I believe Business Blogging can be a Good Thing. There are books written on this subject, but here’s a few of my own ideas why:

• Business blogs keep site content fresh and give customers a reason to return regularly (and hopefully decide to avail themselves of your products or services!).
• Business blogs keep site content fresh, which makes you a Friend of Google.
• If you can establish yourself via your blog as a source of reliable and up-to-the-minute information in your field, you will come to be perceived as an expert.
• Business blogs create great networking opportunities. You can help to drive business (via the blogroll and via direct links in your posts where relevant) to organisations that complement your own business, and they can do the same for you in return.
• There is passive income to be earned by advertising, e.g. Google Adsense, when it is used wisely.
• You can really learn lots about your customers’ wants and needs if you invite comments. This can evolve very indirectly; for example, just listen to them complain about other companies they have dealt with and make sure your own products and services exceed their expectations in those areas.

Of course, business blogs need a bit of help from their owner if they are to succeed. More on that later.

But for now — what other benefits do you see?

I like this. Finally, someone who isn’t afraid to dispel some hype and who actually discusses the cons as well as the pros. (More cons than pros, actually!) These cons include privacy issues. Hands up anyone who is surprised to hear that, although chat logs can’t be readily accessed by chatters, they are saved in URI format so could easily be sent to Google? Hmmm, thought not. Also, it is a really “Spartan” chat client, offering nothing new and a whole lot less than most.

And as I’ve pointed out, there’s even less for Mac and Linux users.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who can’t see any reason at all to use Google Talk over existing chat systems, but I am nonetheless sure Google will be working on giving me — and others — a reason.

I can’t run the proprietary (yes, Google has its own proprietary, Windows-only communications application now… good on ’em) Google Talk application but from what I can gather, the main innovative Google difference I was expecting is that Google is competing directly with the likes of Skype, yet using an open network that will work outside of closed networks such as Yahoo, AIM and MSN. It also appears the plug-in architecture means it will be easily integrated into other applications (like GMail) relatively simple.

Me, I’ve still yet to work out how that will happen because a) a GMail account is required and even MSN allows any email address to be used, and b) users are really going to use the Google Talk client unless they’re odd like me and other Mac or Linux users, and have to settle for Jabber, which doesn’t support the full feature range. So it really is, in effect, proprietary and closed, even if that is not technically true.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong. I’m still trying to get my head around it, which isn’t easy when you’re excluded by virtue of the OS you run.

Oh, and I’m told Google Talk doesn’t support emoticons. Whatever are they thinking of? 🙂

Having said all that, the reports I’ve seen thus far are positive, even from Mac users. I’m also told there are no ads! It will be very interesting to see how this pans out.

This article from Wired.com says that Asians notice more background detail than folks from the U.S.A.

I’d be interested in the implications of this, assuming it’s true. The web is global, so where does that leave us? There are many more Asians than North American people.

But in practical terms, how much does background detail matter? In websites, surely content is the important thing — or is that just my “Western” perspective? Perhaps we should be giving more attention to visual communication (in the background, as opposed to content delivered via multimedia) where possible?

To clarify, I am not saying perhaps we should give attention to visual communication to the exclusion of actual content, but perhaps, given the demography of the web, in addition to…?

What have others found, regarding usability across cultures?

… but not, really, for Mac users. But no surprises there, I guess! Still, it does work in Adium, and apparently iChat, except for voice. (Which is something I wouldn’t be using anyway.)

You can download it here (900K) and give it a go. (You’ll need a GMail account. If you don’t have one, ask me. I have a zillion invites.)

Update: GMail has apparently been made free and available to all to coincide with the release of Google Talk, which requires a GMail account and draws the contact list from your GMail contacts.

Google is to introduce their own text and voice messaging system. From CNN:

Citing unnamed sources “familiar with the service,” the Los Angeles Times said that Google’s Instant Messaging program would be called Google Talk and could be launched as early as Wednesday.

What I find interesting about this, is that the market is already chockas full of IM clients. Why one more? Does Google merely want to be ubiquitous — or is their new system an innovative one that will provide benefits for both users and advertisers over and above existing chat systems?

Given users’ antipathy to advertising in their IM clients, I’d wonder about that aspect — although Google’s style is unobtrusive text ads and this would be far less annoying than the flashing, blinking, moving and thus very offensive ads on some of the other systems, though not as good as those that don’t contain any advertising at all. (I love my Mac!)

Yet Google has proved themselves to be a very innovative company and it wouldn’t surprise me if this apparent “catch-up with the competition” scheme will actually have the competition rushing to catch up to Google. I’ll be looking for the new chat client on Wednesday.

Oh hang on, it is Wednesday here. OK then — where is it? 🙂

At the Blog Business Summit (BBS05) during the week, Matt Mullenweg, of WordPress, announced an upcoming, fully-managed hosted blogging service to be called WordPress.com, and presented a demo.

Though some had heard rumours, it came as a surprise to most and will operate in direct competition to Six Apart’s TypePad hosted blogging service. However, according to Technosight, it not only sports some awesome new features but — unlike TypePad — WordPress.com will be free.

Others are touting the new service as a commercial one, so it will be good when the WordPress current events page provides some detail.

The whole bogging thing is fascinating me, lately. My mind is spinning with ideas of how to make it work for me. Yes, I’m talking about ways in which blogging can help me (and anyone) make money.

I tested the waters for some of my ideas on a WebDev business newsgroup to which I belong, with responses from less than a handful of the most progressive of the members. I am not sure why that is. They are all people who run their own WebDev businesses. Don’t they want to explore new ways of making money? I guess some of us are content to potter along, and others of us want to really succeed, even if it means going out on a limb for something new but potentially beneficial.

Blogging is definitely still an up-and-coming “thing” on the web, though I admit I’m rather late in the game to join the throng.

The number of sites around relating to blogging professionally are many. One Western Australian blogger made the Feedster Top 500: Duncan Riley of The Blog Herald, is from Bunbury. There were four bloggers, altogether, from Australia, which is fantastic — but we can do better than that. Over the next year, I am sure we will.

So right now I’m plotting and planning. My ideas will take time to mature and implement, but I am confident blogging will be a useful, and ultimately profitable, business tool — not just for web developers but for all business and government organisations. Stay tuned for more.

This one’s definitely in the “@Home” category — sorry, not business-related at all!

For the last 3 days I’ve been in immense pain, having done “something” to my back. So frustrating! It went from mere discomfort in the morning to crippling pain in the evening, then got worse over the next day. Grrrrrrrr.

So I tried to see a massage therapist, thinking that if it were one of my horses I’d get a professional to look into it. The only problem was, I could hardly move and was in no state for the therapist to try to help me.

Unable to get a doctor appointment for some pain relief that would enable the therapist to do her job, I toddled off to the local hospital and had to wait (standing, because the process of sitting and standing was too painful) for most of the 6 hours before I could see a doctor. Naturally, given my unnatural posture because of the pain, the pain had by then spread and escalated. The doctor couldn’t figure out a problem so resorted to giving me some painkillers which had no effect. Then she tried a different painkiller which worked (as long as I remained immobile) and so (9 hours after arrival) she sent me home. Took me 15 minutes to get to the car just 100 metres away and a further 5 to get into it. I finally got to bed at 2am.

I would have been better just staying home and resting.

Still, today I can actually walk, albeit painfully — if you can call lurching with a twisted hip movement, travelling just 6 inches with each step “walking” — without holding onto something, so that’s encouraging. The kids at least are being extremely helpful.

An interesting discussion on the Web Standards Group (WSG) email list last week prompted me to write about political-correctness in the area of web accessibility.

There was some dissent on the list about the correct “labels” to apply to people with disabilities.

“Disability” is not a dirty word. It just means a missing or imperfect ability. Hands up anyone who wears glasses? I’m guessing most people in their forties or older, plus many others. Guess what? You have a disability, because your ability to see is not perfect. Disabilities that can make internet use difficult aren’t limited to blindness or low vision, however: they even include conditions such as arthritis, which can make using a mouse difficult; people with cognitive difficulties; and people who, for one reason or another, have motor or mobility problems. If someone breaks their arm and can’t use a mouse, they have a disability. Sure, it’s temporary. But still others have permanent or long-term issues and it’s part of our job as web designers and developers to assist them. It’s really not a hard thing to do, and being aware of the wide range of people to whom the word “disability” applies is a good first step.

Labels — however much we may dislike them on one level — are quite important in enabling us and other members of the wider community to take into account the special needs of people with disabilities. If we don’t know about or understand the disability, we might unintentionally offend or make that person’s life harder than it needs to be.

Some people get offended at what they see as incorrect labels or, probably more accurately, labels they see as displaying an underlying “bad” attitude. In the WSG discussion, an Australian usability expert referred to people with hearing loss as “hearing impaired”, but a Deaf person from the US said, “The correct term is ‘hard of hearing’ and if you call someone ‘hearing impaired’, it just goes to show you don’t know what you’re talking about!” That was quite strong, given that “hearing impaired” is the generally accepted term here (or one of them) that is applied to people with less-than-perfect hearing. If it’s not in the U.S.A. then fine, but that doesn’t make us ignoramuses. (Ignorami?) And for those that just don’t know, but who mean well? I don’t see it as any big deal personally, but it’s important to remember that others do, so it helps to know a bit about the labels in use in the various regions in which we work.

For example, in many parts of the world, it seems it is correct to say “people with disabilities” — the idea being that they are people first and the disability is secondary. But we’re told that in the U.K., it is “disabled people”.

As web developers, I believe that if we must use labels on our websites, the important thing is to first define the target audience, then find out, preferably from that group, what they prefer to be called. If it’s an international or multicultural site, a brief statement on the choice of wording for the label might be appropriate — otherwise we run the risk of offending some users, when our intention is actually to improve their experience.