The concept of followers is by no means a new one. In ancient Greece most public figures had followers. All religious dogmas speak of disciples. In Europe, Theodoric and Alexander the Great started a real royal court culture that extended further to local noble courts. The Islamic world had Caliphates, the Chinese empire had one of the largest courts in the Forbidden City. Later on, these entourages evolved into political groups, parties as we now know them. Throughout the history, anybody who was somebody had a group of followers around them who would enrich their presence at any place, listen to their words of wisdom, spread their opinions and enhance their fame. Granted, those followers were as prone to leave their “master” at a drop of a hat as they are today. Loyalty was as much of a fickle thing back then as it is now, mostly because the act of following was not based upon any soul deep connection or conceptual compatibility, but on social favors and power.

Being “très à la mode” granted you special privileges, invitations to fashionable events, the ohs and ahs of the  general public, gave your words the value of an axiom and made you suitable for becoming a model to be followed. The followers, especially those to which loyalty was anathema, were there for sharing part of that fame. Was it trendy to follow the thoughts and fashion of a certain Madame de Pompadour? Then, by all means, let the whole Europe dress and talk like mini copies of her. Was it rumored that she might have fallen from the king’s grace? You would hear her being dissed at every corner by the same mini copies that were now dressed like the present protegée. People felt the need then, as they do now, to be part of the trend. If they couldn’t be the ones to set a new path, they could at least say that they belonged to the group that followed that path. “I follow the trends, therefore I am” is the motto of the practiced follower.The whys and hows do not exist. If asked for an explanation, they would only repeat the words of their mentors. The world would lose yet another opportunity to evolve and gain one more mindless – though sometimes prettily adorned – sheep.

Alexander Chase said “People, like sheep, tend to follow a leader – occasionally in the right direction.” While this statement might seem outrageous, it holds an undeniable truth: most people need leadership. Not necessarily because they are natively incapable of thinking for themselves, but because they need guidance. We are all searching for our path. In this search, before we define ourselves as freestanding, we need models to look up to, to follow. Leaders of any kind, be they kings, governments or clergy, always knew this fact and exploited it to obtain utmost obedience. Nowadays politicians and marketers are milking the same, well, sheep. Social media, while not inherently created for that, it serves the same purpose. The model of elite and followers works exceptionally well, mainly because shallowness is an integral part of our life. Too busy with our day to day existence, we pick ideas from here and there, not always having or taking the time to delve deeper into the subjects in question.

The principle is rather simple: as we absorb information, we will always look up to those who are considered to be experts or authorities in that field and we will start carving our own opinions based on that. And while staying informed and being up to date with people’s opinions is vital these days, mindless idea adoption can be disastrous. Ignorance, lack of depth or “la forme sans le fond” may and will get us in trouble.  One must never forget that trend-setters, at the end of the day, are just people and people are subjective. One cannot read someone’s opinion and expect a BBC report. Said trend-setters, unthinkable as it may sound, do not hold the absolute truth – only the public’s attention. By adopting and promoting their ideas, you are responsible for more followers who, in turn, thought that you knew what you were talking about. A vicious circle, I would say. And, in the mean time, we forget to use our own brain.

So what is one to do? Read. Read the basics on a subject, then the details, know the norms or standards by heart and, by all means, invest the time to learn what others have to say about it. But as you do that, don’t forget to think for yourself. With all the knowledge you acquired, experiment. And, if you are bold and knowledgeable enough, break the rules in case you think they stand in the way of your goal. In regards to the web, there is no web police that will give you a fine for breaking design and development norms – only your visitors can do that. As long as your code or designs provide a good, attractive experience for the user, the rest is more or less irrelevant. Yes, you might be dissed and accused. The elite and its crew might hold you in contempt. But playing inside the norms never gave us any groundbreaking masterpiece or discovery. Lose the herd for a while and wander a bit. And who knows, in the process of finding greener pastures, maybe you’ll happen to set your own path.

The funny part was when I signed up. I had to choose what I was: designer or developer. And it got me thinking, what am I really? I know that if anyone would ask me, I’d say UI Engineer, cause that’s the title of my job. But that gives no answer to my question. I’d say that as a web designer you’re a bit of both. So considering that in the last few months I’ve been giving myself headaches with Javascript and XMLHttpRequests, I said developer. It took me half an hour to make up my mind though.

The conference started with Joshua Davis‘ presentation, whose artwork I already knew as being great. What I didn’t know was that he is a great speaker as well. I sensed in him the same joy and passion about his work as I do about mine. Sometimes when I get to make something to work or look the way I want to, I would jump around like a child and laugh. That’s the same feeling I got from Joshua Davis. A breath of fresh air and an awakening view on inspiration. Some while ago I told someone that a photographer has to always keep a fresh view on everything, like a child – like he sees everything for the first time. Joshua Davis extended that to the design. Some people said that he showed the same art as some time ago. I say that no matter when his artwork was done, it’s still cool. That must be the beauty of art, you don’t get tired of it.

Other presentations that I enjoyed: Ryan Singer from 37 Signals talked about usability and then Andy Clarke, Josh Williams & Jeffrey Zeldman, sparkling as always, discussed where web design is going to ( and if it’s ever coming back). I did want to meet Zeldman, but when I saw him there I was absolutely dazed, I lost my voice and my ability to move.

Elliot Jay Stocks had a presentation on the so called “web 2.0 look”. While he said things that I totally agreed and even wrote about a while back, I think people need to move along from that trap. Instead of focusing on “what a designer shouldn’t do”, I think people should be more willing to talk about solutions and new means of inspirations to escape those pattern websites. I don’t think that web designers are stuck on that “look”, maybe we’re all just up to something, taking some time to discover the next hit.

Here are a few of the photos taken. Click on them or here for more.

A few hours later I ran out of cigarettes. So I went across the street, with the rain accompanying me. I didn’t run. I just walked and may I say I kinda enjoyed it. What can I say, a girl needs some rain now and then. A few people in the front of the store, trying to stay dry, looked at me like I was a nut case. Maybe I was. Maybe we all are. Nut cases one way or another. What seems normal to you might be extremely awkward to me and vice versa. So where is the point where you can say you trust your judgment? When can you be sure that your mind isn’t playing tricks on you the same way you think it plays tricks on the others?

Where is the point when you can say: “Hey, my taste in art is impeccable! And what you have here is not art…”Or when can you proclaim your boat floaters as being genius works? What does it take to get there? Is it education? Can you actually say that after you learn the theory you can also critique the very soul of it? After you critique the execution, what piece of knowledge entitles us to comment upon the feeling?

Do we go with the trend, learn from the others what we are supposed to like and what not or do we actually find those judgments in a corner of our minds, pure and unaltered by public opinion?
If so, where do those pure ideas come from, are we born with them? Is each and everyone of us a possible standards/trend setter? And if we are following trends, isn’t there a chance, at least a very feeble one that we might be wrong, as probably I was about that old lady who loves her dog so dearly that she prefers to protect him instead? Cause you know, I just love the way rain feels now and then.

Today while checking back on that article I took a few moments to read the discussion that followed. To my surprise, even though the irony was obvious in that article, most of the posters started talking about Web 3.0 and forecasting its features. Peachy! Mr Zeldman, you shouldn’t have given them the idea, now “all the cool kids” will start talking about Web 3.0, blogging about it, finding ways to define it and we’ll only end up having one more overused concept.

Because that’s what Web 2.0 is. A concept. Hell yeah, Mr. O’Reilly himself calls it so. Still O’Reilly – the one who has thrown this concept in the hands of the “cool kids”- gives an extensional comparative definition. Unfortunately either by the fault of the writing or the fault of the readers, nobody has a clear view about what this “Web 2.0″ does, therefore failing as a definition in being above a certain level of chaos. 

I’ll tell you the truth, I’m not an AJAX hater, I don’t despise collaborative applications, I am all for the rich user experience. What I hate is gibberish talk. And you probably heard a lot of it related to Web 2.0. Collaboration? Usenet, IRC- these were amongst the first web collaborative systems. AJAX? The XMLHttpRequest wasn’t invented one-two years ago. It was here way before some marketing guy thought about new ways of selling software. Only that the programmers knew its downfalls and the risks involved. Yes, great web applications were developed lately and all my respect goes to those who built them. What I dislike is the marketer that has thrown a whole enchilada of terms and names to define something that never existed. Myspace was here before, so where Napster, Bitorrent and Wikipedia. I remeber using Napster about eight years ago when nobody cared about the version of the web. Collaboration was here before, only it was called forum or, for the professionals, it was called CRM. So you will excuse me if I say that to me this term, “Web 2.0″ is a form without substance.

In the O’Reilly network I found this

Web 2.0 is the era when people have come to realize that it’s not the software that enables the web that matters so much as the services that are delivered over the web. Web 1.0 was the era when people could think that Netscape (a software company) was the contender for the computer industry crown; Web 2.0 is the era when people are recognizing that leadership in the computer industry has passed from traditional software companies to a new kind of internet service company. The net has replaced the PC as the platform that matters, just as the PC replaced the mainframe and minicomputer.

Great, so now Web 2.0 is an era. And web applications are replacing software. And aren’t web applications still software? Cause they sure don’t fall under hardware. And the net replaces the PC. So now we can throw away our PCs and wirelessly connect our heads to the modems while we test around the beta of teleporting. Engage Picard!

Yes, I admit, “Web 2.0″ gets on my nerves.Not only because it lacks definition and substance or because it is overused. But because of its lack of definition people feel entitled to use it everywhere. You’ll hear about “web 2.0 designs”, “web 2.0 logos”, “web 2.0 colors”, “web 2.0 fonts” without people even knowing what they are and how they are supposed to look like. Next thing you know at the Deli they’ll sell Web 2.0 coffee, all collaborative, updateable and full of rich user experience.

So yes, I’m starting the Web 2.0 Haters Club. I’m the only member of it for now. And it feels good. Because to me the web is always a beta.

Let’s see what this “too cool for IE” does. You basically put a badge on your site, stating that it’s too cool for a certain browser.

Quoting from the original article:

“You can go ahead and make the claim that I’m lazy for not supporting Internet Explorer on this site. But as most web designers know, fixing their sites to work the same in every browser is a giant hassle. It seems like almost every time that I go out of my way to do something new and creative using CSS, the whole thing ends up getting thrown out because it would take too much time to make cross-browser compatible and/or often would end up not working at all. ”

Yes, I claim that it makes you plain lazy. You might claim that IE is wrong all that you want. But guess what? Sites are made to function in browsers and not the other way around. You don’t build the site and then adjust the browser to your liking or laziness. Like it or not, good or bad, IE is still one of the most used browsers in the world. Some need it, some got used to it. If you tell your visitor that his browser is wrong, who are they gonna believe? Since you’re not Microsoft or any other big IT corp, I guess the answer is obvious. The visitor’s logics is simple: “I want information and I want it fast, that’s why I’m on the web”. Be sure that no visitor will “take his time” to study Firefox, Mozilla, Opera etc. unless they got too much time on their hands. Remember that a normal visitor will not have the time and will to experiment on browsers as web designers do. So when seeing the coolness badge, the first thought will be “maybe you’re too cool for me too, let’s move on to another site”.

As much as I’d like to see the web as an ever evolving business, I only see involution in this particular trend. It brings back memories of “best viewed with IE” that annoyed me some years ago.

And talking about business, this is bad business by all means. You’ll lose visitors, potential clients, and that means losing money. Are you that rich to be too cool for IE?

Finally, this trend started for the wrong reasons. I would have probably given it some benefits if it was started because of IE security flaws and out of the main concern for the web surfer’s security. Firefox, Mozilla, opera and such are less targeted by attacks, being less popular, therefore they are somehow more secure for the time being. But this thing started because of the problems that IE causes mainly in positioning. Is it the visitor’s fault that IE causes trouble? No, sir. Does he care about it? Again, no. He just wants to get the information. Does he know you? No. Does he know his browser? Well, better than he knows you. You are the coder, you are supposed to make it work in order to give him a good web experience. Just remember that on the web you’re never designing for yourself, but always for the visitors.