in to do just that.

Put the above together, and I'm suddenly in a position to not only get to take some cool pictures, but I may get to open the door that could allow me to talk about church (or Church) and God and salvation, etc. Obviously, that's assuming those guys need to hear such talk — they could Christ Followers already for all I know. But, we shall see at some point.

•••••

JPG Magazine is going to be publishing a few of my pictures in an upcoming issue, so that's pretty cool. I had to go through some new copyright stuff, which was a pain (I hate physical paperwork), but my PPA membership helped on that front. I don't know which issue it will be in yet, so stay tuned.

•••••

When someone walks into my office, why do they have to come right up to the edge of my desk and practically lean over me, totally getting into "my space?" Some people, I don't mind — but most people, yeah, stay back. Maybe I should get a plexiglass shield thing with little speaker holes drilled into it. Or a cattle prod. And a taser. And a lightsaber.

Salon Urban Eve Shoot, Part 2

Here are a few more shots from the Urban Eve shoot...

Jason



Trimming



Wares



Jenn



Foiling

Salon Urban Eve Shoot, Part 1

I took some shots at a friend's hair salon today, Salon Urban Eve, and I'm slowly but surely making my way through 220 frames. My first cursory look-through yielded the following shots, which are seen here after my post-processing:

Colors



Scheduling



Chatting



Jason



Boots



Amanda

As you can see, I did my usual enhancements to pretty much every shot. The one of Jason by himself is almost untouched, though. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I totally think Redken owes me big-time for that shot of their color product — if I only had to take away one frame, that'd be it for me (though I really like the Scheduling and Amanda shots).