blog

---

On Working on the Web

After three jobs (and almost four years of working on the web), I feel that I have something to say about doing web work professionally. The upshot is that if you’re detail-oriented, somewhat particular (aka you sorta like grammar), and you like working with technology, a web-based profession might be right up your alley. However, if you majored in Dance or Environmental Science, I’d look elsewhere.

I’ve had positions where I

1. maintained one large (3000+) page website,
2. created/supported a specialty website (car dealerships) and
3. created and maintained a variety of websites. (Notice the macro-to-micro progression.)

What I liked about maintaining a large website was the predictability; even when our internal customers requested something out of the ordinary, I knew what to expect. In other words, I knew the limitations of what we had to work with. However, that factor contributed to my dissatisfaction with working with a large website; before long you were given a request that you couldn’t accommodate and you had to turn it down. 

What I liked about maintaining a large website was the predictability; even when our internal customers requested something out of the ordinary, I knew what to expect.

When I switched over to creating/maintaining one type of website, I became very good at one type of thing. That’s not so bad when you’re learning the intricacies of PS or DNS, but not so good when you’re weary of that one type of website. Mark my words, if you easily tire of doing one thing, you won’t like this type of web work.

Finally, I’ve created and maintained a variety different websites, from simple e-commerce solutions to full-scale enterprise fronts, everything from a headhunter firm to a bridal-wear provider. Never the same thing twice. If you like VARIETY, this is your schtick. If not, not so much. Just when you thought a particular headache was long gone, the same client comes back with another request and introduces another round of problems.

But not all the time. I’ve found that working on a variety of different websites suites me best. The best part of it is working with many different clients and providing many different solutions—the worst is the same.

Working on the web isn’t for everybody. If you like the feel of grass between your toes, this probably isn’t the field for you. If you like technology and stretching yourself, then yeah, dive in.

Posted by Jesse on 11/28 at 08:56 PM

Three Cheers for MS Expression Web 4 (I can’t believe I just wrote that).

I’ve been using MS Expression Web 4 for over a month at work. I hate to say it, but I’m impressed. Really. I’ve used Dreamweaver (CS3 and CS5), Textmate, Coda, and a whole host of other editors. What circumstances lead to this trial experience with MS Expression Web?

It all started when the kind owners of Xeno Media approached me after my first week of work, to see if there was anything else they could do for me. Well, I said, trying to code on this Macbook laptop isn’t going as swimmingly as I’d hoped. Plus I really missed having a dual screen setup, and a real keyboard and mouse…

Monday morning, I came in to see a new Win7 box and dual screen setup in my cube. Sweet!

Monday morning, I came in to see a new Win7 box and dual screen setup in my cube. Sweet! After trudging through a myriad of free open source editors (Notepad ++, Komodo Editor, Aptana, etc.,), and FTP clients (Filezilla, WinSCP, etc.,) I finally struck upon MS Expression Web. It had an integrated FTP client, and code completion (I admit, I’m lazy) and best of all, it had a 60 day trial and only cost $150! Keep in mind that Dreamweaver cost $399, and it doesn’t come with anything else.

Now I realize that this quest for a decent Windows text editor reveals a lot of what I find helpful when coding websites: I like having an “all-in-one” coding environment with code-completion. I don’t need a WYSIWYG component, nor do I need visual CSS hints. So that means that MS Expression Web 4 fits the bill perfectly. Plus it supports SFTP, which CS3 didn’t (not sure about DW CS5 since it’s on my home machine, which I haven’t used much for coding).

I realize that this post classifies me as a doubly uncool web developer, in that I admit that I use Win7 at work (the best O/S from Redmond I’ve ever used) AND that I like a Microsoft product. I know, all the cool kids use OSX and code with Coda, but I have a Macbook Pro and Coda at home, and I’d never willingly code a website with that. Given a choice, I’d rather have Win7 and Expression Web vs OSX and Coda. I know, I’m so out of it.

And I like that. 

Posted by Jesse on 10/08 at 12:17 AM

Use jQuery to set a class on body, and life gets easier

This is just a little trick, so small that I am almost ashamed (not quite, but almost) to post.

Set a class on body, and use jQuery to remove it. That’s it. Why would you want to do this?

If JavaScript is disabled, then that class will still exist on the body tag, and you can use CSS to hide whatever effect jQuery was supposed to accomplish.

However, if JavaScript is enabled, the class is removed from the body tag, and the style sheet doesn’t kick in. Easy peasy.

Need an example? Check out www.mchenry.edu.  With JS enabled, the homepage images rotate as usual. With JS disabled (use the Web Developer Toolbar for Firefox), however, the homepage images don’t rotate. Yeah, I know this is simple, but I never promised anything more than simple solutions to simple problems. Thanks, MS (hang in there).

Posted by Jesse on 09/22 at 12:47 AM

Why Use a CSS Framework

At work I was recently asked to closely “model” (aka rip) a website off of another “brochureware” website that the client liked. (For those of you who don’t know, a “brochureware” site is built off of a printed brochure, of which the client is convinced will solve all of their online communication problems.) I can do that (never mind the various ethical/legal hurdles). However, after working on it for a bit (more like four hours) I was told that the website looked a little narrow, couldn’t “you just make it wider, maybe 960 pixels wide?” Um, okay. The original site was 812 pixels wide. Sigh.

With that one request, I basically had to recode the entire shell. What to do? Grab a CSS framework and start rocking. Okay, I’ve considered most of the detractions for using a CSS framework - it’s a crutch, it keeps one from learning or using CSS, etc. These are valid concerns - if you used a CSS framework exclusively, you’d have a hard time accommodating requests that didn’t fit the framework. Also, if used exclusively, it would be hard to think outside of a CSS framework. I get it.
 

With that one request, I basically had to recode the entire shell. What to do? Grab a CSS framework and start rocking.

However, one of the best parts of using a CSS framework is rapid prototyping (or rapid coding). In the real world, that meant that I could recode the homepage and subpages in a little over an hour. Yeah, because I knew how to manipulate a CSS framework, I could spend the bulk of my time recreating assets in Photoshop. 

Which framework to use? Whatever floats your boat. Since I started with Bluetrip, that’s what I chose, but there are many others.

Listen, most of the complaints against CSS frameworks come from CSS purists (for lack of a better word), who don’t have to crank sites out on the fly. For the rest of us, I say let’s use the best tools at our disposal.

Posted by Jesse on 09/11 at 02:48 AM

Previous Page   Next Page