Yeah, you'd have to enforce very strict nesting rules in the document structure, which is impractical, especially for more complicated, multi-user web apps. Classes provide flexibility and atomicity.
> What’s the advantage of [shape-type="1"] over .shape-type-1?
In terms of CSS selector performance, classes are often faster than custom attributes, so I also don't know if there are any advantages in this particular use-case.
Though I disagree with you on your issues with the title of the post, I did really like how you've described your definition of an introvert. That you can prefer to be an introvert but still embody qualities that we associate with extroverts (which is what the article is about.)
Under your definition, I'm definitely an introvert. I have no issues with public speaking, leading people, or being shy.
But if given a choice, I'd rather spend time thinking by myself, I would rather sit quietly and listen to other people in a dinner table, I prefer working on my own, and having peaceful alone time at home to "recharge" instead of going out.
>> "It’s our job to help translate their vision to the development team in a way that they can understand and accept."
>> "Similarly, we need to speak on behalf the developers to help reign in the designers, at times. If they are coming up with concepts that will be extremely difficult or time consuming to implement, we can explain the limitations of the technology and the complexity involved in implementing their designs"
I dislike this stereotype that developers can't communicate and work side-by-side with designers, and vice versa. It seems the writer thinks developers can't communicate or speak and need someone to translate for them, like they're a machine. It's quite disparaging, actually.
I also see a danger in having a middleman, so to speak. Things can get lost in translation.
I'd say if your organization is large enough to differentiate between "UX Developer," "Traditional Developer," and "Designer" then yes there are going to be communication problems. It shouldn't be disparaging to either side.
Also it doesn't have to be a middle-man. 3-way communication usually works fine.
This article was written by a guy who created his web app without knowing Rails. In a few months, he had learned Rails, and had designed, developed and launched his own app. So don't be discouraged!
There's so many wonderful resources out there on UI/app development, but what I got from this article is that these lessons you'll learn best by creating (and using) web apps.
Long-term, it seems wise to just go AWS. The difference of learning AWS versus deploying right now in Linode (if you have experienced web server engineers) is negligible. I'd say even 30-40 hours worth of learning/testing can get you up and running in AWS.
Also, you have to think about possible downtime migrating from Linode to AWS (or increasing your Linode resources) or setting up a mechanism for no-downtime.
I agree with what you say here: "go directly to AWS, take the extra time to set it up and be done with it." To me, if the initial time/resource cost is negligible (which in this case, IMHO, it is), I'm going for the permanent solution instead of what seems to be a stop-gap solution. Less headaches, more time to devote to other parts of your start-up at a time of growth where your time and resources will be scarce, and fewer things to worry about. I'd rather pay the time up front when I'm still starting out, rather than later where it will be more difficult and most probably more costly.
This applies only because you already know AWS is the end-game. Otherwise, I'd just launch in Linode first since it's quick and I (and you) know how it works already, then deal with scaling later when you actually know you need to scale.
no knocking Linode, I know it's good. But it's hard to see re-deployment as anything else that lost cycles at the point we're at. I hope we won't need 30 hours to be up and running on AWS though.
Amazon was hardly a startup 5 years ago. And we're talking about a service and a space that's difficult to replicate and get into. S3 had resources most startups won't have to get that 5-year lead.
The point still stands; this isn't an example of why startups shouldn't fear giants/incumbents. Just because Google couldn't/chose not to get a product like Amazon S3 out the door to compete with Amazon, doesn't mean incumbents can't replicate and dominate a bootstrapped start-up's low-cost, innovative web app or mobile app.
The statement should say that startups with innovative, hard-to-reproduce products have nothing to fear; you'll either produce a product that they'll choose not to compete with/can't compete with (Twitter, Facebook) or get bought by them.
I'm trying to innovate in the same field that Bubbleshare was in. I only learned about them recently via reading old techcrunch posts. What killed them? Did they go through a prolonged period of difficulty?
Disclaimer: I was not involved, but several people that were are friends. These friends did not inform my answer here, which is just my opinion based on many sources.
BubbleShare was a Toronto tech darling started by the always brilliant Albert Lai. They were WAY ahead of their time.
All I'm comfortable sharing here is that they received buyout Offer A, which Albert rejected in favour of doubling down for a better deal. Unfortunately fortune did not smile and BubbleShare ultimately accepted Offer B, which was significantly smaller than Offer A.
The site was sold to Kaboose, which is a Canadian family content company. As usually happens when startups are acquired, the key talent left (Albert started Kontagent) and innovation on the site halted.
I'm not an analyst, but these things usually distill down to "too early / too early / too late". I'm not sure that people were ever lining up to pay them money to use the service, and that might give you pause before going down the same road. Many products are cool but aren't solving a problem causing paying customers real pain.
The push by Amazon into cloud services was very different from the business they were pursuing up to then. OK, so they were essentially just wringing some money out of all the infrastructure they already had in place but it was quite a radical change for an incumbent.
I suggest being as specific as possible. Seeking Sponsorship for [whatever]. Otherwise, it seems to comes off as an impersonal, mass-bcc'ed email, spammed to like a thousand email addresses.
You're still forced to create multiple stylesheets if you use CSS media queries. Although browsers that benefit most from media queries (e.g, Safari in iPhone) do support media queries.
What this covers, though, are small-monitor users (e.g. netbooks) who use browsers without CSS media query support (say, a netbook user using IE8).
It's terribly inaccurate, based on my experience. For the Feb 2011 (most recent available stat they have), they were wrong by -314%. They should make the fact that their service is inaccurate obvious; otherwise, they're misleading many people.
I only took basic stats courses in college, but I know enough to know that's nowhere close to a big enough sample size to be statistically significant.
"I only took basic stats courses in college, but I know enough to know that's nowhere close to a big enough sample size to be statistically significant."
I am not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.
The real problem isn't the small sample size (2 million is really large), it's probably that they're not representative.
> I only took basic stats courses in college, but I know enough to know that's nowhere close to a big enough sample size to be statistically significant.
Just like you can't get a statistically significant result about the 300 million Americans by phoning a few hundred people.
If that were a random sample you'd be completely wrong -- that's more than enough to get extremely accurate numbers.
What's more likely is that compete is based on a panel [1] [2], and the members of that panel tend not to include the type of people that read tech sites.
> What’s the advantage of [shape-type="1"] over .shape-type-1? In terms of CSS selector performance, classes are often faster than custom attributes, so I also don't know if there are any advantages in this particular use-case.