August 20, 2004

• That's an option, but there's no guarantee that they'll take it. Especially with larger companies, it's hard enough for someone inside the company to do the right thing with all the differing requirements and politics that go on, much less someone who is completely outside. Of course, it might be an interesting sales and/or interviewing technique, but the people highlighted in the article are more trying to get a useful web site out of the process more than trying to get the company to change.
• True. But it also goes to show what can happen when a) companies refuse to outsource or b) someone in house is to egotistical to admit they haven't a clue. It would be so much cooler if people would simply put the idea out on the net for everyone to play with, then accept the best and pay the winner. True competitive marketplace.
• I think the commercialization of the Internet in the mid 90's really confused a lot of people, and it would seem that 10 years later there are still people out there who don't understand how copyright applies to web content. The Internet is not a content free-for-all and not only are there laws protecting copyrighted content on the web, it's not cool to take someone else's content and put it on your site. If you regularly need something from a poorly designed site, go ahead and make a tool that simplifies your own work, but keep your work with other people's content on the down low. Bald-faced content thievery can get you in trouble with lawyers, or worse, site admins that will lock you out of the site who's content you want. The idea of everything on the net being there for people to play with as they saw fit ended with the .com root name. Correcting the foolish design of some corporate web site is less clever than it is being a smart-ass akin to correcting a teacher mid-lecture.
• mexican, that seems a rather grim view. Now that I disagree that copyright laws apply to content on the web, but rather the opinion that people should not tinker with other peoples content in order to improve upon it. This idea of copyrighting an item such as a web page, or even an article, is rather new, and not necessarily the best way to go. Of course it is the current trend, but that doesn't mean one should accept it, and stop trying to work with other peoples materials. I find it a good idea to improve sites with poor designs, especially if those sites aren't even accessable to some users! And no, it is not clever. Being clever isn't the goal, or the motivation. It's about usefullness, being able to actually use a service that you and others need. This is a matter of him correcting the company, not out of snarkiness, but out of necessity. Did he brag to the company, did he ask for donations, is he going for fame?
• When it comes to commercial content, it's important to think of the content owner as a bully that can kick your ass. It's fine to be smarter than the bully. It's even OK to let your friend's know that your smarter than the bully. Just don't let the bully find out or they'll be waiting for you on your walk home. Also, people with marketable technical skills need to be more judicious about giving their work away. Contributing to some open source or otherwise community based project is excellent but fixing a broken commercial web site for free, and without being asked to do so, makes no sense. It only benefits the company and puts you in a compromising legal position.
• And in case anyone is wondering, yes, I'm back from my hiatus just to bring everybody down.
• How the Mozilla Firefox extension designed to overhaul the widely-disparaged All Music Guide site wasn't mentioned in the article is a mystery to me. It's the next step in hacking a poorly-designed website: just do it automatically and on-the-fly.
• I think Sandspider hit the nail on the head. It takes an amazing amount of time to get anything done to a corporate website run by committees - everyone with their own agenda and political issues. Especially when you have to explain fully issues such as validation and usability to people who still don't know how to use email. You've got to deal with ridiculous demands constantly and if you do want to change something then it has to be signed off by almost everyone slightly involved. A major site overhaul is a big deal. Especially when it wasn't done properly in the first place. But the people who have the decision making powers don't understand why it needs work.