| August 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
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 |
31 |
|
|
|
| Jul Sep |
Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
E-mail this blog's author, Scott Rosenberg:  |
|
I attended neither the Foo camp (not invited, that's ok!) nor the Bar camp (loved the idea, maybe next year?). Hey, every weekend is camp in a household with two five-year-old boys! But I did learn a lot about the notion of the self-organizing conference space that both these events built upon from this post over on Martin Fowler's site.
Apparently there's a methodology and a history to this approach, summarized in a 1997 book by Harrison Owen.
This approach seems to make sense for almost any event that aims to move away from the yawn-inducing broadcast-style conference -- speakers on stage, audience on hands, interesting stuff in the hallway -- toward a true live-event manifestation of the many-to-many model that a lot of people are now embracing online.
[headline courtesy Allan Sherman]
|
|
In my enthusiasm for the advantages of browser-based application development in my post about Google and Microsoft yesterday, I neglected to include the necessary counter-truth known to all web developers (one I have some experience with from my work at Salon): that when you develop for the browser, you're actually developing for a whole mess of different browsers, each of which behaves just differently enough to make your life miserable. This seems especially true with the new wave of Ajax-based apps, that rest on a variety of technologies implemented differently by each browser producer (and each generation of product). Thanks to David Czarnecki for supplying my forgotten caveat.
And over on her blog apophenia (look it up! add it to your vocabulary! I just did), danah boyd offers a parallel argument about Windows-only development, suggesting that "you don't have the right to espouse open standards if you continue to only build on top of only one closed one... Openness isn't simply about open protocols concerning one application, but about open choice to mix and match layers through and through."
|
|
|
