| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | Oct » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Scenario: Search for coke zero weaknesses (someone did), and this site comes up as the first result (as of this writing). However, because it’s the main page of this site that Google is returning, the word “weakness” is in a post that has nothing to do with the Coke Zero post.
This is the downfall of the blog front page, in general, IMHO.
Should we tell Google not to index the home pages of our blogs, in order to enforce a separation of content, for clarity of search results?
I’m having some domain issues, and one of the results is that email isn’t working well.
If you need to get a hold of me, try emailing me at tim (at) cloudking (dot) com.
When you first install an OS, or a new browser, or get a new computer, the first time you launch your web browser it has a home page assigned (in IE’s case it’s MSN, for Firefox I think it’s the FF Google Search page).
I understand why the browser-maker wants me to have one, but why would I want one?
Perhaps it’s because I’m on my computer all day, every day. I use the web for a multitude of tasks, so I can’t imagine one site that I would want to see every time I load up the browser. Perhaps a home page is useful for someone who’s not so connected to their PC — someone who goes online to check email or weather or news.
But for me? I tried having Google as my home page for a while, but I still begrudged the two seconds I had to wait for it to load. For all my browsers (at last count, Safari, Firefox (2 platforms), IE6, IE5 (three flavors, two platforms), Netscape 7 (two platforms)) I set the home page to be blank. No wasted time or bandwidth.
I bring this up because of this blog entry by a former IE developer. He recently switched to Firefox, and outlines his reasons why he weeps for IE.
He also describes some weaknesses (as he sees them) in FF, and one of them is that…
Firefox goes against IE behavior and starts each browser instance from scratch. IE intentionally brings the browser history into the new window: the bet being that users who want to continue from where they left off can, and those that want to go their home page can do that with one click.
This is one of my pet peeves of IE — whenever you hit Ctrl-N to open a new window, it re-opens the page you were viewing in the original window. This has always seemed like bizarre behavior to me. I’m opening a new window, why in the world would I want to re-open the page I already have open? Along with it comes possibly all its images, all its ads, all its javascript (which may break having been taken into a new window). All this means I will have to wait to perform the function that I opened the new window for in the first place. (All of this would be a little less annoying if IE’s Stop button worked consistently. But it doesn’t.)
I’m realizing now that this has very little to do with the home page I started talking about, but whatever. You get what you pay for.
One of my first favorite web sites ever was Lindkvist.com. The illustrations and fonts of this funky Swedish guy really turned me on and got me interested in building my first site (no longer available in any form, but the structure was a direct rip-off of his then-structure, which is slightly ironic 
).
Once you get past the splash page (ugh), his current site pushes you immediately to his font collection, but he still offers up original illustrations and paintings, along with freebie icons and wallpapers. He was one of the first artists online that was into papercraft, and that seems to have translated into Boxtalks.
I’ve owned three iPods so far — the first generation model (with the mechanical wheel and buttons), the 3rd gen model (with the touch-sensitive buttons) and the shuffle.
I loved the first,
but the original 4gig drive started to cramp my style. Plus the wheel kept falling off.
So: Upgrade.
15gig drive, non-mechanical wheel. But the buttons were also non-mechanical and were a bit too twitchy. Plus the battery life sucked — I got one of the problem cases.
Anyhow, I realized that even though I was carrying the vast majority of my collection with me, I still listened to the same stuff over and over. The solution? 
Take away the ability to choose and switch to the shuffle. Half a gig of random songs was just what the doctor ordered.
But, now, I am out-growing the shuffle. I have broken my habit of listening to the same stuff all the time, and have learned to branch out. While I absolutely love the form factor, the lack of a screen (while liberating in some ways) is starting to chafe.
Enter the nano. I have not ordered one yet, but it is only a matter of time. The smallness of the form is amazing, the 2 (or 4) gig flash drive is a goodly amount of music without providing all the music all the time (meaning I can rotate the library and hear more music). Plus, the screen, oh the screen. I have coveted the iPod photo since it came out, but couldn’t justify the expense. But now all screened iPods have color, and I can have my cake and eat it too.
(I think there are some who don’t see the point in the photo capabilities, but, for me, it would be nice to be able to whip out some fun photos to share on a whim.)
Anyway, the point of the title of this post is, yes, I will buy one eventually, and the job of every manufacturer with an “iPod killer” just got that much harder.
The only question left is: White or black?
I just don’t know.