Tagged ‘technology’

Where did all the cowgirls go?

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

I recently read a blog post by Clay Shirky about the difference between how women talk about their own abilities versus men. He wishes that more women would stand up and exert their influence because women are just as talented, smart and capable as their more effusive male colleagues. I wish for this, too.

In fact, many other women wish for this as well. COO of Facebook Sheryl Sandberg has given many a talk aimed at women. She says that women should take a seat at the table and not count themselves out by default because they want to have a family. Sheryl is living proof that it is possible to maintain a family and still be successful; and she acknowledges the challenges that come with that.

However, she also touches upon the big elephant in the room that many who talk about the disparities between men and women fail to acknowledge. A man who goes for the gold is assertive. A woman who does the same is off-putting at best, and at worst simply labeled a "bitch." Often when I say this, people roll their eyes; Sheryl present a famous Harvard Business school study that proves this is not simply "women getting easily offended" or "being emotional" (which, by the way, is another topic for another day).

It's an issue that permeates regardless of industry. In politics, Hilary Clinton was often given that label. Her wardrobe of pants suits and "attack dog" stance during her campaign gave her a harsh exterior in the public eye to both women and men. Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live commented on the whole thing and turned it into a positive with the saying "Bitches get shit done."

I love that sketch because I sympathize. I am good at my job. I get things done. If that wasn't true, I wouldn't now be earning nearly triple what I was offered upon graduation in 2006 (in a "bad economy", to boot!). However, as a result of my focus on process, keeping on schedule, and GSD (getting shit done), I am sure that there are many colleagues, past and present, who think I'm a bitch. In fact, I can name them (and there are, unfortunately, women among them).

And the truth of the matter is, I'm not a difficult person to work with. Despite going to school for Computer Science, I'm self-taught at a lot of things, lousy at some others and definitely still have quite a bit to learn. This invigorates me to learn more but also terrifies me at the same time; being in technology, I sometimes feel the need to know everything and be on the cutting edge. This isn't necessarily true, but motivates me to keep on my toes and at the very least stay relevant in a few things (and, given current trends, looks like my decision not to dive head first into Flash development wasn't so bad after all).

But the point of writing this wasn't to brag about myself. The point is that yes, women need to step up to the plate more to brag and take credit — myself included. Often times, we shy away or defer to others when we know what the right answer is. This is a problem of self-doubt and wavering self-esteem that perhaps everyone has at times but tends to be more evident among women. However, the flip side of that is let's call a spade a spade. When a woman steps up, do we encourage it? Or do we add to this doubt — do we doubt her abilities because of predisposed notions?

A lot of people don't like to hear the "as a woman, it's hard out there…" speech, but it is. I can only speak from personal experience here so I will tell a short story that I think illustrates the point. I remember looking for internships while I was in college. I didn't have a ton of relevant experience but I had done freelance web design/development for some local bands while in high school and could show some of that work if necessary. In addition, my part-time work study job was helping out at a public school in Brooklyn where I become the defacto computer expert as I refurbished and networked together old Macs and Windows PCs that were previously merely taking up space in the back of the fourth grade classroom. So, while I didn't have a lot of experience on paper, I felt pretty confident I could land a crappy internship at a record label for $8 per hour (and most likely consist of lame administrative work).

I went to the interview in midtown Manhattan. The office building was not glamorous (this was a small, indie label that worked on re-releases of older records) and the office itself was pretty rundown. I was introduced to several men in the office. They were all men. I made a note of the fact that I did not see a single woman in their office. I spoke with the man who interviewed me and explained my skills and background. He nodded and didn't seem impressed; I was unable to really tell if he was unimpressed or if it was just a really good poker face. After I finished my talk, he asked me if I would be willing to take a typing test.

"A typing test?" I responded.

He said, "Yeah, we hired a girl before that couldn't type so we just want to make sure whoever we hire can type."

I made a mental note of the fact that he said they hired a "girl" before. I put two and two together but typed out a stupid sentence from the cover of an LP anyway. When I left the interview, I knew, without a doubt, that I would not be offered the position because I was a woman.

Since then, I've seen the "boys clubs" at certain offices. I've seen the quizzical looks or passive aggressive emails when I've (correctly, I might add) critiqued a colleague's work. Today, in fact, I received an email that did just that. I don't think the email would have been as questioning if I were a male colleague. Perhaps I'm thinking into this too much, but perhaps I'm not.

Before I am crucified, I have to say that the majority of the men I have worked with have not been like this. The majority have been great and accepting of a lady on their team. To my credit, I like sports which greatly improves my ability to relate. My personal theory (because I took Psychology 101 does not mean this is truth so please take it with a grain of salt) is that the gender roles we grow up with have a great bearing on how we interact with folks of the opposite sex. As soon as you take a car out of a girl's hand and put it in a boy's hand, you've implicitly created an impact on the capabilities of each.

While that may be hard to break, it certainly is not impossible to educate better on the implicit sexism that comes across more often than we care to admit in our interactions at work. However, this means that leveling the playing field is not so simple. Per Clay Shirky's post, this is also a rant with no immediate answer. My hope is I've illuminated some issues that can start discussions in favor of a positive, more inclusive future.

Why The Beatles on iTunes is Important

Tuesday, November 16th, 2010

Yesterday, Apple (Apple Computer, the company behind my beloved iPhone) changed their homepage to read that on Tuesday November 16th, a big announcement was coming from iTunes.  Over the years, Apple has made lots of big announcements but usually they are pretty easy to forecast.  For example, around "back to school" season, Apple usually has a music event where they'll release new iPods and refresh iTunes software.  This big announcement, in the middle of November, was not really in keeping with Apple's usual release cycle.  My first thought: The Beatles must be coming to iTunes.

The Beatles on iTunes

Screenshot of Apple.com announcement of Beatles on iTunes

And turns out, I was correct!  The Apple.com homepage changed to reveal that The Beatles have officially come to iTunes.  The new content available for purchase on iTunes now includes the fab four's 13 studio albums as well as video content (concerts, commercials, and etc).  As a big Beatles fan, I'm really happy to see their catalog added to iTunes; but truthfully, it's far more important than just making me happy.  A lot of folks on the internet (well, in my twitter-verse at least) are making noise about being somewhat disappointed by this announcement.  It's actually a really big deal for The Beatles' members and their estates, as well as a big deal for Apple Computer.  However, it's a much bigger deal for music history.

You see, right now, we live in an era where folks don't discover music through the radio.  Radio is mostly dead as I knew and loved it.  Kids today are discovering music through advertising and placement on television.  I can't tell you how often I've heard, "the song from Glee" instead of "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey.  Clearly, people are learning about music in new ways.  The Beatles, in order to maintain their legacy, need to adapt and be available in these new outlets.  I'm glad they finally have.  The Beatles Rock Band game exposed tons of people to their music.  Now, their catalog on iTunes will expose more of the younger generation to their music.

This deal sets a precedent.  That at the end of the day, old media MUST adapt if they want to continue to have some relevancy.  Times change and, if you don't want to be forgotten (and make some extra money, to boot), you need to change too.

Inspiration: Light Painting with iPad

Tuesday, September 14th, 2010

This video demonstrates the awesome things you can do when you put together 3d models, iPad and a camera.  Prepare to have your mind blown (thanks to PetaPixel for the find).

Making Future Magic: iPad light painting from Dentsu London on Vimeo.

Apple's New Releases

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

As everyone in the tech world expected, Apple's music-focused September event today resulted in the announcement of a few new products.

(photo from Apple.com)

The iPod product line received an update, but that was to be expected.  While some expected this to be the death knell of the classic iPod, it seems that the classic is safe — for the forseeable future.  The iPod Touch now sports the awesome FaceTime so, as long as you have WiFi, you can do video chatting with friends on iPhones.  I'm hoping this means that FaceTime will soon be integrated into OS X, but only time will tell on that one.  Meanwhile, the iPod Nano was updated to be much, much smaller than the previous version.  It's downright sexy.  Although, it is somewhat surprising that Apple decided to abandon the camera feature that was available on the previous line of Nanos.  It seems like video recording is reserved for the Touch and the iPhone (which logically makes sense, I suppose, since they have more room to store the resulting video anyway).

Probably most notable, however, is the update to the Apple TV.  Originally, when I'd heard of Apple TV, I wasn't incredibly impressed.  Then Netflix Instant happened and I realized that having access to video from my couch was absolutely essential (especially when trying to catch up on LOST prior to the series finale).  Apple has lowered the price of the Apple TV to make it more attractive to the home theater set (who have already spent way too much money on the TV, Blu-Ray, surround sound, etc).  Their price point for television show rentals (99 cents) certainly will also help drive adoption.  However, in order to really get folks on the bandwagon, Apple will need to get more networks and studios on board.  I think it would be a great thing for premium networks with original programming to get on board with.  It makes a lot of sense for original programming that is timely.  I know I HATE seeing my Twitter feed after I've missed an episode of Mad Men because everyone is talking about it (or, should I say, tweeting about it).  If I had the opportunity to rent the episode at my leisure for 99 cents, I think I might.  And for Apple, it's a great opportunity to provide more targeted iAds once they figure out your viewing habits.

Finally, the last item of note (at least to me) is the fact that they will be releasing a new version of iTunes.  This new version of iTunes will include a social aspect by which you can see what your friends are listening to (and discover purchase-able music this way).  And lastly, this new version of iTunes is going to have a new icon because the idea of the physical CD is so passe to Apple (and their digital sales have outperformed CD sales).  And now I feel old.

Photoshop v. Illustrator (or: who cares?)

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of chatter about which tools web professionals should use and why. I'd like to begin by saying that I've never been one to drone on about tools. My perspective is you need to choose the right tool for the job. How do you ascertain which tool is the right one? The right tool is the one that does the job.

Let's take an example from the painting world: Bob Ross. I remember being a small kid, watching Bob Ross create beautiful paintings on PBS. Later, I re-watched those programs and found that he was not using a fancy set of expensive brushes. But rather, he was using a standard painter's brush — something most people own or can easily and cheaply find at their local hardware store. In 30 minutes at a time, using a big bushy brush, he created some pretty great work and a following of folks who suddenly realized that painting was accessible to them.

So back to tech, web designers have been offered various tools to create designs. Back when I was really young, there was Paint Shop Pro. Then there was this better more comprehensive program called Photoshop by Adobe. But wait, there was also Fireworks by Macromedia (which gained some speed because there was this new player on the block called Flash that everyone was starting to become familiar with). Later, Adobe gobbled up Macromedia and the debate has shifted to which Adobe program is better for web designers to use: Photoshop or Illustrator? (Sorry, Linux users, no one talks about The Gimp, although it should be addressed that the open source option exists and can be a viable option as well.)

My thought on this matter is: who cares? As a designer of websites (but more so a developer at heart), I know first hand that neither Photoshop or Illustrator will actually give you a good idea of what a website will look like. The fonts won't render exactly the same as in Photoshop or Illustrator (certainly not in every browser), images will need to be optimized for load, containers will shrink and stretch to accommodate the content. And at the end of the day, the experience (design/functionality) needs to be in synergy with the content. In fact, this is why you'll see so many things launch in beta. User flows, wireframes and design mockups can only take you so far.

I just read an article today that I really agree with from a firm that chooses not to send clients PSDs as the final deliverable, but instead a coded page or two. It sort of informs this idea. The idea that Photoshop or Illustrator is better or worse isn't the point. Your PSD (or for Illustrator fanatics, AI file) is a concept. The HTML coded from that is the proof of concept. Proof that this concept can be executed on the web in a semantic way; works with whatever content management system the client uses; serves all the business needs (good SEO, functional in a mobile environment, etc).

As such, I feel that web designers should not feel the need to choose between children (Photoshop and Illustrator serve a lot of different needs; pick the tool that serves yours). When really, what makes a designer really GREAT is the attention to this proof of concept. The real tools needed are in your head: have some familiarity with HTML; enough to say, yes, what I'm designing can be built. Also, have some familiarity with the concept of content management systems. Realize that just because it can be built as a freestanding HTML document doesn't mean it will work in a land of templates (as CMS-es often are). Finally, be understanding of limitations. And realize that limitations are going to vary depending on the environment you are working in, business needs, the target user of the website (as this user will inform user interface design choices) and etc.

Where is Netflix for my iPhone?

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

Small Dog Electronics reports on the mysterious disappearance of the Netflix app for iPhone on their employee blog.  I was just thinking about this the other day.  Anthony (my boyfriend) has an iPad and we were using the Netflix app on it a few nights ago.  I thought the experience was very cool and wanted to explore it on my iPhone.  However, when I went to find it in the App Store on my iPhone, I was surprised to find it wasn't there (see update below).

Small Dog's estimation, that AT&T can't handle the enormity of people that would then stream Netflix over their 3G network if the app was released to iPhone, sounds about right.  While I'm incredibly happy with my iPhone, I do feel that the 3G service is very slow and inconsistent.  For me, going from no data plan to paying $25 extra per month for one, it feels a bit like a rip off.  However, for better or for worse, they've got me.  While Sprint has excellent 4G, their voice service has been lack luster (in my past experiences with them — to be fair, this was seven years ago — I found lots of dead zones in the middle of Manhattan).  And I could jailbreak my iPhone and go to T-Mobile, but their service outside of the city pales in comparison to AT&T.  Verizon, while iPhone-less, is also a bit more expensive than AT&T.

I do hope that AT&T will improve its 3G service (and eventually add 4G capability) so that I can say that I am with AT&T because they are the best provider for me (and not because everyone else is deficient in some way).  Despite the issues with 3G slowness, their customer service is amazing.  I've had nothing but positive experiences with their phone reps (especially when LetsTalk.com was trying to rip me off and AT&T (formerly Cingular) intervened — but that's a long story for another day).

UPDATE as of August 31st: The Netflix app for iPhone was released just a few days after this was originally posted. I gave it a quick test this morning and watched the first 10 minutes of the September Issue during my morning commute. On the MetroNorth, I nearly always find "deadzones" and areas where my 3G reception most certainly plummets. However, despite a few hiccups, the experience was mostly smooth. Would I watch a whole movie over 3G? Probably not, especially since I'm limited to 2GB of data transfer per month. However, would I consider leaving my laptop at home when I go off on a trip and rely on my iPhone for Wifi entertainment/email access? Maybe.

It's Here! It's Here!

Saturday, August 7th, 2010

For my birthday this year, I decided to gift myself a brand new iPhone 4.

My new iPhone 4

Oooh ahhh, a shiny new toy.

I have to say, when the iPhone first came on the scene, I was impressed — but not impressed enough to purchase one.  Sure, I liked the combination of a music player and a phone.  Sometimes, but not often times, I've been known to go jogging and it is really inconvenient to carry both a phone (for safety) and my iPod (for motivation).  Having those two items in one was something I found super neat, but then again, I always thought to myself: how often do I go jogging?  Unfortunately, I don't really go as often as I like and when I do go, I'm usually with my sister who satisfies my safety and motivation requirements.

I also always liked the sleek but intuitive user interface.  I've had so many cellphones (from Samsung flip phones of old to the once chic Motorola Razr to the utilitarian Blackberry Pearl) and none of them have been as simple to use as the iPhone.  The menu and option language, from a user interface perspective, seems to be something cellphone manufacturers always overlooked.  Instead, they were focused on putting larger, color screens and better cameras on their phones while making the phones smaller, thinner and lighter.  Little did they know that a larger phone that "just works" means more to most people.

But the thing that always turned me away from the iPhone was the keyboard.  I like buttons.  Maybe this isn't something I should admit, but I'm a very big fan of typing on clickety-clackety keyboards perhaps for this reason.  I like the feel of nice, ergonomic, well-designed buttons.  I also like buttons for the sheer ease of use.  I don't necessarily have to look at the phone to find the letters I need.  Or maybe, I can use one hand to send a message while walking down the street while simultaneously digging through my purse for my Metrocard.  Buttons make multitasking somewhat easier, sometimes.

So what made me decide that I could live with an iPhone?  And why now?  There are quite a few reasons.  The first reason has to do with productivity.  I'm on the go a lot more than I ever anticipated.  Sure, I have a normal 9am to 5pm job, but I often have after work plans and extensive weekend plans.  Right now, I'm helping produce/shoot my boyfriend Anthony's feature film.  And I'm working on various personal projects.  I'd also like to spend more time with my friends.  Having a device that could sync with my Google calendar so I can keep track of everything going on was a major motivator.  Also, not having to text Google to find out the weather (or sports scores) while I'm on the go is a nice bonus.

The second reason has to do with my career.  I'm primarily a web developer.  In theory, I'm supposed to eat, sleep and breathe technology (in reality, I love good, useful tech and of course, I love me a good gadget and will probably write more about that now that I've re-launched this blog).  Having an iPhone and experiencing first hand all the apps that folks are talking about will keep my finger a little bit closer to the pulse.  Also, I'd like to make sure the websites I develop will function on iDevices (read: iPhone and iPad) so it would be good to have one for testing.  Lastly, I wouldn't mind learning to develop for the iPhone and have a book on iPhone development.  Eventually, I'd like to launch one of my personal web projects with an iPhone app.

The last reason for me wanting an iPhone (and particularly the iPhone 4) was Facetime.  That commercial (Directed by Sam Mendes, no less!  With a song by Louis Armstrong in the background) gets me every. single. time.

Seriously, this commercial works — makes me tear up, feel all warm and fuzzy inside and all that.  Not that I'll use Facetime regularly (I don't really travel as much for work as I used to) but it's definitely a breakthrough as far as video chat goes. I expect that, eventually, we'll be able to iPhone 4 to Macbook (or other webcam) video chat using Facetime or perhaps Skype. The prospect of being able to connect (and not in the ChatRoulette way…) is pretty inspiring and I wanted to be a part of that.

It's been about a week so far and I have to say, I'm really loving the phone.  It's actually a great phone (like, to actually make and receive calls!).  Although, I use the headset for long phone calls to avoid scratching the pretty, pretty screen with my earrings.  I'm still discovering my way around the keyboard (that's going to take a WHILE to get over) but I'm also discovering a lot of cool apps that make my life a ton easier.  As for the camera, I don't understand what the fuss is about.  The camera is leaps and bounds better than the camera on my Motorola Razr or my Blackberry, for that matter, but it is still not a replacement for your digital SLR.  I still have yet to take a real video on the phone, but I'll report back soon with my findings on those capabilities and the quality of the HD footage.