Results matching “amazon.com” from Ye Olde Rad Blog III

Created a dedicated 'Guides' page. See here » Radified Guides. Been meaning to do that for .. eons. This will allow me to off-load the guides listed here on the home-page, so I can clean it up.

I indented & right-aligned every other link .. to make them easier to read. What do you think? When the links were all lined-up together & left-aligned, they seemed too .. similar.

Eventually I'd like to include a representative graphic for each guide/link. But for now, I just wanted to create a page that contains a repository of the links to all our guides.

On a related note, I've been looking more deeply into MODx, the Content Management System (CMS). They are fixin' to release a new version (complete-rewrite, from the ground up, based on PHP5) .. called » REVOLUTION. (Current version is called » EVOLUTION.)

Drupal would be cool, but it's way too sophisticated for what I need. I don't want/need a PhD in CMS's. Here's a MODx site, for example. (I used to live in Lancaster, PA .. the heart of Amish country. Nice people there.)

I'd like to become intimately familiar with a good CMS .. as another skill to add to my digital toolkit. Only way to do that is » use one daily.

The good people at MODx claim a 'Release Candidate' version of REVOLUTION will be coming » "Winter 2009" (.. which is now). [ Notice how the words 'Summer 2009' have been lined-out. ] UPDATE » They just changed the RC date to "Spring 2010". Hmmm.

The MODx site is running REVOLUTION. I'm in no hurry, tho. Rather make a good decision than a hasty one.

The 101st annual Newport Beach Christmas Boat Parade began Wednesday. It goes on every night in Newport Harbor (from 6:30 to 9PM) 'til Sunday, which is the grand finale. Saturday will probably see max crowds. We went last night (Thursday) and the island was hoppin'. Electric.

The boats are colorful and fun to watch. Sure. But the best part of the boat parade is simply being out among the festivities .. with a big crowd of Orange County people, who are all in a festive mood .. exuding the Christmas spirit. (And it's all free.)

All the houses on the island are decorated to the hilt. (One guy told me his electric bill was $600/month. His meter was spinning like a dang gyro.)

Some years the weather is freezing (by Southern California standards), being on the water, but last night it was downright balmy. We saw at least two brass bands, complete with tuba, playing your favorite Christmas songs.

The Bug brought along his scooter (razor), which worked well for getting around. We started on Balboa Island and rode the ferry across to the peninsula, where we played in the fun zone for a while. (I let him beat me at air hockey, 7-to-5, and then shoot a gun in a stand-up video game, where he blasted lots of villians.)

Of course we had to get some hot buttered popcorn, and after that, a light-saber from a sidewalk vendor, who pushed a dazzling cart surrounded by eager kids. What a great time we had.

One of the most satisfying experiences a technoluster can have is becoming proficient with a new technology, especially one that's not easy to master. Geeks sometimes use the word » GROK, which basically means you 'get it'.

The term was coined by Robert Heinlein in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land (SciFi, 1961). The martian word implies you understand something (such as how a particular technology works) .. on an intuitive level, in a satorial kind of way.

The difference between possessing a working knowledge of a particular technology and 'grokking' it is difficult to describe. Grokking impies a deeper understanding .. that surpasses mere facts & figures.

It suggests you can 'see into' the inner workings and comprehend how the different elements interact.

I've been studying CSS (off-n-on) for months, applying the concepts I learned (.. cuz that's how I learn best). And today I finally 'got it'. It came in a flash .. known as the » ah-ha moment.

[ Hmmm. That's interesting » I was looking for a good article to link to the phrase » 'ah-ha moment,' when my Google search returned a page referencing CSS. Surprisingly coincidental, no? Seeing that I didn't query the term 'CSS' (only » 'ah-ha moment').

What are the odds of that occurring? Of those two concepts being found grouped together so prominently (link #2)? Of all the possible topics in the world, CSS comes up. Maybe it means something. ]

It's not like I didn't understand CSS before. I'd long been reading about and felt comfortable wielding the technology .. using it to whip up sophisticated layouts. But now it seems my insights were superficial .. that I was merely applying recipes, cookbook style, mechanically.

Today's insight came so dramatically that it felt like I'd swallowed a ball of CSS enlightenment. "I finally get it," I muttered. Incredibly satisfying experience. Accompanied by a feeling of arrival, completion, mastery.

Of course, this doesn't mean I know everything there is to know about CSS. Far from it. Gladwell says you need 10,000 hours to master a skill. But I now 'see' how it works .. on an intuitive level.

I would love to be able to plug a cable into my brain and upload a whole slew of other cool technologies (.. like they do in the Matrix). Unfortunately, that ain't how it works. Nor can you grok something by sheer force of will. (If we could, I'd be grunting loudly.) You 'get it' when you get it and not a moment before.

Tho I'm curious about what happens at that moment. I mean, I knew everything I did about CSS now in the moments before I 'got it'. I've also been studying Programming. Maybe that helped yield insight, cuz CSS in some ways resembles programming.

The experience, in retrospect, could be described as a 'breaking thru,' or a 'crashing thru,' or a 'falling thru,'. The thing you 'break thru' seems like a semi-translucent crystalline membrane .. that obscures your vision .. from seeing deeply .. into the inner-workings.

The distance traveled (knowledge-wise) was very small, yet the resulting effect was dramatic .. sort of like the view you get when cresting a big hill. The straw that broke the camel's crystalline back, you might say.

Have a special treat for you today » my Nuclear Grade Stew recipe (2 pages). I've made this stew at least 50 times over the years .. probably closer to a hundred. Now that autumn is here, and the nights are getting chilly, it's time to break out the crock pot.

For the pages that contain this recipe, I designed a new, single-sidebar layout .. another liquid-elastic hybrid. See what you think.

For previous web pages, I used a design that comprised dual-sidebars, one on each side, cuz I liked the balanced, symmetric look provided by that layout. So this feature took longer to complete than expected, cuz I first had to code the CSS from scratch.

I've made this stew for the Bug many times (cutting the veggies into smaller pieces so they fit easily in his little mouth). So it's made with lots of love. He digs it.

Been lagging on entries lately, as you mighta noticed. Been dabbling in Programming. Kinda got lost. Big subject.

On the personal side, I took the Bug kayaking last week .. out on the Newport Back Bay. (No waves there.) He later confided, "Dad, at first I was a little scared. But now I'm not scared." We stopped at a small island where he got out and searched for buried treasure.

Happy Halloween. I modified the method of placing the graphics in the header found at the top of the home page .. up where it says » RADIFIED | Nuclear Grade Technolust. There I implemented a technique known as » CSS Image Replacement, of which there exist many variations, each with its own set of pro's & con's.

The dividing-line among web designers seems to be whether or not to use a non-semantic span tag with CSS positioning, which involves a more complicated technique .. but leaves visible TEXT in place for visitors who surf the Web with STYLES turned off (primarily those using mobile devices).

I used a simpler IR technique, by changing the images you see displayed there .. from foreground images to background images.

This allowed me to replace the foreground images (contained in those heading elements) with TEXT .. which I then indented (way to your left), so it can't be seen. By moving the TEXT out of the way, this technique reveals the graphics (.. which look prettier than standard heading-text).

The advantage however, is » devices that don't render styles (such as screen readers and mobile devices) will now see a TEXT heading and tag-line displayed there, where before there existed only images. Search engines also gives more weight to TEXT than images.

Most Rad visitors will never notice the difference .. seeing most who frequent the site (fellow technolusters) browse with both images and CSS turned ON. But I'm gradually filling my webmaster toolkit with increasingly sophisticated techniques. (Learning by doing.)

After all the pages are styled however, and the markup is coded semantically, there's still no substitute for insightful content .. that is well written (.. and hopefully seasoned with a dash of personality).

This has always been the most difficult challenge .. because a stylish suit does not a charming pig make. And the ugliest person can say the profoundest things, and possess scintillating ideas. So it would seem that content trumps style .. no matter the venue (.. except maybe for those who focus on style).

Enrolled in Amazon's Affiliate program, something I probably shoulda done years ago. They claim it takes ~3 days to process an application, but I received my acceptance letter today. (Applied late last night.)

Being a n00b, I don't know much about their program yet, except that they pay a percentage whenever a visitor clicks a link on my site and makes a corresponding purchase. (How big of a percentage I'm not sure.)

I've long included links to books at the Amazon site [ in pages such as this one » Best Books for Learning the Basics of Web Site Design (XHTML & CSS), and this one » Andy Budd's Book: CSS Mastery ] without ever taking advantage of their program.

If I start making considerable cash, I'll be bummed that I didn't enroll sooner. And if I don't (earn cash), I'll be bummed too, for wasting my time with this program. So either way .. which might be why I hesitated so long.

What I like best about the Amazon program is that it allows me to monetize the site without including visible ads (.. unlike Google's AdSense program). All I need to do is add the following code to the end of each Amazon link » ?ie=UTF8&tag=radifiedcom-20. So it's virtually invisible to visitors. If I didn't tell you, you might never know.

I also like that it doesn't cost visitors anything extra when purchasing a book via a link from this site.

After establishing an 'Associate' account (and logging in to the Amazon site), a toolbar magically appears at the top of the browser window whenever I visit Amazon.com.

The Associate toolbar allows me to create targeted links to the particular book/page I'm at/on .. with a single click. Couldn't be easier. I simply paste the auto-generated code into my web page.

"Hey Rad Man!" began an email I received last week. "I'll pay $100 for a link on your Downloads page." Of course, there's no way of knowing if such offers are legit .. until the cash arrives.

 I've researched Search Engine Optimization (SEO) enough to know I don't much care for it.

Programming I enjoy, but SEO contains a seemingly endless amount of info to digest, some of which conflicts from site to site.

And the suggested techniques are often time-consuming, with dubious results that demand the patience of a saint before you start to see results. Rather focus my energies on generating original content.

Moreover, some of the techniques used to 'optimize' web pages (for higher search engine rankings) seem manipulative, if not downright dishonest. Many of the SEO sites I've visited have a 'slimy' feel to them » detailing how to trick search engines into ranking your pages higher.

I learned that links from 'ranked' pages will (in turn) yield greater 'importance' to the pages that those links aim at (point to). This is (I assume) what this person had in mind when she contacted me.

The email seemed both professional and specific. (Not slimy.) The girl was clear about what she wanted. And best of all, her proposal could be implemented minutes. (Simple.)

The problem was .. that the page they wanted a link on was created back when I knew squat about web standards (XHTML & CSS). The underlying mark-up (code) was a rat's nest of deprecated tags and coding no-no's.

Downright embarrassing .. from a webmaster's point-of-view. Miracle the page would render at all (.. even in 'quirks' mode).

Web typography. It would seem to be a fairly simple topic, no? While I was reviewing some related concepts recently, the following question popped into my head » What exactly is an em?

I've been using em's a long time, and knew they were based somehow on the letter 'M.' Wasn't sure however, if they were based on the size of the capital [M] or lower-case letter [m].

Also felt confident they were based on the horizontal measurement, but not certain. (In both cases, I was wrong.)

Trying to answer this simple question led to a surprising amount of confusion. Many sources on the web discuss ems, and detail their usage, without ever defining what exactly an em is.

Many pages are more complicated than need be. (It's not rocket science.) Finally have a handle on the topic, but my dang eyeballs are burning .. from reading so much.

First, let me answer the question I posed at the top, and therefore avoid the criticism I levied at many other sites.

An em is (drum-roll, please) » a unit of measure (.. defined by a certain number of pixels). So like inches & meters & light-years, which are also units of measure, the em is a » unit of LENGTH.

The thing that makes the em tricky is that » unlike inches or meters, or other fixed (or 'absolute') lengths, the em is a relative unit.

"Relative to what, Rad?" you might be asking. Relative to the font-sizing applied to (in pixels) its » parent element.

What this means is » the SAME font-size declaration (specified with ems) can yield DIFFERENT results (in pixels) .. when/if the parent element for each declaration specifies a different sized font. Hence, the confusion.

Changed the type of layout I use on the home page .. to » LIQUID-ELASTIC hybrid. If I did this correctly, you shouldn't notice any difference .. unless you change your default text-size (.. by selecting 'Text Size' from the 'View' menu in IE). Lemme know if you notice any display quirks.

There are 4 different 'types' of layout designs:

1. FIXED (column widths remain fixed, no matter what, used » here)
2. ELASTIC (column widths change with changes to your preferred font-size)
3. LIQUID (column widths change with changes to browser-window sizing, used » here)
4. HYBRID (combination of two or more of the above, used »  here)

I've long preferred LIQUID layouts (sometimes called » FLUID), which resize column widths as you resize your browser window (called the "viewport" by those in the biz). It's easier for me to understand the concept behind LIQUID layouts .. than ELASTIC.

Today however, I'm demo'ing a » HYBRID layout .. that combines elements of both LIQUID & ELASTIC. [ If you've read my SCSI guide, you know I'm a fan of hybrid config's. ]

The center section/column remains » LIQUID, while the two sidebars (blue-green colums) are now » ELASTIC. This means they will resize with changes made to your preferred font-size (e.g. » small, medium, large, gigantic, etc.). The center section will continue to change proportionally, as you resize your browser window - just like before.

Resizing your browser window will no longer affect the width of the blue-green sidebars (which are already skinny), while changing your default font-size will not affect the width of the center column/section.

The design itself of the home page has remained unchanged. Only the 'type' of layout has been modified (.. from LIQUID to » LIQUID-ELASTIC hybrid). This new type of page layout is considered more 'accessible' ..

.. especially for those who might have difficulty reading smaller text, and need to bump up their default font-size.

(Today btw, is 9-9-09 .. for all you numerologists.) Anybody who has ever used Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) to style a web page has likely experienced the frustration that comes when a particular style refuses to render the way you want.

Understanding the concepts outlined here will help troubleshoot any CSS rendering problem .. much better than banging your head against the wall (.. a technique that seems to provide limited success).

Three rendering principles determine how CSS styles are applied to a web page, and which style(s) take precedence. They are:

1. The Cascade
2. Inheritance
3. Specificity

For reference sake, here's a quick review of basic CSS syntax » selector {property: value}

For example » p {color: green} .. will apply a value of 'green' to the color property for the text contained in a paragraph ('p' = paragraph selector). This is called a CSS "rule".

Here's a brief overview of the 3 rendering principles listed above that determine how CSS rules are applied to a web page:

I. THE CASCADE

Styles are applied in the following "cascading" order: External style sheet » Embedded styles » Inline styles.

A given HTML page can contain one, two, or all three (or none). Styles lower down the cascade normally supplement (add to) styles higher up the cascade. If a styling conflict exists however, styles lower down take precedence.

In other words, the last style applied wins (.. given equal specificity). Here's a brief description of each type of cascading style mentioned above.

1. External style sheets (fileName.css).

These styles can be applied to an unlimited number of HTML pages .. which link to the CSS file. Very powerful, since they allow you to change the look-n-feel of an entire site by modifying a single file. Web pages normally link to only a single external style sheet, tho it's possible to link to multiple external style sheets .. which also cascade, depending on the order they're listed. Large professional sites often use multiple external style sheets.

2. Embedded styles

They are found within the head tag of an HTML page. These styles are enclosed within the 'style' tag <style> and apply only to the HTML page in which they are found. These styles supercede any styles contained within an external style sheet that may conflict with them (.. given equal specificity).

3. Inline styles

Inline styles are applied to individual HTML elements/tags, using the "style" ATTRIBUTE. Note that this is not the same as the style ELEMENT applied to embedded styles mentioned above, tho it's spelled the same way. Inline styles supercede all others that conflict with them .. since the last style applied wins. Plus, they carry maximum specificity (which we'll discuss later).

Two concepts introduced early-on in the career of any aspiring programmer are » syntax & semantics. Syntax refers to the structure (or form) of code that a programming language specifies. Semantics refer to the meaning .. assigned to symbols, characters & words.

I first became familiar with the notion of syntax while studying Cascading Style Sheets. CSS syntax employs the following form » selector {property:value}. Simple enough, no?

This form/structure allows you to style your web pages with 'rules' such as » p {color:green} .. which will change the color ('property') of text in a paragraph ('p' = selector) to (a 'value' of) » green.

While CSS might not be an official programming language, it does contain aspects that (in some ways) resemble them. And all programming languages employ syntactic rules. BTW - here's a good CSS book.

A professor once told me that the standard form (syntax) of a sentence in the English language is » Noun-Verb-Direct Object. In other words » 'Bill hit the ball.' Or, 'Mary ran up the the hill.' ( "This does that to the other." )

Most English-speaking people would agree that this format tends to work best (to convey ideas). But it is not a hard-n-fast rule. You can easily say » 'Up the hill ran Mary,' or 'Mary up the hill ran.' People might think you weird, but they'll know what you mean.

In English, we say "black beans." But the Spanish-speaking Mexicans here in Southern California put the adjective AFTER the noun » "Frijoles negros." (Can't believe frijoles negros has its own dang Wikipedia entry.) I'm chowing on a bowl of some frijoles negros & rice right now.

Programming languages (on the other hand) have little sense of humor. Break one of their structural rules and they will not only protest, but boycott your program outright. Obviously there are reasons for this strict precision. There can be no misunderstanding.

It's possible to learn to drive a car without ever understanding how one works. (e.g. » what the pistons do, the crankshaft, transmission, differential, etc.) And many drivers do just that. No problem. But I like to know how things work. This includes my study of Programming.

My degree-path specified one "sciencey" Computer Science class. So naturally, that's all I took.

The first half covered the various components of a computer and their functions (» the processor, memory, hard drive, etc.). The second delved into programming (with Pascal) on a rudimentary level.

Our instructor seemed more interested in the girls in the class than teaching. In fact, the hottie (red-head) who I studied with in the hours immediately prior to the Final exam, told me she'd spent the night at his place. (Her hair was messed & she referred to him by his first name.)

Based on the material she suggested we review, I did not doubt her claim. Because it quickly became clear, soon as the Final was handed out, that her suggestions mirrored the material contained therein. (Much of this material was never covered in class.)

I basically got an 'A' in that course cuz that girl spent the night at the instructor's place .. cuz many of those questions I'd never seen before. But that's ancient history now.

I have however, been delving into HOW programming languages work (crankshaft, pistons). I forget how I stumbled upon it, but there's an online version of this book: Programming Language Pragmatics .. located » HERE (Google books).

Actually, the online version is 2nd edition (2006), while the one for sale at Amazon is the 3rd (2009). But I doubt there's much difference .. that would matter to a rookie like me, anyway.