I’ve got a theory about most reviews of products online. Actually, it’s mostly a theory about electronics, technology and software, though it definitely holds in other areas as well. My theory points to the following scenario being behind something like 80% of the reviews you read about this stuff.

A person does a bunch of reading, often of pre-release information, about the product. They place an order and anxiously hit F5 on UPS.com for 2-3 days watching their package bounce around the country until the doorbell rings and they scrawl their unrecognizable John Hancock on with that plastic pen.

As they take the package into the house, they reach for the digital camera and a box cutter and tear open the brown shell to document the technological goo within. They push the buttons, flip the switches, glance through the menus and, about 10 minutes later, they start writing their review, which often consists of them going over the marketing materials and checking features off as they find them on the device.

I think that’s a problem.

Read the rest of this entry »

photo credit: j wynia

I carry a variety of notetaking devices. They all have their benefits and I tend to oscillate between pen/paper and electronic devices. However, the notebook nearly always tends to hang out around me and I dump ideas onto the pages as the day goes on.

Those notebooks have been filling up with ideas for projects. Combine that with some client projects and my shift in schedule (which hasn't freed up as much time as I'd hoped), and I find myself at the beginning of several projects at once.

This raises a few needs that have been hanging out there. Designing and starting a web application project involves a few things for which I've never been happy using the existing tools.

First, there's actual layout design. While Photoshop works fine for doing the "sketches", the people who are in a role to review those design ideas tend to get overly focused on things like font choice when you're trying to figure out whether you should use one screen or a wizard for registration only to suddenly notice that the wizard was chosen just as the app goes to production.

That's why my interest was piqued when Balsamiq came out a while back. It provided a way to do mockups of screens and keep people focused on the functional design instead of colors and fonts, just like I want. However, there are quite a few apps that I'd use more that also are in the $100 range (Balsamiq is $79) and I haven't bought those yet, so it's unlikely that I'll be buying it any time soon. Plus, I'm not exactly a fan of the Comic Sans font.

However, the other night, I was relaxing in front of the TV before bed and I figured I'd doodle a few sketches like the widgets in Balsamiq. As I was drawing, I also was thinking about Antonio Lupetti's technique for sketching on screenshots, which I've been wanting to use more in articles and presentations/screencasts, so I included some of those elements as well.

It didn't take long and I had 4 sheets of paper pretty well covered. Because I started by just sort of doodling, the elements didn't end up to scale, but I like the way some of the icons, etc. turned out. I'm thinking of fixing the tablet PC (battery won't hold even a slight charge and the stylus disappeared) and re-do them on a grid that will make them the right comparative size.

However, I did scan the pages to PNG's for sharing.

One of the other difficulties is that I've seen too many projects, particularly inside the firewall, receive horribly ugly and unusable web templates. At the same time, for my own projects, I'm not ready to pay a designer yet to do the final design (though I may be soon if you're a designer and interested), and need to get on with building things in the mean time.

So, I've been wanting a decent "generic" web application template that lets me focus on building functionality and, once that's nailed down, do the final design as more of a "redesign" from the generic template.

The thing is that, while there are thousands of web "site" templates and blog templates, there are very few that are oriented to web applications. There are so few, that something like 2/3 of the Google links for my searches led back to this 1 template. That theme is nice, but not the look I'm aiming at for my temporary template.

Among other requirements, like the sketchy mockups, I want the the ability to actually have a completely grayscale look to the initial prototypes to hammer home the temporary nature of the design. So, last night, after I tossed Revolver into the DVD player to finally watch it (incidentally, not the kind of movie to be working during as I'm going to have to re-watch it to entirely "get" it), I decided to take a shot at building such a template myself.

I grabbed a copy of the 960 CSS Framework (something else I've been wanting to mess with) and whipped up a batch of pages that covered the basic HTML elements, a bunch of form elements and a start on stuff for data display, like tables. I threw in a bit of jQuery for things like drop shadows and by the end of the movie, had some decent results. There are still plenty of little bugs (like the jQuery tabs didn't cooperate, so I threw some other ones in instead until I can figure that out), but I'm pretty happy with it so far.

It's grayscale by default, but all of the color definitions are in a single CSS file, so changing the colors is easy. All in all, it's pretty modular and I think it will turn into an ASP.NET master page quite easily as well as allow a complete swap-out for a different design later as nearly everything is pretty vanilla HTML tags.

I zipped up both the sketchy PNGs and the web application template together so you can download them if you'd like to take a look.

Download the Prototype/Design Toolset Package

First, I think that this may be the longest title for any post on this site. I ditched 2-3 other variations for the only one that accurately describes this post.

Anyway, over the last couple of months, I've been working on getting better with screencasting tools. I learned a lot doing the last one and took that into the tinkering I've done with another one over the past week or so.

It stretched out over that timeframe because of a bunch of other stuff going on as well as some time spent on one-time tasks, like creating a Keynote theme to use for future screencasts that's a bit better thought out than the one I used on the last screencast. This look is something I'm much happier with and gives me a basis for more consistent look and feel going forward.

There's none of my shining face because I lent my webcam to a friend. I do see the value in adding that to the recording, but am not sure the best way to do it.

Anyway, on to the topic I actually covered in this video.

In ASP.NET MVC, the Controllers often end up with an Action method for all of the really common bits of functionality: Create, Insert, Update, Delete, etc. Stephen Walther put together a list of suggested standardized naming and usage for these Actions and I've been using them in the couple of ASP.NET MVC projects I'm working on.

In the process, I created a Visual Studio Item Template to make creating a new Controller that follows that convention easy. When I showed it to a co-worker, he expressed interest in how I did it and I saw an opportunity to explain something that's actually useful.

So, if you've ever wondered how to get your own templates into that Visual Studio "Add New Item" dialog box next to "Class Library", "Application Config File", etc. This is the screencast for you.

Anyway, give it a watch and let me know what you think.

Creating Visual Studio Item Templates from J Wynia on Vimeo.

photo credit: threedots

A couple of weeks ago, Antonio Lupetti shared a list of 10 "handwritten" fonts that he uses in his design projects. He also does a brilliant job of integrating that stuff into the diagrams in his posts, which is why I paid attention when he put out a list (just take a look at his archives and you'll see what I mean).

As I was looking at those fonts and downloading them, I was thinking about sIFR, which I've mentioned before. It's a way to replace text in web pages with Flash on the fly, using fonts that aren't on a user's computer. I've wanted to include that on this site and on several others for quite a while.
Read the rest of this entry »

Photo: Dan Zen

I make a swing past a bunch of sites like Freshmeat, C Sharp Source, CodeProject, Codeplex and Sourceforge
every week or 2, looking for new and updated C# (and PHP, etc) projects and libraries that are up to interesting stuff.

One article on CodeProject today caught my eye. The article is entitled: Generate Complete Web 2.0 Applications in Minutes. That sentiment is all over the software development industry. The Microsoft Windows Server 2008/SQL Server 2008/Visual Studio 2008 launch last week showed the attitude at several different points.

Basically, it boils down to excitement at the ability to quickly build "applications" with little more than a wizard. That exact sentiment was expressed to me multiple times at a consulting company I worked with for a while. The person in question believed that if we just used one of these magical tools, our projects would go from a couple of hundred hours down to a single day.

The problem with this whole approach to software development is not that the tools themselves aren't great or that they promise something they don't deliver. It's that they're asking a question that doesn't matter in the context it's getting asked.

That's because neither I nor any software developer that I know is collecting a paycheck or getting an invoice paid for "building applications". At least, that's not what the payment is in exchange for in economic terms. Rather, I am getting paid for *solving problems*.

And, the thing about getting paid to solve problems and magic tools that make some kinds of problems easier to solve this year than last year (which is what most of these tools actually do) is that that just changes the problems that people pay for.

When tools that do easy CRUD generation or data entry applications show up in the marketplace, that doesn't mean that software developers magically get to use those tools to only work 2 hours a week and then coast for the rest. It just changes the kinds of problems that earn developers money.

I love this chain of progress. That's because it lets me solve ever-increasingly difficult problems with the same effort. That's very cool. However, it doesn't promise easy street and it bothers me when that's what's implied by this whole attitude.