Via Zeldman, the second article from A List Apart for today: Slash Forward (Some URLs are better than others). This is one of the most concise articles I've seen about the issue. I've written about URL design before, and some of the articles I linked to there are still worth reading. This article's main points are:

1. Use trailing slashes for directories:
It's less work for the server, so your pages will load faster, and besides, it's the correct way to do it.
2. Don't use extensions after your file names:
If you ever change technologies, your URLs may have to change (from .html, .shtml, .php, .asp, .cfm, .jsp, etc.) and that will break your links. It's better to have a directory for every file. It's a little more of a pain to administer, but it's worth it for the permanence.

I didn't obey the second rule when I created my website, but I'm slowly transitioning my pages. Always remember, URL design is very much an aspect of interface design.

Permalink | Comments? | id 1470

18:09 (utc-5)

 

Another link from Dane Carlson today. A List Apart: How to Write a Better Weblog, by Dennis Mahoney.

"Some people are new to weblogging. Others want to raise the bar. In the end, everybody wants better sites, and some of these suggestions might help. The bulk of this advice focuses on writing, which is generally at the heart of weblogs. All of them are obvious yet often ignored, to the detriment of both the readers and the writers."

Permalink | Comments? | id 1469

17:41 (utc-5)

 

As I was looking for stuff on the Olympics tonight running up the list on Weblogs.com, I saw stuff about Trillian a few times. I've never heard of it before!

Permalink | Comments? | id 1468

03:31 (utc-5)

 

From New Scientist, info about the United Devices cancer project which turned to fighting anthrax. "A screensaver designed to find promising new drugs for treating anthrax has hit paydirt in just four weeks... "We managed to search the complete dataset in just four weeks instead of years," says Karl Harrison, an IT expert in Oxford's department of chemistry. "Having that big set to start with means we've come up with drug compounds that the pharmaceutical companies would never have thought of," he says."

Though "not everyone in the screensaver user community is happy. That is because 1.2 million of the 1.35 million people who ran the screensaver actually downloaded a program that seeks useful drugs for treating cancer... Some downloaders have been offended by the way their PC was harnessed for use in a project that they did not sanction. Some, who have written to New Scientist expressing their anger, say cancer is a far bigger killer than anthrax, and they wanted their software to continue working on cancer. They were particularly upset that they were not told of the switch over four weeks ago from crunching cancer data to anthrax."

I was definitely one of those people who got angry because of the switch.

Permalink | Comments? | id 1467

03:13 (utc-5)

 

Oh great, they have a female "Terminatrix" for Terminator 3. I can't imagine it not looking silly having a girl throwing Arnold Schwarzenegger around.

Now, not only is Linda Hamilton not coming back, but neither is Eddie Furlong (John Connor): ""T3" picks up the story a decade after the sequel, when a twentysomething John Connor reteams with his cyborg protector to battle the TX. Edward Furlong, who played John Connor in "Judgment Day," will not reprise his role." Not only that, but it turns out James Cameron isn't directing this one either!!! Instead it's some guy named Jonathan Mostow. This is news to me since the last time I mentioned T3.

This movie is really going to suck. I've always used the Terminator movies as a rare shining example of where a sequel can actually improve on the original. This is totally going to ruin that.

More about Kristanna Loken, the new "Terminatrix"... of course, the robots of the future just had to design a beautiful female cyborg this time to kill John Connor. Also, note that in the Google category, there are now only 8 links, and about 2 of them are broken... wait 'til this news gets out... it'll be fun to revisit this and see how many there are in a year or two.

Permalink | Comments? | id 1466

02:35 (utc-5)
edited: 03:06 (utc-5)

 

Sarah Hughes wins Gold! I have to get a good picture to put here

Whoa, maybe this is the subliminal reason why I dig Hughes?

BlahBlahBlog: "OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD!!! I'm screaming right along with Sarah Hughes! OH MY GOD!!! She won the GOLD!!! She won! She won! I can't believe it! And she so deserved it!"

And the person who left this comment on her blog was right! "The video footage they had of Sarah at the end when she was a toddler saying she wanted a gold medal was just priceless!"

Here's a news report, and this is a hell of a picture. Here are some sites about Hughes, and check out Yahoo's slideshow with tons of great pictures.

Permalink | Comments? | id 1465

02:29 (utc-5)
edited: 03:42 (utc-5)

 

I have to make a note about using "#" as the target for links when all you want out of the link is an anchor for your onClick event. I just linked to Dane Carlson, who has little arrows you can click on which pop up Radio's new comments feature.

That little arrow uses a "#" as the target of the link... why? You're supposed to use javascript:void(0) for these things. This has been known forever, but no one uses it... just like label tags have worked in IE forever, but no one uses them either...

I have to look though some old e-mail, but hopefully I'll post a justification for using javascript:void(0) here later. There are many reasons why this is better.

By the way, check out the JavaScript FAQ Knowledge Base from irt.org.

Ok, I found that old e-mail. Check out the void operator documentation from Netscape. Using some variant of javascript:void(0) is what they recommend: "You can use the void operator to specify an expression as a hypertext link. The expression is evaluated but is not loaded in place of the current document."

The main reason not to use the anchor "#" as a location is that it actually changes the URL you're browsing. It creates an extra location to go through in the history (so when you click back it looks like nothing happens), and most jarring is that it'll bump you up to the top of a web page.

Dane Carlson sent me an e-mail saying he knows about the problem, and that it's actually hardcoded that way into Radio so he can't help it. I didn't know that. Also, he referred me to this from Kottke.org: A short guide to doing JavaScript pop-up windows properly. I didn't even know about the best way to do it. Thanks Dane, Jason, and Milo

Dane also sent an e-mail to Dave Winer telling him about this. It'll be interesting to see if Dave acts on it.

Permalink | Comments? | id 1464

02:27 (utc-5)
edited: 17:28 (utc-5)

 

Via Dane Carlson, from Rush (I love Rush... brilliant man), Who's the Rhodes Scholar???

"As you look at this striking comparison, keep in mind that we're told that one of these two people is a brilliant Rhodes Scholar - even though he never completed the course of studies. Keep in mind that we're told that one guy is smarter than the rest of the room, and that we were fortunate just to have had somebody with this intellect leading us."

Permalink | Comments? | id 1463

02:15 (utc-5)