Thursday, August 04, 2005
by Nik Kalyani
Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:50:19 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)

As some of you may know, I collaborated closely with Shaun Walker and others on the DotNetNuke® Core Team to develop the DotNetNuke brand identity. It's not quite done and is still evolving, but I am quite proud of my role in the team effort that brought the new DotNetNuke logo to life in a relatively short period of time. I had promised Shaun that I would document the process we went through, and I have started doing that, complete with scans of sketches/doodles etc. that showed how the logo evolved. I will publish the document very soon.

Recently, the official DotNetNuke Trademark Policy and Logo Guidelines were published. Even though we took care to ensure that the policies are sufficiently detailed to cover most situations, and we even provided visual examples, I am baffled by the types of questions that people post or email. It seems as if some people are just plain lazy. They don't want to take the time to read and would prefer to waste your time by asking questions that are already very clearly answered. It sounds a bit harsh, but I cannot think of a better explanation.

Even more perplexing to me is the sheer number of people who just don't get the concept of branding. For whatever reason, these people believe that taking someone else's brand (in this case DotNetNuke) and somehow adding to it their company name or some other graphic element results in a "cool" brand for their use. Again, I am being harsh, but seriously, how can you categorize this behavior as anything else but "clueless?" Don't people realize that this simply demonstrates their unoriginality and their inability to give their company or business its own unique identity? 

Any self-respecting artist prides her/his work, and I am no different. Although legally the DotNetNuke brand belongs to Perpetual Motion Interactive Systems, I am still bothered to see my work bastardized by people. Additionally, it sucks to see the DotNetNuke brand diluted by such leeches. I think the people who do this are quite aware of what they are doing. They are just missing this thing called a conscience.

by Nik Kalyani
Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:02:43 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)

After seeing someone post "here, here" in the ASP.Net forums for the umpteenth time, I had to find a way to vent my feelings about this annoyance. So I have decided to add a new category to my blog called "Annoyances" where I can discuss some of the things that annoy me.

The correct spelling of the phrase is "Hear, hear!" Quite different from calling someone to come to you, which is exactly what "here, here" is all about.

"Hear, hear" originated in the British parliament in the 18th century as a contraction of "hear him, hear him."

I will save another annoyance -- "their" versus "there" -- for another day.

by Nik Kalyani
Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:46:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)

I am pleased to report that the Baby Edutainment System is now operational and works as expected.

I went against my geek instincts and ended-up getting an eMachines computer. I always viewed eMachines as complete garbage, but it appears that since Gateway bought them, the quality has improved significantly. Here are the specifications of the machine I purchased...nothing phenomenal, but not a wimpy machine either.

CPU: AMD Athlon™ 64 3200+ Processor (512KB L2 cache, 2.2GHz, 1600MHz FSB)
Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition SP2 1
Chipset: ATI RS480
Memory: 512MB DDR (400MHz)
Expandable to 2GB
Hard Drive: 160GB 2
Optical Drives: 16x DVD±RW multi-format double layer
Media Reader: 8-in-1 Digital Media Manager
Secure Digital (SD), Smart Media, Compact Flash, Micro Drive, Memory Stick, Memory Stick PRO, Multimedia Card, USB 2.0
Video: ATI Radeon® Xpress 200 (PCI-Express®)
128MB DDR shared video memory
Sound: AC '97 audio, Dolby 5.1 (6-channel)
Modem: 56K ITU V.92 ready Fax/Modem
Network: 10/100Mbps Integrated Ethernet LAN
Peripherals: Standard multimedia keyboard, 2-Button wheel mouse, amplified stereo speakers
Dimensions: 14.125"H x 7.25"W x 16"D
Ports/Other: 7 USB 2.0 (2 in front; 4 in back; 1 in Media Reader), 1 IEEE 1394 port (in back), 1 VGA external connector, 1 Parallel, 2 PS/2 (keyboard and mouse)
Pre-Installed
Software:
Microsoft® Works 8.0 1, Microsoft® Office 2003 Trial (60-day complimentary subscription), Microsoft® Money 2005, Microsoft® Encarta Online, Adobe® Acrobat® Reader™, Microsoft® Windows Media Player 10, Microsoft® Internet Explorer, RealNetworks RealPlayer®, CyberLink® PowerDVD, Nero 6 Suite, Napster 3.0, Quicktime, AOL 9.0 (w/3 months membership included), Google Toolbar, Norton Internet Security™ 2005 (90-day complimentary trial)3, McAfee Anti-Spyware 2005 (30-day complimentary trial), eMachines BigFix®

I neglected to check the floor model of the machine thoroughly at the store and only after unpacking it as home did I realize that some bean counter at eMachines had decided to save a few pennies by not attaching the composite and S-video connectors on the video card. The card supports them...it just has empty spaces where the connectors should appear. Arrgh...why do companies do that...penny wise and pound foolish. Well, I pretty much could not have the BES without being able to output to the TV, so this was a problem. I saw this as an opportunity in disguise. I wasn't too happy with the video performance of the ATI Xpress 200, so I ended up getting an ATI Radeon X700 Pro PCI-Express video card on eBay. I like its performance much better and it has every kind of output I would need, including DVI. Nice.

I have grown to really dislike new computers because I have to deal with uninstalling all the garbage software that comes pre-installed. Come on folks, seriously...enough of the free AOL hours and gazillion anti-spyware utilities and photo editors already. Just put a hardware switch on the box OK...two settings...(1) GEEK and (2) CLUELESS. Set the default to (2). If I choose (1), just put the barebones OS and then leave my computer alone. Anyway, where was I...so after messing with the hardware and seeing all the junk that came on the drive, I decided that there was only one way in which I could keep my sanity. Yes, I booted with the Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 CD, blew away all the partitioned and installed the OS from scratch. Much better. BTW, if you are going to use Media Center Edition, use 2005...everything prior is crap.

After spending a few hours tweaking and tuning things, I finally had the system ready to go. So I ripped out all the electronic components from my entertainment center and dropped in the media PC. I hooked up my WinTV USB2 external TV tuner with DVR support (integrates seamlessly with Media Center Edition). I added the RF receiver for the SnapStream FireFly remote I purchased (Amazon...overnight). This is a sweet piece of hardware. Not only does it control all the MCE features without line of sight (thanks to RF), but it also has a cool mouse emulation mode. Not something I'll use all the time, but nice for the occasional mouse click. What I really like about it is that all the button macros are configurable by editing an XML file. Very well-engineered hardware, intuitive software and extremely usable. Finally, I added two receivers for the Dynex Wireless Keyboard and Optical Mouse. Why two receivers you ask? Well, as I mentioned in my original BES post...the Berchet keyboard overlays a standard keyboard. It basically straps on with some velcro bands. Not the best situation and I hope to someday cleanly attach it to a keyboard, but for the moment, that's what I have. Now, I figured it would be a big pain to attach/detach the overlay each time I wanted to use the regular keyboard, so I added a second keyboard and mouse (I don't use the mouse with the receiver on which the Berchet keyboard runs). Now, I have the best of both worlds...keyboard for baby and keyboard for daddy. When the baby is using the keyboard and messes up, I can co-pilot and fix things on-the-fly.

So the BES is more or less operational with this hardware. Of course, I still have to deal with the display issue since I have this wonderful, hi-resolution output going to my crappy analog TV, but it's OK for the moment. I am still having to fix the occassional glitch, so I'm not sure that the hardware is quite there yet, but I iam ready to tweak the software. In my next BES blog, I'll tell you more about the software setup.

It's all coming together quite nicely and baby is taking to the system quite well as you can see here (will work much better once I can get her to stop sucking on her fingers when using the system) --

Giaberchet

by Nik Kalyani
Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:04:11 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)

CSS gives you the ability to control HTML presentation with a fair amount of granularity. However, if you take a peek at stylesheets from random websites, you will see that a vast majority of them define styles using Type, Class and ID selectors. This is fine, but only barely scratches the surface when exploring the capabilities of CSS. I'll try and shed some light on the different CSS selectors and hope it will help you create cleaner, more-compliant HTML.

Let's start with Type Selectors. These are the most basic of selectors as they require nothing more than an HTML element.

p { background-color: blue; } will change the background of all <p> elements on the page unless it's overridden with a local style definition or a nested element's style definition.

You can define the style attributes for multiple type selectors by separating them with commas, like this:

p, span, div { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Sans Serif; }

Take special note of the comma separator as it is often a hard to debug problem. In CSS, the comma is a separator for multiple selectors to which the style definition should apply, while the space character indicates a descendant selector which we'll examine in a moment. So the following two are completely different:

p, span { font-size: 11pt; }

p span { font-size: 11pt; }

Class Selectors allow you to define style attributes based on the value of the "class" attribute. The most common use of the class selector is like this:

.BorderedBox { border: 1px solid black; }

This would make all elements with a class="BorderedBox" attribute inherit this style. For example:

<div class="BorderedBox">Some text</div>

You can make this more interesting by keeping the class name the same, but varying the elements to which it applies. This gives you the ability to granularly define a style class based on the element to which it is being applied, like this:

p.Highlight { background-color: yellow; }
div.Highlight { background-color: yellow; border: 2px solid black; }

<p class="Highlight">Some text</p>

<div class="Highlight">Some text</div>

Although it is rarely used, CSS does have the capability to define hierarchical class selectors. I suspect it's not used a whole lot because it is not very well-known. In the example below, although there is no style definition for the class "NewHighlight," this class is used in a hierarchical class selector to define the appearance of a headline and body text.

.NewHighlight.Headline { background-color: yellow; font-size: 14pt; }
.NewHighlight.BodyText { background-color: #efefef; font-size: 10pt; }

<p class="NewHighlight">
<span class="Content">

<div class="Kicker">this is a kicker</div>
<div class="Headline">This is the headline</div>
<div class="BodyText">This is the body text</div>
</span>
</p>

This hierarchical class selector technique is very useful for defining zones within your page. You can have a series of standard class definitions used in your markup and completely change their appearance simply by changing the class label of the outermost wrapper element ("NewHighlight" in the example above).

While on the subject of hierarchical selectors, let's tackle the three selectors reserved for applying styles based on an item's position. The selectors are Descendant Selector, Child Selector and Adjacent Sibling Selector.

A descendant selector allows you to apply a style attributes to an item based on its order in a hierarchy. "Descendant" is often incorrectly interpreted to mean "direct descendant." In CSS, this is not the case. An item is selected as long as it is a descendant of the item before it, regardless of whether the relationship is child, grandchild, great grandchild etc. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's first see an example of a descendant selector style definition:

.DescendantExample div a { background-color: red; }
.DescendantExample div span a { background-color: yellow; }

[Note: The DescendantExample class in the hierarchy exists merely to facilitate displaying examples in this blog. If I did not use it, all instances of the hierarchy on the page would be displayed in the style I have picked for the example. This would make the page look quite ugly.]

Recollect that earlier I cautioned against using a space where a comma was intended (i.e. for multiple items). As you can see from the above example, the space character is used for defining a hierarchical relationship. Using a comma would have completely changed the intended definition.

Here's how the above appears in practice:

<div class="DescendantExample">
<div>This is a <a href="#">link</a></div>
<div><span>This is another <a href="#">link</a></span></div>
<div><span><p>This is another <a href="#">link</a></p></span></div></div>

The overall definition is controlled by the wrapper <div> element with a class of "DescendantExample" which is the first in the hierarchy. Then a match is made based on the order of descendant element. For the first <div>, the match is <div> <a>; for the second it's <div> <span> <a> and it's the same for the third. Alert readers might notice that the <div> <a> hierarchy also applies for the second and third examples, however it is ignored in favor of the <div> <span> <a> hierarchy. This is because of how CSS computes specificity. The rules for this, although not very complex, are not simple to understand, so I'll leave it as the topic of a future blog post.

Child selectors are a specialized form of descendant selector. While descendant selectors could care less about what a descendant items level is in the hierarchy and how many intermediate items appeared before the descendant item, child selectors are pickier. In order to match a child selector, the items in the hierarchy must have a direct parent-child relationship without any intervening elements. Child selector hierarchy items are separated by the > symbol.

div.ChildExample  > a { background-color: red; }
div.ChildExample  > div > span { background-color: yellow; }

Here's how it appears:

<div class="ChildExample"><a href="#">This works</a></div>
<div class="ChildExample"><span><a href="#">This does not work because <a> is not a child of <div></a></span></div>
<div class="ChildExample"><div><span>
This works, too
</span></div></div>

(Note: Your mileage with the above example will vary since not all browsers implement this correctly.)

That's it for Part I. In Part II I will explore the remaining selectors: Adajcent Sibling Selector, Universal Selector, ID Selector, Simple Attribute Selector, Exact Attribute Selector, Partial Attribute Selector and Language Attribute Selector. In Part III I will explore pseudo-classes and pseudo-elements. Stay tuned.

 

 

#    Comments [0] - Trackback    

CSS

 Friday, July 15, 2005
by Nik Kalyani
Friday, July 15, 2005 9:13:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)

Walt Mossberg wrote this in the Wall Street Journal. So, here's the email I sent him:

Hi Walt,

As a responsible journalist whose column informs, educates and inflences many non-techies about technology, I think you do a great disservice to your readers through columns like the 7/14 one on cookies. I would not have minded the column so much if you had given even play to cookies used for storing preferences versus tracking cookies. Instead you allocate a couple of sentences to the latter while going on and on about how bad tracking cookies are. This is just irresponsible, plain and simple because it causes the average, non-technical user to do things like disable cookies altogether in their browser. Well, guess what, Walt, that messes up a LOT of web applications. And increase the support burden on websites. And impacts businesses and their ability to provide online services to their customers. And results in frustrated customers, who blame the business, when they really should be blaming Mr. Mossberg.

What would be helpful is if you were more objective in your characterization. For instance, "
Cookies are small text files that Web-site operators -- and third-party companies that insert ads into Web sites -- place on a user's computer." could easily have been written as "Cookies are a browser feature that websites can use to store a small piece of information on your computer that is retrievable only by that website."

I don't have a problem with people in positions of influence stating their opinions. But they do have a responsibility to their audience. How can you make a statement like this:

"Until that happens, here is my advice: If you don't like the idea of tracking cookies, run an antispyware program that detects and removes them, along with all the other indefensible computer code some companies think they have the right to install. After all, it is your computer."

Do you seriously believe that your average user is capable of making an informed decision when their antispyware program prompts them "Remove XYZ cookie. Yes/No? How do you reckon the user can distinguish between what's a tracking cookie and what's an authentication cookie?

Get a clue, Walt, and please stop feeding the paranoia.

Regards,

Nik Kalyani

P.S.: You should consider getting the WSJ site to not use cookies. People in glass houses and all that...

Edit: Walt, obviously disagrees. Here's his emailed response:

<quote>
Wow. I can't even begin to say how wrong you are. First, I am an opinion columnist, paid to be subjective. Second, the column wasn't about cookies as a whole, but one type of cookie that is a form of spyware. Third, despite your claims, I was very careful to say that many other cookies are beneficial, and to give examples. Finally, if you ever used antispyware software, you'd know that it never even detects most cookies, and never asks the user about them. It only detects tracking cookies. I have never seen an antispyware program remove a cookie that stores login prefs, for instance.


I stand by my column 100%.


Walt
======================
Walt Mossberg
Personal Technology Columnist
The Wall Street Journal
</quote>
 
We'll just have to agree to disagree then.
#    Comments [0] - Trackback    

RSS feed
Search and Links
Bling

View Nik Kalyani's profile on LinkedIn

Contact me: nik*kalyani.com (replace "*")

TechBubble
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from techbubble. Make your own badge here.
Statistics
Total Posts: 214
This Year: 32
This Month: 0
This Week: 0
Comments: 238
About the author/Disclaimer

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.

© Copyright 2008
Nik Kalyani
Sign In
All Content © 2008, Nik Kalyani