molly.com » policies

Why Bottom Posting Sucks

Molly — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:24:17 +0000

Throughout the years, posting styles in email lists and in forums have been a point of contention. Essentially, there are three types of posting styles.

Inline posting. In this style, the responder answers queries or provides insight throughout the document.
Top posting. The responder writes his thoughts at the top of the previous discussion. This particular method has long been frowned upon because the dialog is out of order.
Bottom posting. The responder writes at the very bottom of the discussion, leaving the previous dialog intact and creates a sequential order for the discussion.

At first glance, both inline and bottom posting make sense. The logic of each is maintained. In the first case you have essentially an actual dialog. He writes, she responds, the conversation goes back and forth. In bottom-posting, you have all the sequential context of the dialog available.

There is also the issue of what gets clipped out, or doesn’t. But let’s save that rant for another day. The issues with these styles have only been based on preference within the group or organization, and it’s daunting to think how much people argue about something so seemingly simple.

Because I personally find inline posting to make sense, as I am a verbal person and think in dialog anyway, let’s set that one aside. It’s fairly neutral overall. Most people won’t freak out if you use inline posting. Although I’m sure there are some of you out there!

Top-posting puts the sequence out of order. So why am I advocating it over bottom-posting? There are several reasons, all of which have their own logic. First, we’re becoming extremely used to backward sequencing. Blogs do this automatically. Twitter does too. Think of any social network and the way your posts are ordered. They are essentially top-posted.

Not only are we becoming accustomed to this behavior and perhaps prefer it in certain situations, but a second point also reigns true. We have many tools now so as to retrieve and save threads. IMAP, for one. Gmail provides archives. All current, popular mail clients allow some sort of filtering and thread views.

A third and important reason bottom-posting needs to die a fast death is the increasing access of email on small devices. It becomes absolutely senseless to have an entire novel sent when the message is simply “yup, I’m on the task” or what have you.

The final reason that bottom-posting sucks is that long emails that require a user to scroll through what is sometimes pages and pages of information is physically damaging and actually very difficult to do for those of us whose wrists and fingers tire easily. If someone with mobility impairments has to scroll through so much data just to get to “yup, I’m on the task” it just becomes an insult to that user, who suffers through the inconvenience to get to the message.

Two words: Not Accessible.

If there is any reason for everyone to abandon bottom-posting at this point in our evolution, I have to say it’s that alone. And if you’re young and strong and able-bodied and think I’m nuts, that’s okay. I’m probably older than your mother and sticking around to hear you grow up and say “Mom, you were right” will be my goal!

Bottom posting sucks. Let’s abolish it now and get on with the day.

Molly’s Top Five Tips to Gaining Twitter Market Share

Molly — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:26:36 +0000

The other day I was asked by someone how I was gaining “market share” on Twitter. Apparently, they were impressed by the number of followers I’d gathered, and wanted to know what it was I was doing to get them.

So here are Molly’s (aka @mollydotcom in Twitter speak) top suggestions on how to gain market share on Twitter.

Create a user CSS file that sets the Twitter Follower link to display: none;
Choose a Twitter client that doesn’t show how many followers you actually have, or makes it difficult to find that information
Never, ever seek out your numbers or stats using Twitter stats tools
Only follow those people you genuinely are interested in
Don’t believe the hype. It’s love, not money, that makes the world go ’round

Yes, it’s really that simple.

Accessibility Storm Hits Texas: Millions Jeopardized

Molly — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:21:54 +0000

While Hurricane Ike’s eye hovers over Galveston, and the country has basically come to a standstill as planes are grounded and people (myself included) can’t get home to loved ones until the storms pass, there is an equally disturbing issue that’s surfaced in recent weeks regarding the acclaimed University of Texas.

This year, the world lost a great leader in John Slatin, who along with colleagues was able to create the Accessibility Institute at the University of Texas and make real inroads in training people about accessibility and universal design.

It appears that the University of Texas would like to honor his memory by dismantling one of the highlights of John’s life works. To lose such an institute at this time demeans whatever progress has been made in the light of accessibility.

Universal access is something we cannot afford to stop worrying about. Our communications systems rely on our ability, no matter our ability, to communicate need.

During a time so frightening and confusing as a massive hurricane like Ike, nothing seems to shine a brighter light on this important facet of our daily lives. With universal access, many people will be empowered to get help more efficiently. Without it, certain individuals will be locked out of some of those resources.

That the University of Texas could even consider dropping such a core and critical program is tragic. The act removes educational resources that in turn create the resources that can help us all during difficult times as well as those more pleasant.

Please raise your voice and request that the Accessibility Institute be reopened! Sign the petition at Save The Institute.

Stay safe, Texas. And do the right thing.

Of Rich Web Experiences

Molly — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:12:07 +0000

If you want best practices, best information, best people and you care about code the place for you is the Rich Web Experience this September.

Early bird discounts apply right now – go check it out! If that sounds like marketing speak, say so! I’m working on my diversity skills. Last year I was honored with the same spot but health issues prevailed so I could not participate. This year, I’m raring to go and excited to be talking to as many Web developers and professionals as I can. Particularly application developers.

Interestingly, today is the day my relationship with Microsoft really, really ends (last check deposited to my account). Today, I stumble toward a “rich web experience” despite concerns about standards, agendas and linear thinking.

You can read about my Keynote and other sessions at the RWE web site. There’s an early-bird registration discount too! The richest Web experience I know is ironically off the Web. Face to Face, that’s the magic place.

I hope to see you at RWE!

A Proprietary Web in Deed and Fact?

Molly — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:15:33 +0000

Paul Ellis eloquently points out a few things I’ve become hoarse saying over the past year in his recent post A proprietary Web? Blame the W3C.

My personal list goes like this:

There’s no such thing as “Web Standards”
There’s no such thing as an open Web (except in our dreams)
There’s no such thing as interoperability on the Web

Of course the grand irony here is that it’s supposed to be the W3C where we get Microsoft and Adobe and Apple and Mozilla and so on around the table working together to create specs. So blanket “blame the W3C” statements are a bit flawed. I’d be more specific. I’d say “blame patent and IP old-skoolers, blame poor W3C infrastructure, blame an archaic and slow rather than agile and rapid process.” I can honestly tell you the most interesting, passionate and standards-oriented brainstorms I’ve had the opportunity to be present at have always been at W3C WG meetings.

Alas, those meetings of minds are then hacked apart and returned to their respective Member Companies to be scrutinized in light of policies, agendas and oh the list does go on.

My concerns are therefore different than Ellis’, who feels that it’s time for a richer Web experience anyway. While I do agree with the need for rich experiences, I am more fundamentally concerned about how the “Open Web” will ever be re-opened, and if it ever will be.

Every time I’ve said “Web Standards Aren’t” I get a significant response. Sometimes people laugh, sometimes they look at me as if I forgot my medication that day. Ellis’ article brings it a little closer to home about the many years of commitment standardistas give to a quality of work and a visionary cause that may have long been lost before it was ever truly won.

To Challenge and Frighten

Molly — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:44:10 +0000

Challenge and sometimes frighten people.

Working Group by Numbers

Molly — Sat, 24 May 2008 22:36:06 +0000

Do the numbers tell a story?

Here is a breakdown of a W3C Working Group by number of representatives and their origin. The question I’m thinking about is whether the number of reps per given organization relates to influence, and if so, to what measurable degree?

Sample working group representatives by origin

# of Reps	Organization
1	Adobe
2	Antenna House, Inc.
3	Apple, Inc.
3	AOL LLC
3	HP
2	IWA/HWG
7	Microsoft Corporation
3	Mozilla Foundation
3	Opera Software
5	Other – Individual, independent company reps
1	Sun Microsystems, Inc
1	University member
6	W3C Invited Experts/Staff

There are several variables, one very important one is that just because there’s a currently listed representative in a group doesn’t mean that representative participates as much or at all. A related variable would be that certain long-term participants who do a lot of work will naturally have earned merit-based influence within a group.

Tell me what you think.

A Patent Parable

Molly — Thu, 22 May 2008 07:28:12 +0000

Three companies have come together to discuss interoperability between their products. The first company, Mud Corporation, has thousands of patents that, if not protected, risk becoming compromised. Mud could become vulnerable to loss of profits based on what was once a firm ownership of valuable intellectual property.

The second company, Tangerine, typically jumps ahead of the interoperability process in an effort to advance the power of their own innovations. They have great ideas but are perhaps too aggressive – implementing aspects of specifications that haven’t been formally approved. This opens up the opportunity for Tangerine to patent technologies developed in the Tangerine way, outside the specifications, setting up more interoperability problems down the road.

Finally, we have Small and Spongy, Inc. This company has typically done things its own way and has challenged core interoperability issues because Small and Spongy has massive influence. Why? They have their own kind of dynamite in the form of “market share” despite sporting a less superior but far more widely used product.

During the meeting, the primary issue is to figure out how to share technologies and retain those portions of ownership of patented technology that each company deems necessary. The group prioritizes a list of shared goals and deliverables, and begins to discuss each one and how it might or might not weaken or require the surrender of individually owned pieces.

Mud and Small and Spongy disagree about the way a deliverable is written, and an argument ensues. Mud, not willing to jeopardize a strongly prized patent, plays the “take our toys and go home” card, threatening to remove itself from the collaborative group.

Tangerine gets very frustrated because they don’t want to slow down their own growth with such issues. Tangerine representatives quietly leave the room.

Small and Spongy throw up their hands and say “Hey, we have market share, so we don’t have to care after all! Woohoo!” Small and Spongy representatives follow the Tangerines to the nearest bar and begin an eight hour Margarita binge.

Mud representatives, having protected their interests but not succeeded in addressing the interoperability issues, call it a day and join in the drinking, except for the four new fathers who go home to their upper middle class lives, wives and offspring.

The moral of this story is that interoperability threatens too many profits, and this is why we don’t have an interoperable Web.

Celebrate, C’mon! IE8 Standards Mode To Be Default

Molly — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:13:53 +0000

By now you’ve likely read about the big news regarding Microsoft’s commitment to a more interoperable Web, starting with the very good news that standards mode in IE8 will now ship as default.

I’m off to MIX08 tomorrow, and will be attending the keynotes as well as developer discussions on IE8 and additional events surrounding Microsoft’s agenda moving forward. I’ll post more as I’m able.

In the meantime, I just want to shout out a thanks for all the hard work it took this year to keep the IE8 conversation open and alive. We’ve been through some bumpy times, and I for one know that people on the inside of Microsoft faced an enormous amount of pressure in trying to keep that conversation in the public eye.

To all who worked so very hard from both the inside and outside, I toast your dedication, your willingness to challenge what would otherwise be the status quo, and I think it’s really worth taking a celebratory moment to realize that at least for now, the community voice can, and does, truly make a difference.

Me, IE8 and Microsoft Versioning

Molly — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:22:57 +0000

If you work in Web design and development and haven’t read any of the articles and discussions taking place regarding IE8 and its use of meta versioning for standards compliance, it’s time to read up on it ASAP. Begin with Aaron Gustafson’s “Beyond DOCTYPE: Web Standards, Forward Compatibility, and IE8” on A List Apart. You can follow the threads from there. Russ Weakley at maxdesign is keeping a good list of the conversations too, so you can drop by and fill up on all
the mud-slinging and drama as it unfolds.

Burning truths

I began to write a response to Shelley Powers’ formidable “Bobbing Heads and the IE8 Meta Tag.” In this article, I’m cited as being in compliance with the Microsoft meta option. At first I resisted that I was being “compliant,” thinking that despite my discomfort with the option, I thought (and still do think) that it was the best solution that came up during the year-long versioning discussion we had.

The year long, very private, NDA’d versioning discussion. Which is where I have to agree with those who cite me as being “compliant.”

Because this was not a public discussion, and because I and others both internally and externally failed to convince Microsoft to make it a public discussion (although to their credit they did bring in industry advocates), I am in fact in compliance with the meta choice.

However, this doesn’t mean I agree it’s the right thing to do. I can say that I think it was the best of a list of much more problematic options that were presented. Just think about what naturally came up at first, attaching to the DOCTYPE switch or encouraging the use of conditional comments are both easily identified (but also very problematic) possibilities. And just because I did in the end agree that this was the better choice has nothing to do with silence. We all had legal and ethical responsibilities in that process.

I wish, oh how I wish, we could have all worked on this openly and together. That would have been my dream, but alas, it wasn’t to be.

Holding back the tears

When I began to talk to Microsoft and IE via the WaSP Microsoft Task Force, the conversation was far more open, or at least it appeared that way. When I left WaSP to work with Microsoft in a liaison capacity, that was still true. Over the past few years changes within the company infrastructure led to changes for the IE management hierarchy, and suddenly things got very quiet.

Silence can equal consent, indeed. Which is why I personally focused on breaking that silence. It took enormous pressure internally (and frankly, I believe that’s continuing) as well as my blatantly asking Bill Gates about it this past December to push the doors open again. Finally, this allowed Aaron, who was part of that long versioning discussion, to publicly talk about the switching work being done.

If those hands had not been forced, no one would have heard about this until IE8 landed on our doorsteps.

Out the issues

Now it’s out in the open, prior to a beta. We now know a hell of a lot about IE8 because of this. We can take a damned good guess at what’s actually in IE8 standards-wise because in IE8 standards mode, we have Acid2 compliance. Break down Acid2, and you’ll see what those implementations are or will be.

I believe we are in a much better situation knowing all of this in advance of the product. Was it wrong for Microsoft to shut up? I say yes and I call foul on those folks within the organization who allowed the very positive and productive conversations be shut down so dramatically. Clearly, they made a drastic mistake, which they were warned about by internal folks as well as advisors over and over and over again. So, the more yelling that comes from the Web community and the public press, well, that’s a message Microsoft will listen to so let’s remember that and hope some good comes of it.

Honestly, would it have been better to hide all this information until IE8 landed on our doorsteps? I don’t think so. At least now we have a window into what Microsoft is doing and the conversation, as is evidenced by the activity of the last week, is outed.

Transparency is bullshit, let’s get naked

Open standards must emerge from public, open, bare discussion. Microsoft clearly does not agree with this. It goes against its capitalist cover-up mentality, even when Bill Gates himself has quite adamantly stated that there should be no secrecy around IE8. In fact, he was the one who let the name slip. The fucking name, people! This shows you how ludicrous the lack of communication had become: Gates himself didn’t even know we weren’t allowed to say “IE8.”

This covert behavior is a profound conflict for me as I’m sure readers will at least agree that I’m pretty darned overt by default. But I knew it going in, I just kept and am still keeping my hopes high because that is also my default.

Sometimes the solution is to step back and re-evaluate. Sometimes the solution is to walk away. I haven’t firmed up my personal decisions on that just yet. Maybe it’s time to go back to Old School WaSP-style stinging of MS, but that definitely is not my default.

Can’t we all just get along? No, really. During my time at WaSP, the door was open to a kinder, gentler way. More fool me? So be it. I’m not giving up the greater goal, which is keeping the Web open, free, naked, bare-assed to the world.

Of, by and for

I think about all of us, whether we are “for” or “against” a given approach in the context of Web technologies in general, and I realize how necessary our arguments are. We are some of the world’s smartest, most innovative, committed and passionate people. How we’ll start figuring out better ways to collaborate, change old-school thinking, and encourage positive innovation and growth for the Web, well fuck if I know. Been down several roads (WaSP, for example) to try and see just how to do that.

What I do know is that the Web is still of the people, by the people, and for the people, no matter what Microsoft or anyone else does. And we’re the people to keep it that way. It’s not the what, but the how, and the when, that we have to focus on.