Posts Tagged ‘opinions’

Overview of code editors

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

All said, here is another piece of observation. There is no such thing as a ‘perfect code editor’. They all tend to have their own advantages and also lack certain functionality which would be useful to have. At the end of the day, one needs to settle on a code editor and use the tool to the best of their ability in order to write good quality code consistently.

Free HTML editors

NetBeans IDE

NetBeans IDE took me by surprise as it is a very good IDE to use over and over again.

It’s light weight and work fast, offering very useful functionality of searching with files across the entire project, something that the notorious Dreamweaver was good for, but not worth using just for that.

NetBeans IDE offers syntax highlighting for CSS, PHP, JavaScript and HTML and nicely highlights errors within each language.

It’s my current editor of choice and I would not give it for the world.

NetBeans IDE is developed by Sun in Java and it is a really nice editor which I can envisage using for a very long time to come.

Being free and open source is also a very nice addition to the overall offering.

HTML-Kit

I have been using HTML-Kit for a long time now and it is by no means perfect, but it caters for the usual colour coding needs. It works fine with XHTML, CSS, JavaScript and PHP, which is a frequent mix of technologies I work with.

It also has an integrated FTP client which is nice for direct editing of files on a remote server, which is not an approach you want to take often, unless you are making quick tweaks to the content or simple changes. It works nicely on XP and Vista machines and is pretty fast.

The downside to it is the fact that it can be a bit messy with regards to indenting. It does not look particularly pleasing to the eye and it does not auto-complete code very well at all. It is suitable to those who do not like auto-complete (like me) and want a simple enough tool to do quick, high-quality work in it.

NotePad++

One of the biggest advantages of NotePad++ is that it doesn’t require installation – it runs off one small .exe file.

It is a nice editor, which handles HTML very well, but does not colour all types of code you are likely to work with.

I have also find this one to work slightly unreliably on Windows Vista machines (i.e. throwing up weird errors), which can be annoying.

Aptana

An editor much preferred by many interface developers for its auto-complete feature and the fact that it is a ‘sister’ of Eclipse, arguably one of those ‘industry standard’ editors liked by developers at Google and many big consultancies.

Aptana works pretty well on most machines and writing code in it is most of the time pretty nice experience.

It has AJAX library plug-ins which can help develop AJAX code faster. It handles code indentation pretty consistently and nicely and works very well for XHTML, CSS and Javascript.

It disadvantage is that its upgrades can cause constant hassles to developers as sometimes they do not work properly, so for every session you might find yourself having to ‘battle’ with an update that Aptana wants you to install, but it never can be done fully. Very annoying.

Apatana also does not work very well with PHP as it requires another extension for it (or another version of the tool). So it won’t colour PHP code nicely, which is annoying when you are intending to style up a Word Press blog or another system you might have developed using Code Igniter or PHP in general.

Eclipse

I find Eclipse to be a nice tool (sometimes more suitable than Aptana), but it is not one that was designed for HTML (hence it does not offer auto-completion – which can be perceived as an advantage by those who do not like auto-completion like myself).

Eclipse is nice and clean looking and tends to work pretty good. Also does not require installation so it can work nicely in those environments and circumstances where as a developer you do not have a permission to install a tool onto a machine you are developing on.

I have been in this circumstance many times before and Eclipse saved my life.

NotePad

Old, dirty and rudimentary, Notepad’s best feature is that it is featured on all Windows machines and it is simply there.

It can be a good tool for quick analysis of code problems and writing some quick proofs of concepts or testing a particular feature for cross-browser compatibility.

NotePad, of course, does not colour code, which is not usable for working on bigger and more complex projects, but for a long time I developed code using only NotePad and it is a tool which one can rely on to a great extent.

In some cases you will be asked to develop code in environment where you will not only be disallowed from installing tools on the machine you are working on, but also be disallowed from downloading new tools (like Eclipse).

You might find, in this case, that NotePad is the only option you have, hence it does no harm to be familiar with coding in it as well!

Blue Fish

Blue Fish code editor is available for Linux only, so if you are using Ubuntu or a similar Operating System, chances are you will settle onto using Blue Fish on that platform.

Blue Fish is similar to other editors and contains a feature like HTML Kit which allows the editor to be setup to directly edit files on an FTP server.

There’s no integration with SVN as far as I know like there is in Aptana (which is also available on Linux, but a bit tricky to install).

Blue Fish also allows changes to be made to the font faces which are used to display the code in, but you are likely to want to keep these to the most readable font face like in Aptana or HTML Kit.

Blue Fish is responsive and a good code editor and by far the best one I have come across on Ubuntu if you are looking for as close a development experience as on Windows while being on Linux.

VIM

Many people have spoken to me about VIM on Linux and it being a very versatile code editor.

However, I have attempted using VIM many times so far and have failed miserably at it.

The idea that a code editor required heavy training and reading in order for one to start using it really puts me off.

At the end of the day, the point of development is not to be learning to use the editor, but to develop great code.

Other HTML editors

Oxygen

I have heard from a few developers that Oxygen 8 (the last version I heard of) is a nice tool to work with.

It is an advanced tool which only costs $40 and offers nice tools and features for working with XSLT, XML and various transformation languages.

It allows you to create object oriented hierarchies of code and preview them in a usable manner. It also offers some useful transformation and testing features which make XSLT development much faster and more reliable.

XMLSpy

XMLSpy is a very good editor also, but much uglier than Oxygen and it is harder to use Oxygen’s features in it from what I have heard.

It is a nice and strict tool, which imposes development within UTF-8 character encoding and flags up all the XML non-compliance issues up front, forcing developer to be very precise and strict with their coding.

XMLSpy also is not a free tool, but it does not break the bank to buy of copy of it as I think it costs around the same amount as Oxygen.

Arguments for implementing semantic interfaces

Wednesday, May 28th, 2008

Further to arguments against semantics, there are also viable and strong value-adding arguments for semantics. These are:

Semantics give meaning to interfaces

This is by far the most important argument for semantics.

Using semantic mark-up on web pages gives web pages meaning!

Many web developers today still misunderstand the basic definition of semantics and can tend towards thinking that it is somehow about ‘the look of a page with style sheets turned off’, but, in fact, semantics are all about meaning of web pages.

The ‘meaning’ is important for both users (end users and developers of interfaces) as well as machines (which are just another form of users) such as search engine robots and (in future) various semantic interface harnessing tools and languages.

Semantics add value to interfaces

Semantics add value for all types of users.

Chances are not all users of a web site have a big screens, a mouse, a powerful PC, know what they are doing and see very well.

In fact, it is 100% certain that your web site has at least 1 very disabled user, but one that plays (perhaps) the most important role in your web site – Google search robot (also known as indexer).

Semantics aid usability and scalability

Properly developed semantic interfaces are very easy to scale up, re-style and re-organise (all positive and preferable features of any IT system).

Usability of semantic web sites is usually present both from end user perspective as well as from web site developer perspective.

Usability usually saves and earns more money. One example would be the fact that an easy to understand interface is easier for maintenance and upgrading, which saves developer time, which in turn saves money for an organisation.

As an example of usability feature presented by semantic interface would be ability to call a telephone number on a web page directly from Skype, if that telephone number has been marked up as a micro format.

One click and the end user is directly in a telephone conversation with your company’s sales department, generating business for your organisation.

Increases ROI by increasing findability and re-findability

One of the most important aspects of any web sites is that it needs to be findable and re-findable.

Semantic interfaces by their very nature and the fact that they are standards compliant tend to be naturally easier to find, analyse, understand and index for search robots.

The very fact that your interfaces are standards compliant tell search robots that you know what you are doing when it comes to web development and search engines tend to treat this factor very favourably.

In future it may be the case that only standards compliant web sites will be considered ‘valid’ solutions for showing up in search engine result pages.

The very fact that (for example) your e-commerce web site can be easily found will mean that you will obtain more visitors to your site, which ought to convert into more sales for your business.

This way, semantic interfaces become direct mechanisms through which ROI of a business can be increased, without implementing anything other than the standards which have been set out for us in order to make our lives simpler and faster, while increasing quality.

Semantics enable data sharing between applications

W3C standards are not enough in order to provide semantic interfaces.

Semantic interfaces are extensions to W3C standards and can provide much more meaning than just POSH (Plain Old Semantic HTML).

With emergence of de-facto standards like micro formats, it has become possible to ‘share’ data from one site with another site without much problems.

RSS feeds are also there to aid similar functionality, but micro formats create ‘interfaces as APIs’, meaning that any machine from anywhere could harvest useful data from your web site (such as your product offers) and make it available in the relevant section of their web site.

Excellent example is Google’s shopping section, which data mines product offers from various web sites on the web and then offers a comparison functionality to enable users of Google search engine to find the best deals across the web and shop from the related web sites.

Semantic interfaces can directly enable this type of functionality and is the reason why web sites like Amazon and Argos are the two most popular e-commerce web sites in UK.

Semantics enable leveraging of social networks

Apart from becoming more meaningful, the web is becoming more ‘personal’ and catered towards group of people with similar interests.

Social networks play a key role in creating these on-line communities and semantic mark-up is, once again, at the heart of enabling development and utilisation of meaningful social networks that work.

Micro formats, RSS and Atom feeds as well as RDF are just some of the examples of technologies which are making this functionality possible.

Less error prone interfaces

For a long time now I have believed in creating web sites without using browser specific hacks.

My latest development of Flexewebs CMS is a good example of how a nice web site can be created using valid (in this case XHTML1.0 Strict) HTML code and simple CSS rules in order to create a scalable and cross browser fast performing interface without any hacks.

Using XHTML1.0 Strict with W3C standards compliant mark up has always made my development life easier and created interfaces which are much easier to control using the usual development tools we have available to ourselves.

More ‘meaningful’ interfaces

Semantic interfaces are also able to communicate a corporate message in a much more meaningful manner than non-semantic interfaces.

Sharing your company’s contact details (for example) using micro formats is a much better approach than doing it in a proprietary, non-standard manner which cannot be easily found by various directories and search engines.

Arguments against semantic interfaces

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

In our day-to-day work on creating good quality web interfaces, we inevitably come across various arguments against using semantic and proper markup in order to develop interfaces. Some of these arguments may be one or more of the following:

Semantic interfaces will not make more money for the organisation

There are many companies out there that do not know what semantics are all about. After all semantics are only now being taught at Universities.

From that lack of understanding stems the lack of belief that semantic interfaces will add more value to business and therefore make more money for the organisation.

It could be almost impossible bringing a client up-to-date with what is currently going on with Internet and where it is all heading towards.

Usually one of the best ways to show someone value of semantics is to demonstrate a working example of where they have made a difference, but often this does not work as clients can be sceptical about whether the same or similar approach would work for their business.

Semantics may only benefit Google and Yahoo

Some companies who are a little more insightful about web technologies, various activities taking place between various ‘big players’ (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) may say that adding semantics to web pages is all about helping various data mining technologies do a quicker and better job of ‘stealing’ data from various web sites and storing them in a very structured way into their own databases.

Later on, these big players will (one way or another) be making money through re-representing that data to their users in a way which, in the long term, may take users away from the initial web site where the data originated from.

This argument could potentially prove to be a very good one, but let’s wait and see what happens in the future.

An example here would be the situation of what happened with Google News, where many publishers were annoyed by the fact that their content was being harvested by Google to show a list of latest news headlines.

Publishers of news were annoyed about the fact that Google was comapring their content with competing newspapers’ content, as well as potentially stealing their advertising revenue, based on material which the newspapers wrote themselves in the first place.

Semantics are a (very) (fast) moving target

One day a micro format may look one way – another day it may change. Some clients may perceive things to be moving forward very fast, but in reality we all know this is not really the case.

If anything, things are moving too slowly forward (look at what happened with HTML5 vs. XHTML2.0 situation).

Clients may feel that constant changes which affect web user interfaces mean that ‘waiting for later’ in order to implement new features is a good idea. In reality this often proves to be a matter which loses the given company a competitive advantage.

Semantics are not really a standard

Semantics are at best a ‘tribally’ accepted set of ‘common practices’ and semantic developers disagree heavily amongst each other about what really constitutes proper semantic interfaces.

There is no be-all and end-all document which outlines all the possible situations which web developers could find themselves in from project to project. What should standard implementations then be?!

Yahoo may come up with some common patterns to use when developing for web, but may of these patterns in practice show to be an overkill or not fitting the purposes for whatever reason. Yahoo’s patterns are often suitable for ‘mega-sites’ like Yahoo itself, but not necessarily for smaller and medium sites.

Many companies simply do not care about semantics on their web sites

For most companies the age old approach of ‘just get it done’ still rules the business.

Nike made billions out of it by rephrasing that into ‘Just do it’, but in IT domain this approach is incredibly dangerous and creates solutions which are virtually impossible to maintain even in the short term and take many times longer to develop in the first place, with many more people than really needed.

This is arguably one of the biggest problems web developers may come across today when trying to implement proper solutions.

Bottom line is that clients care about money and time and web developers (wrongly) jump to conclusions that implementing semantic and standards compliant solutions will take more money and more time for the client. In fact, in practice it ought to take less time and money! All it requires is a an appropriate enough approach.

Current situation and value of semantics

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

Just like anything in life, semantics, and their impact, can be evaluated within a business and it is possible to work out whether they are ‘worth it’ in terms of implementation.

They will be worth it if they add more value than they consume in order to develop.

I suppose one of the most ‘expensive’ matters in semantic interfaces can be obtaining a bad quality ‘semantic’ web site solution, which does not meet standards, expectations and it’s purpose.

I would estimate that within Greater London, United Kingdom, there exist around 1000 active truly semantic web developers, most of which are constantly tied up in roles working on various big web sites.

The question is then: ‘what do companies which do not have access to these developers do in order to create proper semantic interfaces?’. The answer is: ‘they obtain solutions which do not really comply with proper guidelines’.

Reality of life seems to be that most developers are either incapable of learning semantics properly, or simply do not care about semantics.

Both circumstances are bad for companies which are looking to obtain good quality, semantic solutions in order to reap the rewards Web 2.0 can bring to them.

It is also true that companies impose unrealistic deadlines on development of semantic interfaces, which are either impossible to meet or can only be met partially.

This is counter productive for everyone, as it creates a culture of ‘not caring’ amongst developers, while companies tend to blame developers for being incapable of creating solutions which work.

I am also acutely aware of the fact that search engines are valuing semantic features on interfaces much more than before and are awarding those solutions which are easily recognised by automated tools as containing set pieces of data (such as contact details, addresses, Geo locations, events, etc.)

Many companies also struggle with implementing pixel perfect cross browser solutions, spending many hours on them, while overlooking much more important semantic related factors of their interfaces.

SEO consultancy is implemented at the very end of the process, as opposed to from the very start.

SEO unaware developers work on creating solutions for which they believe are correct and will get well optimised, something that usually results in no Google rank whatsoever, as putting an h1 around logo is seen as ‘good practice’ as ‘logo is the most important aspect of every page’, which is, of course, so blatantly not true that it is arguably not even worth discussing.