\nSo I’ve been surfing around the web, looking at other journals and weblogs,
\ntrying to see what other people are doing for their design and content
\nmanagement. It’s been educational, to say the least.\n<\/p>\n
\nThe good news is that I’ve discovered my journaling software Sugar Daddy: \nFinally, there was Greymatter<\/a>, \nAnyway, it looks like Moveable Type’s got it all and then some. Fast, even more \nMy other discovery was that the Web designer community is rife with \nA couple of years ago, websites were festooned with \nLet’s leave aside the fact that no browser<\/em> fully supports web standards Their boss says so.<\/b> Once a company standardizes its intranet on one They don’t have the hardware.<\/b> The latest browsers don’t run so hot on old They have no idea what you’re talking about.<\/b> Your average user could
\nMoveable Type 2.0<\/a>.
\nFirst, I looked into
\nBlogger<\/a>,
\nbut Blogger is centrally managed, and its server has been hacked and attacked too many times for
\nmy comfort. There was Radio<\/a>,
\nbut it costs $40, and said $40 would go directly to
\nDave Winer<\/a> — yuck. I took a look at
\nblosxom<\/a>,
\nwhich was awfully<\/em> cute (“only 60 lines of code!”)… but no.\n<\/p>\n
\nwhich was very, very close. Noah Grey deserves a lot of credit for putting this
\ntool together by himself — and spawning a host of imitators. Unfortunately,
\nNoah is no longer supporting Greymatter. Also, Greymatter didn’t integrate well
\nwith my old journal archive, and it wouldn’t let me have a different essay for
\neach monthly archive page (not without playing a little trick or two).\n<\/p>\n
\nflexible than Greymatter, and with a stellar web-based user interface. I will never
\nbad-mouth Perl<\/a> again. (Not that I’ve ever
\nbad-mouthed Perl, but from now on if I hear<\/em> anyone bad-mouth Perl, I’ll
\nat least know to smirk knowingly, the same way I do when I hear about 32-CPU Intel
\nsystems.)\n<\/p>\n
\nsnobbery<\/a>
\nand breathless enthusiasm for bleeding-edge-technology-uber-alles. (And the
\nPope is Catholic, water is wet, … yeah, yeah.)
\nStill, you’d think there would be some maturation over the years.\n<\/p>\n
\nbuttons that said, “This site best viewed in Netscape\/IE 4.” Now things are
\nworse — a depressingly high number of sites use JavaScript to judge whether
\nyour browser is worthy, and if you fall short, you get a message
\nordering you to upgrade to a browser that “supports web standards.” A few people don’t
\neven bother with the obnoxious little message: they actually
\nkick you out of their site<\/em> if you don’t make the cut. Apparently
\nthese people think they are part of
\nsome kind of movement<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
\n(HTML4.01 and CSS2) and focus on why<\/em> someone might not have the latest,
\ngreatest browser:\n<\/p>\n\n
\nbrowser, that’s it. Everyone’s stuck with the same software, and might be for
\nyears, end of story.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\n386 computers. This is a particular problem for libraries, schools, and foreigners (but
\nwho gives a crap about them?)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
\nnot possibly care less<\/em> what browser they use. They might not even know
\nwhat “HTML” is. And no, these people are not<\/em> beneath contempt — they
\njust don’t care about the same weird, esoteric things that you do.<\/p>\n