Interesting online viewing from Flash In The Can.

GMunk | Joshua Davis & Stephan Sagmeister | Ben Fry

Forms on the web are vulnerable and subject to malicious behavior. With the explosion of forums, wikis and blog comments, programs having been created to spam these useful communication mechanisms. Often these forms do not require any authentication. Users can simply complete the form and submit it to post their comments.

A newly popular technique for prohibiting malicious applications from submitting forms are CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart) Security Images. These are images created at runtime that have a random sequence of numbers and letters that are distorted so only humans can interpret them.

CAPTCHA image
 

There are several code examples and small libraries online that illustrate how to implement this feature, just Google. Here are a few:

ASP
http://www.tipstricks.org/

PHP
http://phpsec.org/articles/2005/text-captcha.html
http://www.evolt.org/securing_forms_random_image

ASP.NET
http://www.hotscripts.com/Detailed/43986.html
http://www.lanapsoft.com/products.html

While this is great for forms exposed to the public, many developers are also using them on login forms. I don’t understand this practice. One would think a properly implemented password would be sufficient. The image just complicates matters and some are barely legible by humans. I know Yahoo! displays them for subsequent attempts to submit an authorization form, but not on the first try. I guess that’s a compromise for usability’s sake.

The two most common ways to price interactive work are Fixed Price and Time & Materials. Each method has its pros and cons that greatly affect the buyer and seller of the services.

Fixed Price

Fixed Price is popular with ad agencies and communications firms doing interactive work. It’s how they have traditionally priced their services and is client friendly, because with Fixed Price the risk to produce the job, at the quoted price, lies with the seller. When pricing a project this way it is imperative that the project’s requirements are determined and the scope is tightly controlled. Any complications, rework, or excessive man-hours because of underestimating required time, unseen issues, or inexperience are the cost of the seller. The only time the price is usually renegotiated is when the requirements change, or the buyer requests a change of scope.

When calculating a Fixed Price estimate is it important to figure in contingencies for the unknowns and potential problems, in addition to a profit margin. Counting just man-hours usually means an unprofitable situation. There are several ways to include these cushions: applying a multiplier, padding hours, and adding a risk contingency cost based on project requirements are a few.

Time & Materials

Because of the difficulty of gathering requirements and establishing a detailed project scope, Time & Materials is how most IT companies price their services. This method puts the risk on the buyer to get the project completed within their budget and can be unfavorable in competitive environments, or unacceptable in RFPs. An estimate with a price range is usually proffered with the proposal/contract. Initial estimates can range in excess of +/- 25%. Most buyers like the price to be accurately estimated, but this arrangement is more flexible than Fixed Price. Additional estimates are often given as requirements become available, or as work is completed. Any changes are simply billed when they are incurred.

Do not mix the two methods. Real problems arise when a solid price is quoted in a proposal/contract that has been calculated using Time & Materials formulas. Even if you plan to bill using Time & Material costs, it rarely adds up and the initial price quote is all the buyer cares about.

Each method is effective when used appropriately. Rather than always pricing work the same way, let the market and project dictate which method is best.

The Photo District News Photo Annual offers work from some of the finest photographers in the biz today.

I’m working on several projects for a corporation to improve different processes centered on their web development efforts: better proposals, better cost estimating, better cost reporting, and standardization of workflows.

Each of these assignments is independent on one level, but also interrelated on another. Herein lies the rub. Every time I make progress, a meeting is required to communicate my findings – emails don’t get replied to; phone calls are out of the question; if it isn’t in Outlook it doesn’t exist. At every meeting a new caveat is introduced eradicating any realized progress.

Should Sue be involved? You need to double check that with Bill. That’s not how we do it. That won’t work. Isn’t that related to John’s initiative?

Maybe Sue should be involved but she is way too busy already. Bill didn’t reply to my emails and after three weeks I guess he doesn’t care. I know that’s not how you do it. Your way isn’t good. That’s why I’m suggesting a different approach. Let’s try it to see if it “won’t work”. Yes it is related to John’s initiative, but what’s the chance of accomplishing anything by getting more people involved?

All I hear is “We want change, but only if we don’t have to change or do anything”

Typical corporate grid lock. A small smart company tries things out, changes constantly, accepts failure, adjusts and moves on. There is a lesson here. By tackling issues one at a time, whether related or not, incremental change can happen and results realized much faster and painlessly than forming a committee, having umpteen meetings and waiting on everyone and their brother to weigh in. Assume the risk and go for it.

When I first got into web development I didn’t realize the difference between Interactive and IT disciplines. Perhaps it was naiveté, or perhaps they weren’t so well defined at that time. I thought building web sites was technical; anyway, it was the first time ad agencies employed programmers.

The Internet was born out of IT. So I guess hardcore ITers have a sense of ownership over it. But IT blew it. They could have kept the Internet for themselves and dominated the web market, but IT didn’t have what it takes to create web sites that effectively communicate and still doesn’t.

Along came Interactive born from ad agencies and communications firms. Interactive’s initial job was to convert traditional messages to the web, the new medium. Since that meager start, Interactive has grown into a full fledged discipline, pushing the web farther and faster than it ever would have gotten with IT alone.

My experience in an Interactive environment is much different than mine with an IT one. Interactive folks usually love the increased capability to do something cool technologically. Interactive designers are always fighting technology’s boundaries and good IT people help enlarge their sandbox. They like that, but they don’t like it when their work relies on an IT person to implement it and can’t execute it properly. In an Interactive environment, an IT person quickly learns about details. IT folks don’t seem to have any respect for Interactive. Graphics are not important when compared to functionality and a lowly script monkey can’t have a better approach than a “real” programmer that knows C++.

Interactive has grown up and there are very talented, intelligent programmers that do not have the IT mindset. The tools used in Interactive work have become powerful and complex. Interactive is encroaching on IT’s space, but IT hasn’t countered. They still can’t communicate well and can’t create good interfaces.

However, these two strange bed fellows need each other: art oriented Interactive and science based IT. A few companies have successfully merged the two, but that is a rare find. What strikes me as odd, today, at a time when the two disciplines are closer than ever before when it comes to level of skill; the two are no closer in how they are perceived in the corporate world. An example of this is how Human Resources Departments treat the two disciplines. A web developer from an Interactive shop does not compare well to a web developer from IT department of a large corporation even if they have the same skills. Job title and pay scales are often different. Another instance is many companies’ web departments are part of the marketing department. Why not the IT department? It seems IT is trying to keep Interactive people from crossing over into their world - competition I guess.

Good work is both technical and creative and a web site cannot succeed without either. It is information technology AND interactive. The sooner these two disciplines learn to play nicely the better off the industry is. After all, we’re all working for clients and share similar experiences.

I understand you’d like to make some changes to the design of your web site. It's certainly your prerogative to do so, but please allow me to provide some rationale and justification for the design and recommend the best way to make changes.

While planning the design, specific requirements were determined that dictated several aspects of the design: style, structure, features, and ease of maintenance to name a few. During the creative process these requirements were integrated into the design along with current designs trends, compatibility with existing collateral, and coexistence with the company logo. The designer and creative team also infused their vision and expert judgement into the design and the results are the culmination of several iterations of this process.

Once completed, a design has balance between individual elements and overall integrity. Any changes to these elements should be done to maintain this balance and integrity. The best way this is achieved is by using, through repetition and variation, the graphical lexicon already available from the design: colors, type choices, textures, lines, shapes and effects. Introduction of any new elements into this lexicon can easily upset the balance and weaken the integrity of the design.

You like the design, or at least you say you do. We like the design. It represents your company well in the market place. It stands up against current trends and styles and it meets the requirements. Before changing anything, we ask to go through the same process as initially done, letting those you trusted to create the site workout a solution that addresses the need for a change. Don’t just go with someone’s suggestions even though they may seem valid at first and the person is respected. Before making changes, the benefits of the changes should be fully considered and weighed against the potential impact and resulting expense.

This is how a brand uses the Internet effectively.

http://www.cpbgroup.com/awards/vwgtiintegrated.html

This guy is funny, clever and is using the web very effectively for his own betterment. Go ZeFrank!

This is the first thing I saw of his a couple years ago. Priceless.

I attended the St. Louis Web Developers monthly meeting last night. The topic was Ruby On Rails. As I’ve written before, I’m interested in RoR, for the huge productivity agains (5X-20X) and its simplicity. The complexity of ASP.NET, my primary programming technology, does not sit well with me for small projects and RoR may be the alternative I’m looking for.

The presenter compared the excitement over RoR to the Java revolution a decade ago, but as of yet this fledgling language and framework hasn’t eked out any enterprise market share. My biggest concern is resource availability. It’s difficult for me to justify building a site with this for a client. Then they can’t find anyone to work on it other than me. I advocate using technologies that are widely accepted for that reason. Another reason to be tentative is hosting options. It’s also easy to be seduced by how quickly one can generate a simple app performing CRUD operations, but what happens when requirements demand a piece of complex functionality and being new to the technology hinders one’s ability to predict difficulties ahead.

I guess I need to get a book and learn more. If I start using this language perhaps my comfort level will increase, and as demand rises, I may be ahead of the curve – not a bad place to be.

10-19-73 is the portofolio of my friend and designer Jason Kelley.

Great work, texture, type and photography.

I haven’t found many St. Louis ad folks using the web - not just on the web, but actually using it. Paul Macfarlane, of The 1101 Experiment, uses the web in his own unique fashion.  His site is different in its presentation - refreshing actually - and he has a diary too. 

Paul’s an interesting person. One wouldn’t expect someone like Paul to be in the ad biz, but Paul’s creative energy needs a venue. His work is outstanding. It always has an edge, makes a point and works on several levels. I’ve known him for quite a while and always wanted to work with him. A conversation with Paul is always a joy.

Paul has recorded some monologs with Act 3 Studios, a STL web shop, that are worth a listen. Act 3 is also using the web by specializing in audio and Podcasts under the moniker, Designing the Story.