February 20, 2001

12:48 AM

Chaos rules the classroom in The Best & The Brightest. How many of these precocious tots can you name? (Jeffrey, I presume you saw this coming.)
posted by jjg (83 comments total)

I am haunted day and night by little Yah-kobe.
posted by pracowity at 1:20 AM on February 20, 2001

I am surprised that little Peter is missing from the class. Usually he makes more sense than anyone else.
posted by asamee at 1:44 AM on February 20, 2001

Did anyone know little Maggy keeps a weblog now? She even uses Blogger! And here's little Alexis.I think if you can place 4 out of every 5 names Jeffrey mentions, you've probably been spending too much time online for the past three or four years (or five or six).
posted by lia at 5:03 AM on February 20, 2001

uh-oh, what does it mean when you can identify all but two? :-)
posted by cCranium at 5:49 AM on February 20, 2001

You guys just can't get enough of each other, can you?
posted by jbeaumont at 7:12 AM on February 20, 2001

You know, I'm a big fan of cryptic writing on one's Web site, but does someone want to explain what the hell this means? Is everyone but Jeffrey too busy with other things to concentrate on Web design? Is that a bad thing? (My answer is "no"). Jeffrey, if you're here, why don't you just say what you want to say...
posted by jkottke at 9:04 AM on February 20, 2001

Yeah same here. Was this supposed to be a rundown of the people that didn't publicly acknowledge the latest WaSP initiative yet? It came across as "here's a bunch of web celebs I thought would make a big deal about this, and my imagined reasons why they haven't yet." But it's super cryptic, so that's just my best guess.
posted by mathowie at 11:02 AM on February 20, 2001

You're not serious, right?

How's about this: everybody's got their own little bailiwick, outside of which, their vision becomes myopic.

Hence, the conclusion might be drawn, why we got to this shabby state of web standards support, by both browsers and developers.

Not a lot of working together, you know?
posted by gsh at 11:10 AM on February 20, 2001

Ouch. Yeah, you're probably right.

Though I wonder, why does anyone have to work together? If I was Derek, is it my duty to bring everyone together and work for standards, or can I just do my own thing, do the things I like to do on the web, and whatever happens, happens?

If that's what zeldman is saying (and again, I have no idea because it is cryptic), my first response is why would any of them owe anyone anything?
posted by mathowie at 11:16 AM on February 20, 2001

It isn't about you. It isn't about me, or Zeldman. It's about our kids and their kids. We all have to unbelievable opportunity to formulate the Web in its infancy. What do you want your child's Web to be?
posted by netbros at 11:17 AM on February 20, 2001

Formulate the web? Developers will never agree on anything. I want the next generation web to be entirely xml and xhtml based as soon as possible. Others do not. Vendors don't necessarily want to either. Argue until blue in the face. Repeat.
posted by mathowie at 11:25 AM on February 20, 2001

My guess for a Moral of the Story would be that you can't satisfy everyone, but you can drive yourself nuts trying.

Either that, or he was trying to see how many people had egos he could send into overdrive. Judging by the response here...
posted by harmful at 11:32 AM on February 20, 2001

To me, the Web is all about hypertext. The infrastructure really doesn't matter. It will come and go as fast as new releases of Photoshop. The underlying tentacles of the network holds the key to unlocking all the data, all the research, all the art, all the imaginations.
posted by netbros at 11:37 AM on February 20, 2001

What? Huh? "The infrastructure really doesn't matter?"


posted by jbeaumont at 12:07 PM on February 20, 2001

Sure, in the big picture for our kids, does it really matter what the output mechanism is? Does it really matter whether the delivery code is HTML, XHTML, XML, SMIL or whatever? Does anyone know what will be deployed 20 years from now? My point is simply the web of webs, all the networks tied together to provide mutual aid and benefit.
posted by netbros at 12:14 PM on February 20, 2001

View from "Outside the Cabal": Zeldman cares about standards. Other "inside the cabal" people say they care about standards, but when push comes to shove, they put their own interests ahead of the interest of promoting standards. Oh, yeah, and Jakob Neilsen may be "inside the cabal," but he is annoying as shit, which having read one of his books, I didn't need a Zeldman to tell me...
posted by m.polo at 12:19 PM on February 20, 2001

Please do not try to make me crazy with your words.
posted by jon at 12:20 PM on February 20, 2001

Think about the children jon! The Cabal's children!!

Are you guys still whining about the Cabal? Isn't it time to get on with your own lives?

Also: if Zeldman doesn't make a lick of sense, why don't you just stop reading? It's not like he's reached Winer levels of madman drivel, it was just a goofy mixed metaphor that no one got.
posted by jbeaumont at 12:25 PM on February 20, 2001

What is The Cabal, good sirs? Does it make the World Wide Web?
posted by jon at 12:37 PM on February 20, 2001

I dunno...I just kinda thought it was funny. :-)))

Maybe it proves we all take ourselves (and this business) too damned seriously.



posted by webchick at 12:42 PM on February 20, 2001

How is this different than weblog high, or any of the other various jokes that have gone about at the expense of some of the better known web designers?

When I read that this morning I just smiled and said "Heh, Zeldman's funny."

Sure, my co-workers looked at me weird, but they do that anyway. I mean, really, most of the comments the "students" say don't have meaning to them, they're just little tidbits from the past 6 years of these people's web lives.

Zeldman's rarely (if ever, I can't think of a specific instance) used "My Glamorous Life" as a commentary, it's always (because "since August" is forever, isn't it? :-) been something of an outlet for him, where he can break away from that "Web God Standards Bearer Workaholic Driven Bastard" that we all see, and just enjoy himself through text.

Either that or he's finally looked at the state of the Web world he remembers before he went into bezerk book author mode and is just recapping what happened to everyone since he started being unable to pay as much attention.
posted by cCranium at 1:13 PM on February 20, 2001

Well, I swear by metapad, the Opera of notepad replacements (everything customizable.)
Usability standards are very important, particularly in the OS, if I may be permitted a topic drift :)
My parents and grandparents case in point: they got used to the win9x interface, then they got AOL. All the different-colored buttons and pictures and things that don't look/act like you expect messed them up. So they learn that and get sick of AOL (as everyone eventually does ;) and then are completely confused because they can't tell the difference between the browser and the ISP! AOL's integrated stuff is pure evil. It trains you into ignorance.
Even worse is something called "Printmaster," I think, where it has cartoon "rooms" you walk though. Disgusting.

Gah, I'm done.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:34 PM on February 20, 2001

"here's a bunch of web celebs I thought would make a big deal about this, and my imagined reasons why they haven't yet."

You're kidding. You thought that?

It's comedy.

"If I was Derek, is it my duty to bring everyone together and work for standards, or can I just do my own thing, do the things I like to do on the web, and whatever happens, happens? If that's what zeldman is saying (and again, I have no idea because it is cryptic),"

I can't believe you're reading that into this. Or that you'd think "organizing the third graders to put on a spoken word festival" was meant to be a put-down of my friend. Or that I even have to explain that.

I was surprised that some people felt insulted because they WEREN'T mentioned.

I'm even more surprised that some are insulted because they were. Okay, maybe Jason with the Tivo crack, but I expected Jason to laugh when he read that.

My purpose was to make milk come out of your nose. That's about it.

"View from "Outside the Cabal": Zeldman cares about standards. Other 'inside the cabal' people say they care about standards, but when push comes to shove, they put their own interests ahead of the interest of promoting standards. Oh, yeah, and Jakob Neilsen may be 'inside the cabal,' but he is annoying as shit, which having read one of his books, I didn't need a Zeldman to tell me..."

Interesting but again I wasn't trying to do any of that.

"When I read that this morning I just smiled and said 'Heh, Zeldman's funny.'"

Thank you. I'm glad a few people enjoyed it for what it was, and sorry anyone wasted a brain cell looking for deeper, hidden meanings.

I wonder: if Crazy Uncle Joe had written the same thing, would ANYONE get bent out of shape about it? Or Lance? Is it "heavy" because I wrote it? What's that about?
posted by Zeldman at 1:37 PM on February 20, 2001

My purpose was to make milk come out of your nose.

It worked for me, and I haven't even had any milk for three weeks!
posted by kindall at 1:54 PM on February 20, 2001

>I wonder: if Crazy Uncle Joe had written the same thing, would ANYONE get bent out of shape about it? Or Lance? Is it "heavy" because I wrote it? What's that about?<

we want you to respect us.

also, it is off the wall and cryptic - in that it (we now know) means nothing. it follows the WaSP initiative which means *something*.

humans are pattern-makers. we fit the piece that made no sense into the box that made sense and developed a ufo-conspiracy theory.

it's what we do.

rcb

ps - what in the world is wrong with a page that features the author's cats and baby pictures? self-expression comes in many forms.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:06 PM on February 20, 2001

> ps - what in the world is wrong with a page that features
> the author's cats and baby pictures?
> self-expression comes in many forms.

Ditto that! Thanks, Rebecca, for beating me to the punch -- and in a much more civil manner than I would have, donchaknow.

posted by gee at 2:22 PM on February 20, 2001

I have my cat pictures on my site. I don't care who's popular. If I chose more-obscure people the jokes wouldn't have worked.

I haven't had time to do a standards-compliant redesign of zeldman.com. So why on earth would I get on a soapbox to blast someone else? I wouldn't. The only relationship between the WaSP effort and "Best and Brightest" is that I wanted to relax after doing something serious. And give people something funny to read after writing things that are serious.

The WaSP effort is something I believe in, but you don't have to, and I'm not going to judge you either way. If I wanted to ask your support directly I would write to you directly. I wouldn't make fun of you on my personal site. (Not for that, anyway.)

Respect? It's implicit. If a first name and five words cue everyone as to who you are, then you've done a body of work that's so well known that no further explanation is needed. If you don't feel respect from that, oh well, I tried.

Cryptic? If you don't recognize Auriea and Joshua and Dack and Derek then you're not the audience for this little piece and of course it's cryptic. Not every piece is for every audience. I thought most people here would get it and would have a good laugh. As (I insist) they would if the same piece had appeared elsewhere.

I guess when you're known for doing SERIOUS stuff like The Ad Graveyard, If the Great Movies Had Been Websites, and Something About Nicole, people don't expect you to do comedy.

Matt, I love ya, but you're not the Matt in the story. The Matt in the story is a Flash artist who travels to Macromedia conferences in Hong Kong and Japan between doing projects for Nike.

Again, if Matt, who has built this community, and who did the Little CSS Shop of Horrors in 1997, and who hosts one of my non-commercial sites simply out of friendship, if that Matt thinks I was making fun of him, I don't really know what to say about it.

Nothing spoils a joke like trying to explain it.
posted by Zeldman at 2:24 PM on February 20, 2001

No, Aaron, I disagree. All the A list stuff is just so irrelevant to the vast majority of bloggers out there. I've discovered so many people, and so many sub genres in the last couple of months that I'm convinced that those people that continue to whine (whinge?) about popularity have no clue how huge weblogs and journals have become, or how marginal they really are (interpret the antecedent to "they" any way you wish).

The only thing I was sorry about with Zeldman's piece is that I just didn't get many of the jokes. And can someone please tell me who this Nielsen chap everyone keeps referring to? I've been seeing that name everywhere for months and months, but it's assumed information, so no one will bother explaining who he is. (Is he a MeFi member?)

Remember, not all bloggers are programmers.
posted by norm at 2:24 PM on February 20, 2001

Whoops, three intervening posts while I was writing that. I do agree that embedded MIDI files are evil, for the record.
posted by norm at 2:25 PM on February 20, 2001

Good lord, somebody hasn't heard of Jakob "Usability Uber Alles" Neilsen?
posted by harmful at 2:31 PM on February 20, 2001

Nielsen. Crap.
posted by harmful at 2:34 PM on February 20, 2001

I think imbeded MIDIs are going to make a hip retro comback.
posted by jennyb at 2:34 PM on February 20, 2001

>You agree with me on the inherent evilness of embedded MIDI, don't you?<

absolutely. I don't want any page to give me sounds unless I ask it to. how can you expect me to surf at work under those circumstances????

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 2:35 PM on February 20, 2001

imbedDed, really.
posted by jennyb at 2:35 PM on February 20, 2001

I hadn't heard of the Nielsen guy until I started hanging around MeFi either. I just was amused that he seemed to be everyone's favorite whipping boy. I tried to read about him and his viewpoints, but really, to be honest, as I'm not a programmer, I just didn't care.

But keep it up! It's good to have a villain around, even when you don't know who it really is. Kind of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid-ey.
posted by Skot at 2:36 PM on February 20, 2001

imbedDed, really.

I find that remark cryptic. Should I be offended?
posted by Zeldman at 2:37 PM on February 20, 2001

I am assuming that all who publicly decry the use of embedded MIDI's similarly frown upon and refrain from public useage of mobile phones, yes? :-)
posted by gee at 2:41 PM on February 20, 2001

Each of my cats has their own domain.
posted by websavvy at 2:42 PM on February 20, 2001

Gee: Other people's mobile phones conversations don't come out of my speakers, without warning, without permission.
posted by aaron at 2:53 PM on February 20, 2001

> BTW, what IS the deal with all the anti-Jakob feelings
> out there? Is there really that wide a divide between
> those who thing web sites should be functional before
> anything else, and those who believe "design for
> design's sake" conquers all?

I am curious about that too. I wonder if there isn't some sort of socio-psychological overlap in the "Notoriety Exchange Rate" [my words] phenomenon you just described, Aaron, and the "High Profile Standardist vs. Low Profile Artist" [my generalization] dichotomy that many pixel pushers seem to espouse.

> Other people's mobile phones conversations
> don't come out of my speakers, without warning,
> without permission.

Yes, but your side of your (hypothetical "you") ostensibly private mobile phone conversation is projected into shared public space without warning (unless your counting the electronic chirp) and without my permission (at least, nobody has ever asked.) :-)

...at which point we're veering a bit OT, I admit.
posted by gee at 3:09 PM on February 20, 2001

Oh, man... It was supposed to be funny?! I've been reading and re-reading the original article all day, evaluating the subtle nuances to determine which blogstars are "in" and which ones are on their way "out"...

(If I had been drinking milk, it might have come out my nose... does that count?)
posted by m.polo at 3:20 PM on February 20, 2001

I wonder: if Crazy Uncle Joe had written the same thing, would ANYONE get bent out of shape about it? Or Lance? Is it "heavy" because I wrote it? What's that about?

Nope, no bending out of shape at all if CUJ did it. Yeah, it's "heavy" because it came from you, and you're so wrapped up in this standards stuff right now, that this is sort of out of character, even though I know you're a fun loving guy, it's just the last week has been far from that.

I saw the post that sort of pokes fun at big personalities and how they won't listen to the teacher, and it wasn't rip-roaring hilarious like most of your funny stuff is Jeffrey, so I too thought maybe it's a big metaphor for standards stuff and the teacher is Jeffrey, and everyone is everyone not listening to you.

I guess it didn't strike me as pure joking wisecracking, and in the midst of every email discussion list shouting about standards, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that maybe it's about something else.

Matt, I love ya, but you're not the Matt in the story. The Matt in the story is a Flash artist who travels to Macromedia conferences in Hong Kong and Japan between doing projects for Nike.

Right. I thought it was Matt Owens, volumeone guy, so I got that, I never thought I was mentioned nor that I wish I was.

I'm not bent out of shape for thinking I was mentioned, I was just wondering why someone would make a cryptic post to get some things out about people, but it appears that wasn't the intention, so text delievery once again caused confusion. No big whoop.
posted by mathowie at 3:41 PM on February 20, 2001

matt, it made sense to me at 3 a.m. and i *think* it still makes sense but i could be wrong. regardless of that, what you just said also made a great deal of sense to me. now i understand.

to me it was a relief from the maelstrom to just riff like the old days. but i can see how the malestrom would color just about anything i do right now. and how even non-serious things could seem to have a subtext when so much has been going on around them.
posted by Zeldman at 3:53 PM on February 20, 2001

ps.

"no big whoop."

pretty much sums it up.

maybe just an itsy bitsy whoop.
posted by Zeldman at 3:54 PM on February 20, 2001

I thought it was funny. Yeesh.
posted by fraying at 4:15 PM on February 20, 2001

Well, Aaron, I think I am right (fingers crossed); of all the overlapping sub-genres of blogs I've catalogued some examples (note: I said some; I know there are many more):

Mom-bloggers (good representative links here)
Girl Bloggers (her links seem to be within that mainstream)
Brit bloggers (talk about incestuous crosspostings, my fave is Blue Ruin)
Aussie bloggers (some very good blogs, like the Null Device)
Manila bloggers (I never really saw any of these linked on the blogs I frequented until I started really exploring further, but I like this one, among others; I point it out because it has lots of links)
And then, there are the specialty blogs, like this one which is a Grave blogger, or Honeyguide, which blogs science.

I've not even begun to scratch the surface of the Blog*spot blogs, which are all over the map, from ultra teeny boppers (Britney blogs, as he terms them) to my boy Jeff's Shadow Government of the US political site. Nor have I really looked much at E/N sites or whatever.

The big thing I've noticed is that you can see an "A Lister" or two on many of these sites' link lists, but they're not always the same ones. Overall, who gives a rat's ass? There are hundreds of millions of people on line these days, and what are the top blogs getting for hits? 3,000? Chump change.



posted by norm at 4:33 PM on February 20, 2001

>zeldman said:
>to me it was a relief from the maelstrom
>to just riff like the old days. but i can see
>how the malestrom would color just about
>anything i do right now.

Never stop having fun "like the old days"... and stay true to your beliefs (like you won't :-).

You can still do both, you know...during this maelstrom and any other that comes along.

BTW, I really dug the new photo on "Glamorous Life." Quite photojournalistic [dare I say "prophetic"] in light of this thread :-)))


posted by webchick at 4:55 PM on February 20, 2001

>BTW, I really dug the new photo on
>"Glamorous Life." Quite photojournalistic
>[dare I say "prophetic"] in light of this thread :-)))

oops...my bad...convenient contextual linkage to aforementioned photo provided.

(is that a camera you're holding, Jeff, or are you pulling your hair out? Then again...I could be reading too much into it. :-)
posted by webchick at 5:03 PM on February 20, 2001

Jeffrey, maybe you should used some of them "smiley" things! [   ] <— implied smiley
posted by rodii at 5:41 PM on February 20, 2001

>Jeffrey, maybe you should used some
>of them "smiley" things! [   ] <— implied smiley

Smileys! *Never* leave home without 'em!

Speaking of humor, rodii, it should be known that your MeFi profile is pure comic genius.

Not that this has anything at all to do with this thread, except that it made milk come out of my nose when I read it. ;-)

posted by webchick at 5:53 PM on February 20, 2001

I think we can reconcile all these viewpoints. But what about the passion?
posted by Zeldman at 6:26 PM on February 20, 2001

And can someone please tell me who this Nielsen chap everyone keeps referring to? I've been seeing that name everywhere for months and months, but it's assumed information, so no one will bother explaining who he is.

Wait a minute -- you're kidding, right? You've been sitting around patiently for months with bated breath, hoping someone would toss you a bone here, instead of taking the twenty seconds it would take to just find out for yourself?
posted by webmutant at 6:33 PM on February 20, 2001

I see the Web future like a 100 foot telephone pole in the middle of the desert. Your next meal sits on top of that pole with nothing else in sight. You have four wood blocks, four nails and a hammer. Oh, and just for good measure, you happen to suffer from acrophobia.

As your stomach begins rumbling, you're thinking perhaps you should start up that pole. Nailing each of the four blocks like steps on a ladder, you begin the ascent. As you reach the highest block, you must remove the lowest and move it above the highest, and so on.

About 20 feet off the ground, you realize your feet will no longer dangle from the lowest block to the safe haven below. Your fear of heights sends a shiver of panic through your spine, but the survival instinct is strong, you must get to the top to eat. Casting the safety of Mother Earth away, you boldly continue the ascent.

You cannot reach the unknown pinnacle and ultimate satisfaction without eliminating old fears and irrational prejudices. Clinging to habits and security nets slows the growth and development for the next generation. In business, we must accommodate the consumer; but the independent Web compels us to come together at certain level sets of standardization so the next round may begin sooner, rather than later. We are Research & Development.
posted by netbros at 7:05 PM on February 20, 2001

aaron, i think you are wrong. i keep a small blog for my friends mainly, and i link and read a-listers. they don't intimidate me. they don't make me scared to blog. they give me something to read. one thing that makes them "a-listers" is the almost-daily updates and usually interesting posts. do they have a secret junta with meetings to which i'm not invited? i don't care. would i like people to read my blog? yeah, of course. but i don't get intimidated because there are "more popular" sites out there. and by NO means is the a-list the only way to get readership.

and honestly, do you think the people putting up pictures of their cats with imbedded midis (a group of people to whom i think you did more disservice than the a-listers ever did) are even aware of kottke or heather or derek or anyone? there is virtually no way. even if they did know about them, they wouldn't have any contextual information with which to become intimidated. unless you've been poking around someplace like metafilter or looking at a *lot* of blogs, how would you know they weren't just a group of friends? they wouldn't suspect the Evil Cabal any more than someone stumbling onto my page and seeing links to the same pages they see on my friends' pages would. i don't think the group you're saying is affected would even notice any trends without a bit of further research.

besides which, couldn't you say the same about the regular posters on mefi? maybe The Regulars here intimidate people. where do you want to draw the line?
posted by pikachulolita at 10:18 PM on February 20, 2001

the regulars here intimidate ME.
posted by Zeldman at 11:02 PM on February 20, 2001

BTW, what IS the deal with all the anti-Jakob feelings out there? Is there really that wide a divide between those who thing web sites should be functional before anything else, and those who believe "design for design's sake" conquers all?


Usability Experts are From Mars, Graphic Designers are From Venus

Personally I think most of us want our sites to function and want them to look good. Not rocket science.

Why is there so much animosity toward Jakob? I think it's because he lays down restrictive rules for a medium that's in its infancy, based on research that's mostly sketchy (unless you pay to find out more), using methodologies based on software design success/failure analysis that may or may not apply to the web ... may or may not apply to, say, your site for a theatrical company.

It's not so much Jakob and his professorial style, it's the way these rules and laws get parroted back by people who haven't done the research, haven't designed sites, and don't have the understanding and background that designers have - or that Jakob has.

It's 3 million Slashdot readers telling you JavaScript is evil because Jakob says so.

Worse, far worse, it's your marketing guys telling you "this design is not usable" when they have no understanding whatever of design, don't actually understand the concepts they are parroting, and are simply grasping for a vocabulary — ANY vocabulary — like suburbanites at the Museum of Modern Art, searching for words to describe something they see and don't understand.

So these guys who have no understanding grasp onto Jakob's comforting rules and use it to bash designers over the head. I don't believe that's what Nielsen himself intends. (I think he intends to visit your company for a modest fee.) But it happens over and over again.

When a good idea is killed because a fool in a suit parroted Jakob Nielsen, designers identify Jakob as their enemy.

I think that's probably it.

Note: there are of course many brilliant people in marketing and many fine people who wear suits. But what I've just described has happened to me and to everyone else in this area of the industry. There are Jews who hate Wagner's music because Hitler loved it. There are designers who hate Jakob because some jerk swatted down their design with Jakob's book.

Make sense?
posted by Zeldman at 11:14 PM on February 20, 2001

also, neilsen really is martin from the simpsons. i read three pages of his book and that much was obvious.

jeffrey, i'm with you about the regulars. :)
posted by pikachulolita at 11:35 PM on February 20, 2001

Why is there so much animosity toward Jakob? I think it's because he lays down restrictive rules for a medium that's in its infancy, based on research that's mostly sketchy (unless you pay to find out more), using methodologies based on software design success/failure analysis that may or may not apply to the web ... may or may not apply to, say, your site for a theatrical company.

I am put off by both overenthusiastic usability people as well as overenthusiastic designers.

Designers whose only aim is to display the flash or DHTML skills they have learnt recently without analysing what the website visitor expects. Usability people who would put down things like frames, javascript and flash just because the rulebook says to.

And that includes designers who would tell website visitors to upgrade their browsers just because they find it difficult to design on all the browsers and the usability experts who want designers to design using HTML 1.0.

Two links which everyone might have visited but are worth visiting in the context of this discussion are Philip Greenspun's balanced review of Nielsen's book and philosphy and Clay Shirky's brilliant retort to Nielsen's overenthusiastic insistence on design standards.
posted by asamee at 3:28 AM on February 21, 2001

Most of the Jacob-whipping I've seen tends to be good natured. He says some things which are important to consider, but by phrasing them essentially as ultimatums, he leaves himself with very little ground to stand on. Once one of his rules is shown to have an exception, his other rules tend to seem less firm.

Personally, I think he lays stuff down as laws so people will consider what they're doing when they break the rules. He's not a stupid man, he knows that people are going to disregard useability, so by making himself an ass, people actually do think "What Would Jacob Do" on occasion. If they can justify the breaking of the rule, they're still considering the useability.

Also, being an ass raises publicity, which is good for the bank book. I'll bet he loves the fact that he's the "Bad Guy" of web design, because it just passes his name around more.

On A-lists: Look at your stereotypical a-lister. How many of them are popular because of their blogs? Not many. A Blog itself rarely makes someone popular, the desire to make the web a better place does.
posted by cCranium at 5:49 AM on February 21, 2001

To Zeldman and Asamee on Nielsen: Thank You! That explains a lot more than the link to his site.
posted by norm at 8:35 AM on February 21, 2001

"Nothing spoils a joke like trying to explain it. "

Welcome to my world.

I'm really sorry I'm so late coming into this, because I love/hate it so much. All I can say is that I was sick. Uh... I was busy... er... my dog ate it...

On the one hand, I love the amount of trauma that a humor piece by someone like Jeff the Z can cause, because it's seeing that sort of over-the-topism that keeps me from getting too serious about my own gripes. Plus, righteously indignant people are inherently funny.

On the other hand, I hate it, because - well - because one of the reasons that Jeffrey is so well known/popular is that he's friendly, approachable, and seldom has a harsh word for/about ANYONE. He's so not the sort of person to do a wide spectrum person-slam, that it's a little sad to see him so readily misunderstood.

On the third hand (I'm a freak of nature), controversy drives interest - who knows, maybe this unintended side effect will cause a further side effect - one where people think about what it is that they thought Z thought this was about. ... er... I mean, Web Standards. Most of us won't be as emotionally invested in the topic as he is (I'm invested in keeping my crappy browser having, no concept of how to upgrade knowing users happy. I'll embrace the hell out of standards compliance when I can do it without jamming up that user base.), but maybe this will raise a bit more awareness... Or not.

It's true that when I write pieces like this (on those rare occasions that I write full blown pieces for my site), I don't get the negative feedback. Partially it's because nobody is particularly invested in my opinion of them, and partially it's because I almost never say anything that isn't meant to be a joke at some level. It's actually very hard for me to slam someone personally. When I do, I usually get email from them saying "ha ha, that was really a funny comment!" (or worse, they think I'm agreeing with them!) when what I want them to do is say "HEY! WHERE DO YOU GET OFF YOU SONOFABITCH?" I mean, what fun is it to abuse someone if they don't feel the abuse?

I did write a piece* sometime last year that mentioned some of the Cabal™, and even though I wrote it to channel my frustration about the serious discussion I had gotten drawn into here on MeFi. I flogged that dead horse for ages, and it was Mr. Zeldman who suggested that I take a step back and go write something funny. Good advice from a good guy.

Now that Jakob guy. What a buttstick! Let's bitch about him, because he's too uptight to ever slam us in a funny way - he'll just straight up call us wrong. Or at least I think he will. The guy is really too boring for me to read, so I just go by what other people say about him.



posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 12:47 PM on February 21, 2001

I did write a piece* sometime last year that mentioned some of the Cabal™, and even though I wrote it to channel my frustration about the serious discussion I had gotten drawn into here on MeFi. ...

...nobody took it personally. Quite the opposite. I was praised for having lightened up about the whole thing.


posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 12:53 PM on February 21, 2001

I find that remark cryptic. Should I be offended?

Sure, you might as well. Want to wrassle?

posted by jennyb at 1:06 PM on February 21, 2001

go go go
posted by corpse at 1:12 PM on February 21, 2001

Mmm... JennyB wrasslin' ... Can I bring Jell-O gelatin products? There's always room for Jell-O gelatin products.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 1:21 PM on February 21, 2001

jenny, jello - where's my damn camera!!!
posted by macewan at 2:52 PM on February 21, 2001

All right, break it up, break it up...

This is a family website.
posted by Avogadro at 2:56 PM on February 21, 2001

WooHoo! Dibs on winner!
posted by dangerman at 10:32 PM on February 21, 2001

Oh yeah...cat photo's rock!


posted by dangerman at 10:35 PM on February 21, 2001

whoa, I'm always late. yeah, I took the entry as a joke. read it yesterday. I only knew half the people but I giggled abit. I found it cute to picture little versions of webloggers and such. of course, I've been going out of my mind the past few days so anything's bound to make me giggle.

I was discussing webdesign today with my mom actually; it's about the site I was designing for this company. apparently mom told me she was going to take over if I didn't stop using CSS and java cause it wasn't needed. WASN'T NEEDED?!? CSS makes things widely convertable and such and java; who could live without it, huh? at least a tiny bit. plus, I told her I could never go back to that simple of a site since I forgot how.

apparently the owner of the company has a sorry browser and couldn't see the java flash buttons on the side, so mom told me to take them out and I told her to tell the lady to upgrade her browser cause the buttons were staying. maybe I'm wrong for not complying with what the person who's paying me wants, but it's the truth. they don't know about webdesign or how it works. I think they'd be pleased if everyone saw something nice and viewable with abit of flash. okay, fine she can't see the flash, but it's still readable. I say it stays, whatdoyasay?

well, I'm late, so I might as well shutup now.

oh and ps - yes, cat pics do ROCK!
posted by aekastar at 12:34 AM on February 22, 2001

What a buttstick!

I love that phrase. They had that in the director's cut of Hannibal, didn't they? But switched it to "okey-dokey" so all the underage children in the audience wouldn't hear a naughty word.
posted by Zeldman at 12:46 AM on February 22, 2001

I heard they cut out the whole scene where he poses as a street vendor...

        "Buttsticks! Get your buttsticks here! Hot fresh Buttsticks!"

I also heard that "okey-dokey" was the title of his Steinbeck-era cookbook.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 8:40 AM on February 22, 2001

My favourite putdown is "fuckwit," which is so so cruel and so so British. I've never heard it here in N. America. Which is good. Not hearing it, I mean.
posted by jmcnally at 8:52 AM on February 22, 2001

mmmm....Jello-O. mmmm...buttstick.
posted by plinth at 12:41 PM on February 22, 2001

fuckwit? funny, i hear that all the time. especially lately.
posted by Zeldman at 12:47 PM on February 22, 2001

Yeah, but that's just an accent. "You are a fuckwit" is different from "Hey youse kids, don' fuckwit dat!"
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 2:11 PM on February 22, 2001

Pssst ... Joe. I think we're alone now. Pity about Neale.
posted by Zeldman at 8:26 AM on February 24, 2001

Eh.

He was a fuckwit.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 1:03 PM on February 24, 2001

Okay, I got the last one - but WTF does Zeldman mean by "Theft is good"??? I haven't heard such absolute crap out of him since he claimed that XML doesn't exist. It seems with Neale on vacation, that Jeffrey has decided to step up to the mockery plate.

Well, I'm no fungo, bub!

You seem all big with your "work" and your "interviews" and your "book deal" and "girlfriend" and "concerned friends in need of comfort" and all of that - but we are not impressed!!! Some of us are quite happy to sit in our semi-darkened rooms, checking code for grossly underbid projects while we drink our generic sodas and plot our revenge against humanity... We don't need your eloquent observations on the relative importance of international publications when contrasted against the starkness of mortality!
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 8:56 AM on March 1, 2001