The addition of Twitter and Facebook streams looks beautiful – I can browse (in a newspaper-style layout) the tweets, links, photos, and messages from both services quickly.

While I do love the layout (I’m a print guy, after all), I did find one problem with two areas of worry: The content from your Twitter and Facebook stream is presented in Flipboard’s own choice of layout. Meaning, some photos or links from your friends might show up as small boxes, or nearly fullscreen.

In the section view, this means any NSFW content uploaded by your friends (and we all have friends that post non-work safe images, or is that just me?) could be nearly fullscreen.
In the photo-slideshow view (which is displayed on-launch), that same content could appear fullscreen.

I use the slideshow view while my iPad is docked in my homemade cardboard dock at work, that way I can quickly glance at any given photo as it comes across and tap to read more. It’s a nice feature 99% of the time. That is, until a friend’s photo of a night out drinking or another’s link to a punk show (displaying an angry panda) might take some explaining to a hovering boss (as just happened to me).

Flipboard in the dock - showing the angry panda

Flipboard in my hand - showing a photographer-friend on a night out

Twitter stream - yes, that says 'warm weather humping' with a nude photo

As much as I’m enjoying Flipboard, I can’t recommend one using it as a work-safe slideshow or browsing app if anyone could be hovering in your work area.

That said, totally worth the wait for my custom access. I’m looking forward to the ability to add in news feeds in the future (hint at a request there, guys and gals), video and more.

This is getting crazy.

What chaps my ass is when a designer/developer takes credit for a design that was not theirs – one that they have made adjustments to, while leaving the core design in-place. Further, when the core code lives on, with some adjustments, I also get a rash.

The case here is Muumuu Heaven, a Web site that a buddy of mine were hired to develop by an employer of ours. It was a rough time in our development lives – with difficulties in communication, slipping deadlines, design changes, underbidding, etc. A lot of the hardships were my fault, but in the end I was happy with the result. Not the best development in the world, but I applaud the designer I worked with for his color choices, images, etc.

It’s been a few years, the Web site has gone through some updates and changes – both in design elements and code, but much of my designer’s look/feel remain (meaning: the exact images he designed are still in-play; the scaffolding is the same); the code for navigating the site is the same.

On the footer of the Web site is a link for “Site Credits.” I had no supposition that Muumuu Heaven would credit the designer or myself, but I was surprised when the new designer and developer took credit for work that was (at best) half theirs.
This continued on the developer’s own Web site (which is where the following screenshot came from).

I’m not asking Muumuu Heaven to give us credit now, I’m just ranting about the ass-rash that things like this give me. I’ve contributed on many projects and do my best not to boast about being “the man.” If you’re going to claim ownership of a design or development, then make sure it really is YOUR design/development.

(end rant)

Of course, I had to ruin it by trying to cut a wake/sleep hole (dammit!), but beyond that: score!

Here’s some early photos:

And a brief video:

While browsing Jquery resource sites, I came across http://www.subzane.com.
No, I’m not going to hotlink the Web site for the following reason:

While I fully support a domain owner’s decision to limit access due to features, etc. I don’t support the choice of language that Norman chose.
Sure, he may have been trying to be cheeky, but it failed.

The company I work for (thankfully) has relaxed requirements when it comes to browsers used on a desktop – while there are company standards, we have been able to work with Firefox, Safari, and others. Still, the company only supports Internet Explorer for bug and error support.
That standard may not be correct, but it’s simplified the support requests to only a few versions (6 and 7 and their children).

On another note, I wasn’t too thrilled about the layout of the site when I finally loaded up Firefox. Not that my layout is anything to write home about (I’m using a theme for WordPress for Christ’s sake!), but I’d personally rather have deep content presented at the homepage than having to decipher what a post/article/tutorial/whatever may contain merely from the title.

(end rant)

The idea was this:

Designers and developers – known surely for the amount of time they scour the Net – often come across poorly designed Web sites.

If a poorly designed Web site was found, a URL could be grabbed and submitted to my portal, where we (site admins and moderators) would scan the site, removing and identifying information (replaced with Lorum where possible), and post the screenshots of the site for other designers to comment, rate, and pitch a one-page redesign (think “Worth1000″).

Once enough one-page designs were submitted and rated (by the users), the best two or three designs would be submitted in a friendly mannor to the actual site-owner (we’d be as pleasant and gentle as possible – nobody wants to receive an e-mail saying “Your site sucks! Here’s some better ideas”).

The site owner would have the option of contacting the developer directly for design work.

Well, that was an idea I hatched a few years ago, and as with many of my ideas it never went anywhere.

That’s why I’m a little tickled to see these two new services/portals:

Should Redesign (http://www.shouldredesign.com/) and  Concept Feedback (http://www.conceptfeedback.com/).

Both allow for the submission of URL’s to be reviewed, with Should Redesign having a simple “yes/no” ranking selection, and Concept Feedback allowing for members to deeply comment on the design and workings of a submitted site.

I’m impressed with the depth that some comments reach on Concept Feedback, and also just as impressed with the simplicity of Should Redesign.

Both make me feel like my idea might not have been worthless after all. While neither allows for the “pitch” from designers/developers, the sites do make good use of screenshots, comments, rankings, etc.

Update:

Probably not what they wanted to be seen

After tinkering with Should Redesign a little further, I noticed they have a session/cookie problem: Once you submit a vote for a site, you will have a hard time navigating the Web site (as you’re redirected to a “recently voted on” page). Looks like somebody’s MVC framework is a little wonky. Hopefully this will be corrected soon.

Basically, they have put together a list of profiles – developers, designers, Web gurus and “newbies,” based on various work and lifestyle types.

While the personas on their list are quite good (I found that my persona matches the “Google Geek” type most), I feel they’re missing one important profile: The Utility Player.

In my daily work, I have to leverage several programming languages, from Objective-C for desktop and iPhone development; PHP for server-side scripting; ColdFusion for legacy application support; Javascript and Ajax for damn-near everything; InDesign scripting (Again, in JS), and more.
While I’m no master at any one technology, I would list myself as advanced in at least server-side scripting and Javascript, while being beginner at desktop/iPhone development (C-based, or Obj languages still baffle me).

The person that works as a Utility Player has to balance coding, design, interfaces, users, workflows, various file formats, login and security systems, all while “selling” their ideas and work methods to business and department managers that may have little to no technical experience.

These people seem to be less represented by Sitepoint.com “officially” (the forums have tons of posts from people I would identify as Utility Players – those looking to solve a specific problem or issue in order to drive a larger project). I’ve found – not just with Sitepoint.com, but with most Web/tech blogs and products – the focus has been on the freelancer, or the career developer/designer. Those of us that work in all fields at all times with our employers often fall through the cracks.

So, if anyone from Sitepoint.com happens to take a gander at my rant, consider adding a profile type that better resembles my chaotic work-life. I’ll still buy your books, subscribe to your Twitter and RSS feeds all the same, but I’d like to know you care about us too!

Update: Looks like Sitepoint cares! Talk about a quick reply (see the comments).
Thanks for validating us many-hat-wearers.

I suppose using language like “ignored” was a bit harsh; I think I meant more like “under-identified.” when part of my day involves Mac and PC server administration, then work with PHP and IPTC editing, then possibly some mobile or Final Cut work, it’s hard to feel like you belong alongside seasoned developers that have mastered a particular platform.

Anyway, thanks for reading my little corner, and for the good reply.

I use Codeigniter for many new projects, PHP for pretty much all, and would like to reduce the reliance on my laptop as my storage and change control.

Any ideas as I get started?

A real-estate data normalizing tool that will assist editors and designers in capturing real-estate data from providers, normalize it for print and online, and quickly layout print pages. No more hunting and pecking, or formatting based on each vendor!

Cultivating Conscience – Justine’s baby, really, but a great adventure for us both: Attempting to live within 100 food-miles.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadedge/sets/72157619158939040/

Here’s one of his videos for you to enjoy: About Dogs.

About Dogs from Tom DesLongchamp on Vimeo.

OSNAP.net presents: 80′s Ringworm from chadedge on Vimeo.