Displaying posts tagged "non-sequitur" (Clear Search) Thursday, August 6th, 2009
I'm not the type of person to care too much about titles. If someone tells me they're the director of national accounts at a five person company, I'm not particularly impressed. However, titles are a useful way to quickly summarize one's job, so I have some interest in getting them right.
That said, one of my main job roles is "web developer". This should be a pretty accurate way for me to describe myself when others ask what I do. The problem is that 10 years ago, web developers made websites with pictures of their cats and lots of flashing, scrolling, comic sans text.
Despite the widespread adoption of web applications like gmail, people still think that "real" programs aren't online. Good programmers don't make websites, they make boring old windows applications. If I majored in computer science and now I build online applications, I must be the most pathetic CS major ever.
When someone asks me what I do and I say I'm a web developer, they respond with something like, "oh yeah, my cousin has Dreamweaver and made her own website. Cool". So instead I have to say something needlessly vague like "application developer" or "software engineer" or just boring old "programmer".
These titles aren't nearly as useful as "Web Developer" but they communicate to people that I actually write real code which I guess is more informative than only communicating that I deal with websites.
So in case you didn't already know, the times they are a-changing and there are real applications hosted online these days. If someone develops web applications, there's no reason to believe that they are any less of a programmer than someone working on a more traditional desktop app. And if you ask me what I do and I say I'm a web developer, please don't assume that I spend all day making celebrity-themed Myspace templates.
/end rant
Posted by Tyler King
Tags: non-sequitur
1 CommentTuesday, July 28th, 2009
I was recently reading a personal finance blog and I read a post going over a very common topic. Basically it was saying that a way to save money and improve your life is to fight the urge to constantly want more. The idea is that by settling for what you have, you keep things simple. Supposedly you don't really need those extra things.
This might be decent advice for personal finance (although I'm not entirely sure) but it could be really dangerous to apply this attitude to other things in life. Nothing great has ever been created by someone that was happy with the status quo.
Technology is miles ahead of where it was a decade ago. Web applications are accomplishing tasks that no one could have ever expected. Phones are getting powerful enough that they are completely replacing real computers in many situations. Storing information is so cheap that our children won't even know what the word "delete" means.
So first, let's imagine that in the early 2000s, we decided to stop wanting more. we could buy books and CDs from Amazon.com. Cell phones worked pretty well and email was ubiquitous. What would the point be of more?
That sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? Technology has moved faster in the past five years than it ever has before in the history of mankind and it's likely to continue moving even faster. Even though we certainly have "enough" right now, we would be doing ourselves a huge disservice by feeling content.
My attitude is as follows: I'm happy with what I have, but nothing I own is truly good enough. As you know, I absolutely love my Palm Pre, but there are a million ways that it could be better and I fully expect the next generation to be a huge improvement. As great as gmail is, how can you possibly be content given the untapped potential? And no, my 6 mbps internet connection isn't fast enough. I want fiber coming straight to my house and I want it now.
I'm not being greedy and I'm not failing to appreciate what I have. I feel like I have an obligation to contribute to our advances, both as a programmer and as a consumer.
You can tell a lot about a company if you just observe how they approach this issue. For example, Microsoft makes a living off of inertia. Everyone knows how to use their programs and so they don't seem to have any interest in advancing. From search to web browsing to office tools, they are constantly responding to the actions of their competitors rather than taking the offensive with preemptive innovation.
Then on the other side of the fence you have Google. One look at Google Wave tells you all you need to know about how Google is viewing the future. Despite having by far the most successful online email system, they are already trying to reinvent the entire process. They realize that their great software won't be great for long (relative to the competition) and so even though they already have it all, they want more.
This turned into a pointless rant, but let me finish with this: When I meet people that claim to have everything they want, I feel really sorry for them. People in the 1800s didn't want cars. People in the early 1900s didn't want air conditioning. People in the 80s didn't want the internet. Hopefully we can learn from the past and understand that whatever's next, we want it.
Posted by Tyler King
Tags: non-sequitur
0 CommentsWednesday, July 1st, 2009
Hopefully this will be a big month for me. We're starting some really cool projects at Zane Benefits and we're expecting to see increased returns from some of our old ones. It's hard not to get excited about the momentum building both at Zane and the healthcare system as a whole.
I've also got two weeks left to finish the freelance project I started last month. Then I need to start full time on cbBlitz, the fantasy football site I started with my brother last year. There's a lot going on.
Ok, so to avoid getting too emo with this post, I just want to mention something interesting I've noticed as my work load has gone from reasonable to OMG HOW WILL I FINISH IT ALL!!!!
Every time I take on a side project I worry that it might hurt my production at Zane. Oddly enough, I think I get more productive at Zane the more work I have waiting for me at home. I think I've boiled this down to two things:
My point is, I'd be less productive if I only focused on my full-time job. I work slightly fewer hours than I would without the other projects, but I get a lot more done with the hours that I do spend at Zane. I hope to start a company one day. If that ever happens, I'm going to encourage every employee to take on projects outside of work.
What do you think? Have you had similar experiences? Posted by Tyler King
Tuesday, June 16th, 2009
I just had dinner with some people that I used to work with at Zane Benefits. They are closer to my parents' age than mine, and the topic of technology came up. There was clearly a gap in knowledge between the younger people and the older people. The question was asked, "At what age do people stop keeping up with new technology?"
I'm going to skip that question because it seems impossible to come up with an answer. It got me wondering though, why do younger people generally stay on top of new tech better than older people?
I haven't really thought this through well enough, but there are two things that initially came to mind:
#1 - Keeping your mind flexible - When you're a kid, your life changes dramatically all the time. Going from elementary school to middle school to high school to college over the span of 6 years keeps you used to change. I would imagine that a familiarity with change in one area translates to a willingness to change in others.
I guess most people graduate college and then start working and end up doing basically the same thing week after week for the next 40 years. I can understand why that might make you lose interest in playing around with new things. If this is true, it must impact learning in general (not just related to technology).
#2 - Lack of exposure - Kids are exposed to technology both through school and social circles. Most companies are very slow to adopt new systems (they're still using IE6 and Outlook 2003 at many companies). This seems like a cop-out because I feel like a person should always be responsible for learning new things, but maybe there's something to it.
So what do you think? Posted by Tyler King
Tags: non-sequitur
5 CommentsSaturday, June 6th, 2009
There's something weird going on in the Gateway Center in Park City (the building where I work). On the top floor, Zane Benefits has two offices, Hunter Capital (a venture capital firm) has one, and the HR department of the Sky Lodge (a hotel) has the fourth. There are only these four offices.
Hunter and Zane Benefits have signs on all their doors identifying which company occupies that space. The Sky Lodge doesn't have any sign and there's no receptionist. When you look in their door there isn't anyone to speak to and there's no indication that the Sky Lodge is there.
Being the HR department for a hotel, there are constantly people coming in to interview for positions. They know to go to the top floor of our building but then they're lost. My desk is next to a window that looks out onto the entire public area of our floor so I see exactly what everyone goes through to figure out which office to go into.
The average Sky Lodge applicant gets off the elevator and immediately sees all four offices. They see 3 doors that are clearly not what they're looking for and one unmarked door. Despite the fact that the unmarked door has to be the Sky Lodge, everyone ends up coming into our office and asking where the Sky Lodge is.
Aside from the obvious question of why the Sky Lodge doesn't just put up a sign, I can't help but wonder why people prefer to go into an office that is clearly not what they're looking for rather than going into the office that is almost certainly what they're looking for.
I think the answer is that people are afraid of uncertainty. The Zane Benefits office looks friendly and professional. It's obvious that if you walk in, someone will talk to you and help you out. No one wants to go into an unmarked office and wander around until they find someone.
So as always, I'm going to force this weird anecdote into the context of web design. I generally assume that I can build features into a website and advanced users will find them on their own. The less sophisticated users don't generally need to see these features, so I figure there's no need to hold anyones hand. Now I'm wondering if even advanced computer users might have a mental block preventing them from trying things that are uncertain.
For example, sometimes I'm on a website and I'm not sure what a button does. Generally, I just click the button and see what happens. What's the worst that could happen?
Well, Most people probably don't try things unless they know exactly what they're doing. Maybe it's time to do a little more hand holding, even for power users. Posted by Tyler King
Tags: Ideas, non-sequitur
4 Comments |
More about me:
My friends:
Sites that I really like:
Paul Graham Essays
Academic Earth Mint.com Lifehacker The Consumerist Deadspin Turf Show Times Failblog Get Rich Slowly |
|
Blog |
Portfolio |
Resume |
Bio |
Contact |