Online. Offline. Bottom Line.™
(skip to the content)
Home | About | Jobs | Privacy Policy | Contact | Login or Register
Earlier this week, MSN published the results of their 2nd annual, 2008 Customer Service Hall of Shame Survey. The national online survey, conducted by Zogby International polled 7,724 randomly chosen respondents and includes 140 companies from 14 industries. Several companies including Sprint, Time Warner Cable and Comcast have appeared on the list both years. Topping the list this year is AOL.
Darren Rowse (ProBlogger) provides a concise, useful YouTube summary on five emerging trends in blogging:
1) Multiple Author Blogs
2) Multi-Topic Blogs
3) Blogs Converging with Other Types of Sites
4) Portal-Like Design
5) Indirect Monetization
When new engineers are being brought into the fold of unit testing, one question invariably arises: “Should we test getters and setters?” The answer, in the humble opinion of this engineer, is yes. This is by no means a new argument; it has been raging across the software development field for years. Let’s face it, public getter and setter methods are (normally) inherently simple, and writing unit tests for them seem to be a waste of time – testing the language’s ability to set and pass variables instead of any actual code. But there are a few dangers lurking in not testing them…
Whenever I advocate testing getters and setters, the first argument I almost always get is, “A simple getter and setter can’t break.” Wrong. They can break, and I have seen it happen.
Recently I have been fascinated by a new breed of benchmarking tools for Rich Internet Applications (also known as RIAs). As developers push more application functionality and interactivity to the browser, the speed and consistency of page rendering has become critical to a successful Web 2.0 app. The new benchmark on the block is GUIMark, a self-described “RIA benchmark.”
A recent Alertbox column from Jakob Nielsen provides new insights into online reading behaviors. A couple of the findings aren’t encouraging for writers.