16toads Design Journal

Passionate Sanctimony Part 3 - Double Standards and Blind Leaders

2012-05-24T16:52:04Z

iPitchforks and Double-Standards

“Stand up to sexism when you see it!” says the heroic, anonymous avatar in one of the most subjective calls-to-action imaginable. This simple statement tacks a garrish neon light on a double standard no one wants to acknowledge: The fact that a small group of social gatekeepers very consciously pick and choose who they make examples out of. As one of the most consistent finger-pointers in the trenches of empathy states, "Lastly, we should avoid finger-pointing and placing blame, except for overt and/or egregious offenders."

Why then did the following marketing images by a well known A-Lister in the tech community not bring out the torches and pitchforks? Do these images represent the difference between “humorous objectification” and a “bad joke”?

Are these images permissible because they weren’t projected onto a screen during a conference presentation? Or are they permissible because they aren’t “serious”? Or because the individual who posted the imagery is a popular figure in the industry?

It seems to me the suggestions represented in the images above are precisely what people are screaming about. Yet the 29,000 Twitter followers of this web-celeb didn’t so much as blink an eye at the use of an objectified female or an ode to geek masturbation to sell a book to people in the web industry. In fact, numerous people, women included, reTweeted the images.

These advertisements didn’t result in naming and shaming, nasty Tweets based on hearsay, outrage, judgement, lecturing, name-calling, assumptions, slander, or accusatory articles published by online tech rags. No one made an example out of this individual. No fingers were pointed. Nothing. Both of these images were **Approved by the lynch mob.

Subjective microinequities

How is dispensing advice or selling a service or product at an industry conference any different than dispensing advice or selling a service or product via Twitter? If you are being intellectually honest, you have no choice but to answer “there is no difference”. But there is a difference, a big one: The audience on Twitter is an order of magnitude larger than the number of people who could pack into any conference hall (even at SXSW).

Yet the following Twitter comments by web-celebs weren’t called out by any one of their combined 330,000+ followers for being offensive - a list that includes a number of well known people who regularly jump on the inclusivity bandwagon when a self-serving compassion-marketing opportunity presents itself.

“But. But. But. Twitter isn’t the same as a conference!” Bullshit. The odds are that you aren’t following popular industry figures on Twitter because you think they’re hilarious or even insightful. You’re following them in the hopes they’ll retweet one of your witty retorts or project announcements and make you internet famous for five life-changing minutes. “But. But. But. You can unfollow someone on Twitter!” And you can choose to attend or not attend a conference based on who is speaking. Or not attend the lecture of someone with whom you don’t personally agree.

The only people who seem to get hammered for claims of sexism are the people who are judged by accusers to be especially vulnerable - you know, people who can "be made an example of". This theory is conveniently confirmed by Mrs. Hough as she twists morality into a pretzel in her profound conclusion, “If [Company's] business collapses for a few sentences of sexist copy, I hope that other young founders get to see the wreckage before following them off the plank.” This comment is absolutely despicable and perfectly encapsulates the mentality of an angry mob who is incapable of seeing their own pious exclusiveness for what it is ... intolerant of anything that causes them to confront their own lack of comfort in an industry that spans dozens of disciplines and is comprised of individuals who represent a broad spectrum of life experiences.

Bankrupt Leadership

Why is nasty, hateful behavior like this tolerated in the professional sphere? Simple. Because the people who we look up to as leaders behave in exactly the same manner when they are confronted with a contrary opinion. Their behavior sets the standard for discourse in our industry and followers, being who they are, mimic their heroes.

If one of the most well-known voices in the industry leads in the following manner,

and his good friends egg him on with “support” that undermines any sense of professional etiquette,

how can we logically expect discourse or behavior or attitudes or perceptions to improve in the industry?

Collectively, we can not possibly expect to improve anything when our ability to communicate has not evolved past the infantilism of the high school cliques we all loved to hate.

The following stupendously ironic comment (conclusion from object 1-1, Part 2) posted by anonymous epitomizes the abject failure of our community leaders to set a responsible tone for professional behavior and discourse.

Conclusion

This issue isn't about a single person or a specific incident. It's not even about a specific issue like sexism. It's about a pattern of behavior that blatantly contradicts all the moralizing about building a better community by singling out convenient targets for subjective condemnation and bitch-slaps professionalism across the face. In short, it's about a pattern of behavior that is designed to stop discussion in its tracks and browbeat people into conformity.

"Naming and shaming", public humiliation, call it what you will … It's bullying. There is not an argument that can be made that makes it okay to willfully and maliciously attempt to ruin another person's reputation and/or livelihood over a word or image or whatever that someone else found "offensive".

The fact that bullying behavior can be witnessed across the entire industry, from the most inexperienced newbie to our "thought leaders" speaks to a much bigger communal problem than whether or not every individual, female or male, is embraced with unicorn hugs.

But there is no question that treating people with whom you disagree with a contempt usually reserved for murderers, child rapists, and atheists is destructive both socially and, for the object of derision, personally and professionally. Such behavior does nothing more than create division lines in a shifting sand of smug reverse intolerance.

At it's very core, this boils down to an issue of mutual respect. You don't have to agree with everyone, nor like everyone you meet. But "inclusiveness" begins with respect. And respect is not bestowed, it's something you have to earn.

I will conclude by stating the obvious. Sooner or later, I will offend someone again, and so will you. Get over it, and deal with the outcome like an adult. You aren’t morally superior. And if you really want to clean up the industry, begin with your own behavior. The next time you decide to be offended, before you react, ask yourself how you would like to be treated when you make a mistake.

You have a right to an opinion. You have a right to disagree. You have a right to be offended. You even have a right to be angry. But anger does not give you the right to be cruel.

Passion does not excuse common decency.

And empathy is a two-way street.

I Am Offense

Passionate Sanctimony Part 2 - The Farce of Inclusiveness

2012-05-23T18:52:19Z

Being “offended” is a choice

The act of “being offended” requires a conscious decision and willful participation. It is not a passive act, nor is it always correct. Nor should apoplectic “offense” always be handled with delicate sympathy; sometimes it’s simply ridiculous or downright childish.

Let’s take the most common charge of "exclusiveness" or sexism in the tech industry as an example that typifies a ludicrous double standard.

Sexism exists, and I am not downplaying the very real instances when a woman has been excluded by a male-dominated industry.

But looking for sexism under every stone for any justification to further an unprovable claim is absurd and obscene. It’s every bit as wrong as the act for which an entire industry has been taken to task for perpetuating. And every bit as wrong as the inevitable abuse that is hurled at anyone people feel is an easy target.

Harassing a woman because of her gender is sexism. Promising beer “served by women” is not harassment. Is it inappropriate? That’s another, perfectly legitimate argument.

Here’s the ad that resulted in the most recent firestorm over sexism in the tech industry.

A follow-up article to this incident that was published on a highly visible tech blog is as ignorant of its own myopic bias as it is professionally irresponsible. The author, Kathryn Hough, states, “Someone needs to tell young founders that frat house behavior is not acceptable in the business world.” Fair enough. But does Mrs. Hough actually believe that the following behavior represents how a “respectable” business professional should conduct himself?

And how about this “professional” gem [object 1-1] which was taken from the comments on the accused company's web site after they had apologized numerous times:

The abject hypocrisy of the preceding statements would be laughable if not for the fact that the reactions are so utterly contemptible. These are but two of many many dozens of similar comments made by individuals who actually believe they are bettering the larger community by personally attacking and willfully participating in the public humilation of people they've never met. And all it takes is a single person to Tweet a single word to set this runaway freight train in motion.

Let's look at a few facts:

Fact: Women don’t enter the tech industry as frequently as men.
Fact: Women don’t really know why more women aren’t entering the tech industry. http://www.itmanagerdaily.com/why-arent-there-more-women-in-it/
Fact: There aren’t that many blacks in the tech industry either. Who’s to blame for this?

I have personally observed that the web industry (design and tech) is fast becoming one of the most divided, cliquish communities of professionals in any industry. And that’s a tremendous shame, because we are - on the whole - a very talented, intelligent, conscientious group of professionals.

No matter how successful the iMob is at sanitizing the entire industry so that no single person’s feelings are ever hurt, no matter how scorched the earth becomes as a result of naming and shaming people with whom you disagree, one undeniable fact remains: You will never be included in every conversation or welcomed into every group (And the shape of the appendages you are concealing under your clothing make no difference).

Even if a perfect world is achieved where no single person is left out or made to feel inferior, someone will find someone else to blame for something. And this whole cycle of nonsense will repeat itself indefinitely, unless we start behaving like the adults we claim to be in our moralizing outrage.

Making general statements about the lack of inclusivity within the web/tech industry based on a poorly considered advertisement or a single slide in an otherwise brilliant conference lecture is preposterous and grossly unfair. Especially when the exact same standard is not applied universally.

Passionate Sanctimony Part 3 - Double Standards and Blind Leaders

Intro: I Am Offense

Passionate Sanctimony Part 1 - The Art of Bullying

2012-05-22T18:27:25Z

I’ve been sitting on this series of articles for months. Writing, rewriting and polishing my arguments in an attempt to be as clear as possible. There are two distinct problems with the topic I've chosen to address: 1) It's a critical topic, but one that will not fit nicely into a short format and 2) It's virtually guaranteed to result in ironical histrionics. I fully expect that some people will stop reading and start fuming before they've even read three paragraphs and I also expect much to be taken well out of context. For those of you interested in improving the industry, please read carefully, consider your thoughts, and feel free to share your insights.

Paul Boag’s latest article entitled “Dealing with the dickheads” talks about the same issue from the perspective that unwarranted criticism prevents people from contributing to the community. I'm going to take Mr. Boag's spot-on commentary a number of steps further and argue that what he referred to as "troll-ish" behavior is actually tearing the community apart and that the root cause has as much to do with poor leadership as it does with the personal insecurities of the aggrieved.

When Geeks Become Bullies

Bullying is something with which I am very familiar. I was teased without mercy throughout my childhood all the way through high school (partially because I was the smallest kid in every grade, but also because I was very quiet.) I was the kid who got picked last, shut in lockers, pushed into walls and hung by his belt in the locker room (I was always light enough to pick up.) I’m relatively certain that I served as a test dummy for the jocks in their efforts to perfect wedgie application techniques. I was the kid who all the girls liked to pet and snicker at, cooing, “He’s sooooooo cute.” And because I liked to draw and paint, I was called a “faggot”.

I know, first-hand, that bullies will always gravitate toward those individuals they believe are vulnerable. Because bullies are insecure cowards themselves, they’ll never take on the popular kids or the powerful kids.

So it comes as a massive disappointment to see the same atrocious behavior exhibited by adult professionals who can probably relate to my childhood experience.

I am continually astounded by the invective that gets hurled at anyone who is summarily accused of anything in our industry. How is name-calling and character assassination an appropriate response to “discomfort”? How is it justifiable? How is it not every bit as callous and harmful as the act for which someone has been accused? In my opinion, it’s a million times worse because behaving like a sanctimonious asshole is a conscious decision. Make no mistake, this behavior is bullying.

There’s no question that passions run deep in the web world. Whether you are a designer or developer, we work in a business that elicits near-sociopathic opinions ... on every conceivable topic. Someone, somewhere is bitching about something. Sexism, conference-inspired-alcoholism, inclusiveness, elitism, professionalism, cursing, responsive design, designers who code, programmers who design, getting paid, code commenting, PSD organization, SPEC, hourly versus project-based fees, button design, and on and on and on and on and on and on. If an outsider were to judge by social media commentary alone, he or she would almost certainly conclude that we are collectively one of the unhappiest, whiniest, least tolerant, nasty, and holier-than-thou groups of adult children on the planet.

People say offensive things all the time. Some purposely do it to get a rise out of their audience. Some people use it as a marketing ploy. Most people don’t even realize they are saying something offensive.

The problem is NOT that people say offensive things. The problem is that nearly everyone makes excuses for why one offense is “permissible” and another is “reprehensible”.

There is a massive difference between unintentionally causing an offense and deliberately and with malice attempting to discredit or otherwise hurt someone’s reputation. But "discomfort" or "hurt feelings" or "inclusiveness" should never devolve into the curious, and clearly hypocritical, belief that "naming and shaming" someone with whom you disagree in a public forum is acceptable behavior.

I’m going to assume that people paid enough attention during their formative studies to be able to draw multiple contexts from history and literature to understand why “naming and shaming” never leads to a Valhalla of “inclusiveness”. Quite the opposite.

By the way, the legal term for "naming and shaming" someone who has been convicted of an “offense” merely in the court of public opinion is "slander".

I abhor individuals who threaten or judge others based on their ethnicity, race, gender, religious beliefs or sexual preference. Conversely, I have exactly zero respect for anyone who willfully tears down or insults another person in their selfish zeal to prove a point or justify a personal conviction.

The following comment typifies the completely misguided belief that everyone has the right to make an example out of anyone with whom they disagree. And more perversely still that such a response is not only appropriate, but professional.

Time and again, I’ve watched the Twitter mob and the comment trolls bludgeon the life out of someone they feel slighted them from afar - blasting another person with whom they disagree with repugnant invective and hateful remarks they would never have the courage to say to another human being in person - all the while rationalizing their behavior with trite nonsense about “applying peer pressure” whilst acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

And when apologies are offered, the accused are bashed again for not apologizing the “right way”.

Attempting to establish new expectations for professional behavior and discourse through intimidation and fear is the antithesis of community and the antithesis of “professionalism”. The ultimate irony is that words like "inclusiveness" are consistently used to justify anger while the accompanying invective is used to exclude anyone who doesn’t fall in line.

The saddest part of all this is that repellent behavior obviously doesn't ingratiate the respect of the very people libeled as “insensitive”. In the end, these methods will ultimately undermine and marginalize any cause no matter how just it may be.

You become exactly what you claim to loath.

Passionate Sanctimony Part 2 - The Farce of Inclusiveness

Intro: I Am Offense

Published in A List Apart!

2012-03-28T07:26:01Z

In the article, I discuss why it's important to learn how to distance yourself emotionally from your work and share a few methods I use to self-critique.

You can read the article here.

Shaving Doesn’t Have To Suck

2012-02-02T00:43:11Z

I was in my mid teens when my father first handed me a golden plastic-handled razor he had plucked from a ten-pack of single-blade Bic disposables, a can of Barbasol, and a styptic pencil. I cut my face to pieces.

Shaving is a personal care chore that I typically put off until it's absolutely necessary, which is usually about the time my face is itching so badly I can't stand it any longer. I've used disposable single blades, cartridge double, triple and quintuple blades, and electric razors. It made no difference what the advertisers claimed, I accepted that razor burn, acne, terrible neck irritation and ingrown hairs were just part of being a "man". For the past 26 years, I have considered shaving to be an export from Dante's imagination.

"Shave like a man!" or "The manly art of shaving!"

A quick search of the internets for "wet shaving" revealed numerous ways for me to become the man I apparently was not. Setting aside the initial investment into equipment, the cost savings I would enjoy not having to purchase cartridges any longer was incentive enough. $2.00-$3.00 for a 5-pack of double edged blades that would last for up to 3-4 shaves each side versus a $19.00 8-pack of Mach 3 blades that last for an average of three shaves each before they start nicking skin.

My interested piqued when I started reading fantastical claims that shaving with a double-edged safety razor would clear up all of my girly skin issues. I was sold and started looking for the best reasonably affordable vintage DE razor I could find.

Razors

Turns out that vintage Gillette DE safety razors are highly regarded by wet shaving aficionados. Gillette doesn't manufacture safety razors any longer, opting instead for the multiple blade cartridges that drain your wallet and provide a shave that guarantees skin issues.

Vintage models of Gillette safety razors will cost anywhere from $30 to $250 depending on the age, condition/restoration, and rarity. You can find beautiful shave-ready vintage Gillette razors from the turn of the century (1900-1910) that have been fully restored with nickel, rhodium, or gold finishes. However, the Gillette Adjustable Slim DE from the 60's and early 70's is universally regarded as the best safety razor ever produced.

I found a rare 1970 long handle "Black Beauty" Gillette Adjustable double-edged safety razor on eBay for $100. I chose this model simply because it was manufactured during the year I was born. It still works like it just came off the assembly line. The "adjustable" feature is a twist mechanism that allows the user to select up to nine different blade angles from pussy (1) to slice-your-face-off (9). Most nonadjustable DE razors are set at a 4 or 5. The quality of the shave these all-metal razors provide is fantastic.

If vintage razors aren't your bag, Merkur makes very good, relatively inexpensive DE razors you can pick up for around $40. Parker, Edwin Jagger, Meuhle, and Baxter are a handful of other companies that manufacture safety razors. You'll find immediately how nice a heavy, well-balanced razor feels in your hand.

There's a certain cache to shaving with a vintage razor. Whether you pick one up on eBay, from an estate sale, or found one in your grand father's box of goodies, you can easily clean them up for your own use. Or you can go the extra mile and have them professionally refurbished, resurfaced, and disinfected.

Cleaning a razor is simple:

1. Scrub the razor with Scrubbing Bubbles and a toothbrush. Rinse thoroughly.

2. Using a cotton ball, apply rubbing alcohol. Then let dry - alcohol kills germs during the drying process, not the application process.

3. Shave away.

** Boiling a vintage razor is unneccesary and potentially damaging - If your vintage razor is made with any copper at all, boiling will leech the copper and turn nickel pink. Boiling will also ruin plastic. If your super paranoid, take your vintage razor to a tattoo shop and pay them to run it through an autoclave.

Brushes

After a bit of research, I purchased a Thater 4125/2 finest silvertip brush. This is a fabulous German-made brush with a lush, tightly bound knot. Of all the brushes I looked at, it was the cheapest, hand-made silvertip brush I could find. Spend the money to purchase a high-quality badger hair brush. With proper care and storage, a good brush will last ten to fifteen years.

The best brushes are traditionally made using badger hair due to it's ability to retain copious amounts of water. Because badgers are a protected species in North America and most of Europe, nearly all commercial badger hair is culled from mainland China. Yes, a badger died for your shaving comfort.

In general, "Silvertip" is the softest and comes from the underside of the neck of the badger. "Super", "Finest", or "Best" come next in order of softness and "Pure" rounds out the common grade of badger hair brushes. It is worth noting that for more expensive brushes, some shops label their brushes as "silvertip", "finest silver tip", or "best/finest". If the word "silvertip" is NOT noted, it's the grade of hair just below the silvertip.

Blades

I've received free packs of blades from nearly every shop I've ordered from. I'd recommend testing a variety to find the blade that's right for you. I've had good results from Gillete DE and Lord blades. Wasn't too fond of Merkur blades.

I'm told that "double-edged" blades are excellent gifts for young children.

Soaps and Cremes

I've tried Essence of Scotland Traditional Heather Soap, Lord Emofresh Shaving Cream, and I just ordered the Proraso Sensitive Skin Set to test the difference between products.

I've found that the Essence of Scotland soap is more difficult to generate a thick lather with (even in a bowl), but it smells terrific.

I purchased the Lord cream because it is dirt cheap and comes in a very handy 2.15 oz. tube perfect for travel. I was able to create a thick creamy lather from a pencil eraser-sized dollop placed (and lathered) in the palm of my hand. The addition of menthol as an ingredient sets this cream apart. It simply feels fantastic on your skin. [insert inapropriate masturbation joke here]

You should be able to get many dozens of shaves out of either product.

Wet Shaving and Travel

There is nothing more appealing than a great shave when traveling. In an effort to maintain my suspect machismo on the road, I purchased a Merkur Travel Style "straight bar" with Leather Case. This terrific little razor unscrews and packs down into a 2"x2"x.5" leather case. I also bought a Best Badger & Faux Ivory Travel Shave Brush by E. Jagger which is a very nice, tiny brush designed to fit in a small screw top travel tube. Due to it's diminutive size, it also dries quickly.

Important: TSA will confiscate DE razor blades found in your carryon luggage. Blades must be checked.

Conclusion

I hated shaving. After wet shaving for a month, I'm absolutely sold. 26 years of skin irritation vanished after the first shave.

All in, your initial investment into wet shaving can easily be less than $100. If you want the best equipment, plan to spend more. And if you get bitten by the bug, vintage razors are not only highly collectable, but also usable.

Technique

Depending on how steady your hand is, you may or may not find yourself "relearning" how to shave with a safety razor. I picked it up instantly. I promise you though that taking the extra time to shave well, will make all the difference. If your testosterone gets the better of you, you can always try shaving with a straight blade. My grandfather was a straight blade man. I'm not that manly.

The only instructions necessary:

Shave after showering, when your facial hair is softest
Keep your face lathered and remoisten with a brush frequently
Slow down, let the blade cut without pressure. The weight of the blade should be all the pressure required.
Make fewer passes
Follow the direction of your whiskers

Sensitive Skin

Do not cut against the grain
Rinse with cold water
Use an aftershave balm

A final note: Ladies, all of this information applies to you too.

Links

I purchased all of the products mentioned above from one of the following online stores**:

www.razoremporium.com

www.bullgooseshaving.net

www.bestgroomingtools.com

** All provided very fast, excellent service.

AdditionalLinks:

www.royalshave.com

www.theartofshaving.com

There are dozens more. I'd recommend doing a little research because you can find many of the products sold on these sites on Amazon.

Thanks to @yaykyle and @gregferrell for initial push.

Lessons Learned

2011-10-27T01:02:14Z

The ironies are many. Not the least of which is the irony I unwittingly participated in. I gave a talk about professionalism. And as a result of three images a handful of people found distasteful, the definition of "professional" has now been officially revised to include "appropriate imagery" and "lack of any kind of offense". If the latter caveat was in a rule book, Steve Jobs would have been held up as the antichrist of business.

Allow me to pose a hypothetical scenario. What if I had planned the whole thing? What if I had intended to offend and anticipated the backlash?

And at the very end of my talk said the following:

"I know there is at least one person in this room who is tweeting that I am unprofessional. I know that someone in this room has already sent Robert a text or an email expressing anger over a couple cartoons I used to illustrate my talk. I am aware that someone in this room is offended."

"Do you see how easy it is to affect the larger community? Do you see how easy it is to do harm to another individual or professional or organization by your actions?"

How powerful would that have been?

I didn't think of this before I took the stage. I didn't anticipate the reaction. I didn't intend to offend anyone. But I did.

Nonetheless, the lessons that resulted are valuable. So learn from them and apply them in your dealings with your clients and the EE community. Because the message I imparted in my presentation is still a very powerful one.

I unwittingly set the ball in motion, but my lack of foresight in dealing with the small percentage of people who would take offense in no way negates my larger message. Nor does it negate my culpability.

I simply didn't plan for it. I truly wish I had.

Codes of Conduct

2011-10-25T18:54:25Z

My job as a speaker is to challenge the listener. Not simply by overwhelming the listener with mountains of CSS rules or pages of PHP. My job is to challenge their ideas, their perceptions, and their comfort.

My job is not to assuage the sensitivities of a small number of individuals in contrast to the whole. This is the equivalent of designing for IE6.

We can argue whether specific content in my talk was appropriate or not until the cows come home. If one were to judge by the overwhelmingly positive response of those present, the content was highly appropriate. From the stage, I saw a sea of smiling faces, men and women alike. "Appropriateness" is purely subjective, but content should still be judged based on context.

The two cartoons people have referenced were suggestive, no question. But they were in no way pornographic nor were they completely irrelevant to the context of my presentation. And the social commentary depicted in the cartoons was squarely aimed at ridiculing men, not women. I am absolutely baffled how the tenor of cartoons within the context of my talk was lost on the people who took offense and I am not alone in this puzzlement.

The imagery should simply have never led to the massive overreaction it garnered. What is most distressing is that continued efforts by a few people to repackage the meaning of the cartoons to suit their own agendas poses a very real possibility of hurting far more than only my reputation and my business. This is completely unacceptable on every level.

I took responsibility for my talk and its content the moment I took the stage. I vetted the content with numerous people of both sexes prior to speaking and I practiced for weeks to make sure that my audience would get what they paid for. My audience got me, ALL of me. I never expected everyone to like me.

If we are talking now about a code of conduct for speakers, why are we also not talking about a code of conduct for conference goers?

Why do conference attendees get a free pass for interpersonal or online conduct? Why do they get the ultimate power to judge? Why do they get the exclusive right to rip elements of a talk completely out of context and repurpose them to suit their personal morality or grievances? Why are they not required to explain in detail why they found a specific slide or comment objectionable? Why are they allowed to publicly defame a speaker over something they personally found objectionable?

This entire controversy was started by a single individual who used the word "porn" to describe a cartoon in my talk. No context was given. No description of the slide was offered. No explanation was provided to explain why this person found it offensive. Only a single word was tweeted and required by a jury of avatars to convict me of sexism.

Terms like "porn", "sexist", and "misogyny" are used to end conversation. In situations like this, they are used to prove a point without providing context. This is the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded room. Once such language is used, it makes no difference whether the viewer misinterpreted the message, slide, or illustration. All conversation ceases. The accused is burned at the altar of morality and the accusers get to waltz away from any responsibility for their overreaction.

I'm not suggesting that people do not have a right to be angry or to engage in debate. Quite the opposite. I welcome discussion.

But in my case, there has been no explanation, only accusation. Most importantly, there has been virtually no conversation with me whatsoever, only judgement.

Over the past six days, I've been labeled sexist, misogynistic, immature, insensitive, unprofessional, childish, and a pornographer among many other insults in very public forums. I've also been called a "royal first-class fucktard" and incited a rabid group of social warriors who didn't even attend the conference to call for banning me from ever speaking again.

Behavior such as this is equally, if not more reprehensible. It's definitely hypocritical and it represents an alarming trend of vengeful reverse intolerance in our industry far more serious than a couple jokes about gender stereotypes that a few vocal people found offensive.

To the EE community, EECI, and EllisLab: I am truly sorry my cartoons have led to this debacle.

~Paul

A Pricing Experiment

2011-09-16T20:35:04Z

Over the past few years, I've compiled a list of over 300 people and companies in the greater Atlanta area who offer similar services. I suspect this number is low, very low, and I am willing to bet that comparisons between major markets would reveal nearly identical statistics.

Atlanta is a tough market during a good economy. I've watched local rates plummet over the past four or five years due in part to the recession, but also due to a staggering overabundance of vendors. Nevertheless, the percentage of truly talented, committed, professional web designers and developers remains very, very small.

A couple of months ago, I received an inquiry from a company I thought would be a good fit for 16toads and decided to pursue the job. My communications with this potential client were excellent, and I felt very comfortable that I had a good shot at landing the project. The client was also forthcoming about having spoken to two other vendors, one local and one out-of-state.

But I had a gut feeling.

It is worth noting that both of the other shops I was competing against were familiar names among the larger design and development community.

I decided to take a chance and conducted an experiment.

I bid low.

A week passed. Knowing full well that I hadn't been selected, I followed up with the client by phone after the deadline they had set for choosing a vendor.

He explained that he was very impressed with 16toads's work and our proposed solution; however, "We decided to go with [the other local shop] because they promised to meet all of our requirements in the initial build and were 'cheaper.'"

Given a two-month timeline and a laundry list of requirements for the project, which included custom design, CMS development, custom programming, multiple site management, and a wish list that included RWD, I have to ask a simple question, "How do these other companies (my competitors) survive?"

The bigger question this raises is how many corners will they be cutting to meet the client's requirements and expectations?

If even the "best" among us are charging absurdly low rates for expansive solutions, we have no right to wonder why our services are so consistently undervalued.

Stop Giving Shit Away

2011-09-08T22:52:07Z

First, a point of clarification: Creative Commons is the polar opposite of Copyright protection. Creative Commons is the equivalent of "Open Source" software, whereas formal Copyright protection is the equivalent of AES encryption.

Copyright

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, the work you create is automatically protected. All you have to do is place a © with your name and date on the work. Granted, this is essentially a placeholder and may or may not stand up in court, but if you can produce the native files or the original work, you do actually stand a "chance in Hell" of winning a legal battle. The only decision you will have to make is whether or not you have the funds to pursue the case in court.

Obtaining copyright protection is a perfectly acceptable bit of advice, but it's not practical or necessary for every client. Unless you have a staff member who is willing to take on the process of filing for copyright protection for every project you do, I would argue that it is simply not practical for a small business owner to deal with the morass of paperwork, procedures and filing fees associated with obtaining official Copyright protection. It's an incredibly time-consuming and convoluted process.

Just one look at the U.S. Copyright Office's fee schedule will bear this out: http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html

It would make more sense to offer Copyright protection as an optional service for your clients. Then employ the assistance of a lawyer or a third-party service who specializes in Copyright filing to handle the process for you.

Contracts

"Intellectual Property" is a slippery slope because its interpretation can be twisted 1000 ways from Sunday by any competent attorney. That said, I absolutely do not agree with the infuriatingly "standard" practice of web design firms providing source materials to clients free-of-charge.

You should be assigning copyright to your clients upon final payment. You should also be retaining your rights of authorship post project. Both of these items should be clearly stated in your contract.

This clause in Mr. Hoy's article surprised me:

Happy Cog will provide Client with all source materials and files for further reference, re-use, and modifications as deemed appropriate by Client for Client’s own business purposes.

I've had this conversation many, many times over the years, and the standard response is typically, "we just turn over the source files, it's easier."

Creatives, generally, lack spines. This curious willingness to give away trade secrets in an attempt to mollify a client is, at best, ill-advised and, at worst, bad business.

Bear with me. When you eat at a fancy restaurant, do you expect the chef to graciously provide you with the recipe? When you bought your iPad, did you find a technical schematic in the box? Or when your wife purchases a couture dress, will the garment come with the pattern and a fabric sample attached? No. No. And No.

The web design industry is the only industry I am aware of that provides source files (recipes) to their clients free-of-charge. And it frustrates me when I hear of respected companies who help perpetuate the standardization of a practice that amounts to giving away services or products for free as if there is an ethical obligation at stake.

Argue all you like, but my clients are paying for my solutions. The design and HTML files that make up the web site (solution) are the product. I don't throw in the recipe (source files) for free with the absurd expectation that it somehow makes my business relationships "easier" or "more secure".

In reality, what benefit does providing the source files to a client actually offer the client? A convenient way to find cheaper help? Peace of mind (whatever that means)?

Your source files reveal your methods of working; your trade secrets. You are under no ethical obligation to share your processes with your clients, so stop giving shit away and put the following clause in your contract:

All source files and original artwork, including sketches, digital files, and any other preliminary materials, remain the intellectual and/or physical property of Company unless purchased through payment of a separate fee.

Oh, and IVAN HOFFMAN, B.A., J.D. can suck my !*#^ with regard to Works Made For Hire.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer either, and I am not licensed to give legal advice any more than I am capable of balancing your checkbook. This article does not constitute legal advice; it’s intended to foster discussion and provides only general information for your consideration. Furthermore, this article is not intended to cover all the issues related to the topics being discussed.

Halfway There

2011-08-18T17:41:34Z

Every footfall has led me to places I never expected to be when I was weed-whipping at my home-town golf course after graduating from college. I did not start out with the intention of establishing my own business; you can rest assured that my high school guidance counselor would be equally surprised.

Ours is a deeply frustrating, often times infuriating, constantly changing, absurdly competitive, pathetically cliquish, and highly rewarding industry. And I am very proud to call myself a creative professional. Self-employment is not a business for the faint of heart; it requires a determination and work ethic impossible to quantify and more impossible to teach. Either you have what it takes to succeed on your own or you don't.

The most amazing truth about our business is that it is a constant learning process. Every day brings a new challenge that has the potential to open up your mind to new ways of thinking. Every challenge has the potential to lead you to the proverbial "big idea". Every idea presents an opportunity for growth - not just in your professional life but in your personal life as well.

Along the way, I've had the privilege to meet and work with some remarkable people, some unremarkable people, as well as a handful of complete assholes. I have a tremendous respect for my colleagues and a deep gratitude for my clients, without whom 16toads wouldn't exist. But I am most grateful for the people who choose to call me a friend.

Every decision in life is circumspect. I can honestly say, despite those few "what ifs" lingering in the rear view mirror, that I wouldn't change anything about my life. I'm neither as rich nor as famous as I once thought I wanted to be; I no longer care.

I'm just enjoying the ride.

Design Position Available: Superstar

2011-08-03T23:00:09Z

The following list of qualifications represent the "minimum" qualifications necesary to even be considered for a recent job opening at an educational technologies media company affiliated with a major state university.

Note: I've chosen not to reveal the school or media company for the simple reason that a friend of mine is one of the co-directors and she insists that these qualifications are perfectly reasonable.

The position available: Designer.

Minimum Position Qualifications

BA/BS degree in MIS, computer science or a closely related field AND 3 years of progressively more responsible professional experience in a variety of information technology areas related to the duties assigned OR a combination of education and progressively more responsible professional work experience in an area closely related to this position totaling 7 years.
Five (5) years of professional experience in designing and developing online applications and web environments
Experience in graphic design
Experience in Object Oriented Programming (OOP) across all required languages
Expertise with HTML5, jQuery, and CSS3
Expertise with PHP
Expertise with database design and engineering in MySQL
Expertise with ActionScript 3.0 for use in Adobe Flash CS5 and Adobe Flash Builder 4.0
Experience with Adobe Flash Media Server 3.0+
Experience with Final Cut Studio
Experience with Adobe Premiere and After Effects
Experience in designing and developing iPhone and iPad mobile applications using iOS 4

I mentioned that I got quite a laugh out of these requirements, stating that "there's no such thing as a computer science major who can design". I was informed that her media company already employs three such immensly talented individuals who are extraordinary developers as well as outstanding designers. Personally, I think it's perfectly safe to assume they embellished their resumes.

No question, there are some fantastically talented and intelligent individuals working in our industry. But, in my vast experience, I've yet to run into a single individual who bridges the design / development divide completely. Finding an individual who is capable of working equally effectively from the right hemisphere of the brain as he is from the left is rare enough without throwing in the word "expertise". I count myself among that rare group, albeit accompanied by a self-imposed disclaimer, "I know my limits".

What I find so astounding about the qualiications listed above is the shear scope of development knowledge, languages and applications in which the applicant is expected to be proficient. OOP, PHP, JQuery, MySQL, Actionscript 3.0, Final Cut Studio, Adobe Premier, After Effects, and Cocoa. My head hurts just looking at the list.

As if that weren't enough, the applicant is also required to be a design superstar who is capable of programming HTML5 and CSS3 and has experience designing and developing for iPhone and iPad.

There may be one person in the entire world who can meet these requirements, but I am certain that there won't soon be a fourth such individual working for one small educational media company.

However unlikely, I could be wrong.

The Hiring Conundrum

I understand that companies looking for quality help do what is necessary to whittle down the field of applicants. However, the problem with such expansive skill requirements is that applicants are nearly always forced to embellish or lie in order to get their resume in front of someone in human resources. More often than not, requirements lists like these are crafted by committee and the individual responsible for hiring doesn't have a clue what any of the terms mean, let alone can judge an applicant's proficiency based on a resume and smile. The new hire nearly always winds up learning on the job, which isn't necessarily a bad thing except that landing the job required dishonesty and his employer's expectations won't be met until the learning curve is flattened.

Imagine how long it would take to "test" an applicant's proficiency in any one or all of the areas of expertise mentioned above?

In the end, hiring talent based on a fantastical requirements becomes a double-edged sword that waters down client expectations and product quality industry wide.

Fellow professional designers and developers, what are your thoughts? Do absurdly expansive minimum skill qualifications like this help or hinder our profession?

Smart Business Begins With A Signature

2011-07-21T17:38:47Z

In my sixteen years of experience, I have met only one self-employed creative of any kind who went the extra mile and obtained an MBA. Generally speaking, it's safe to conclude that this means the vast majority of independent creative professionals have taken on the enormous task of learning how to run a business on their own. Their entire experience is on-the-job-training.

This certainly has been my personal experience. I'm passionate about my business. I'm passionate about running an ethical business grounded on inviolate principles. I've spent as many hours absorbing the how's and to's of running a business as I have learning HTML and CSS or EE.

I'm always interested in listening to a colleague's experience or reading an article penned by someone who has weathered the test of time as an independent business owner. What frustrates me, however, is that I am routinely disappointed by their opinions or conclusions. And every now and then, I even find myself frothing at the mouth.

A recent article published by .net magazine is one such example. I have not met the author of the article, Carl Smith, who is the founder of nGen, one of the most respected web agencies in the country. I have no doubt that Carl is a fantastically interesting and decent man. And I want to make it clear that I have no grounds nor interest in assessing his character, but I am going to spend a handful of moments explaining why I find two of the opinions in his article "Charlie Sheen transformed my agency" entirely objectionable.

Everyone who owns his/her own business and who is passionate about said business should almost constantly be considering how to reinvent himself. This basic fact is the secret of success: Never be complacent.

So I was excited when I began reading Carl's article. I found myself nodding in agreement to many of his points … punctuated by a couple of stunning statements that sent my wee mind to places where the words "what the mother fuck?" is the only appropriate response.

I'll start out with the obvious:

"Be honest.

No shit. I'm always shocked when I hear people admit to having been not-completely-forthright in their dealings with clients. It frustrates me even more to learn that "respected" members of our community admit to having been dishonest with their clients. The simple fact that people believe that they need to spin tales to make a client happy is precisely why I receive as many inquiries from unhappy prospective clients as I do.

Honesty is one of the cornerstones of my ethical guidelines. I have never and will never be dishonest with my clients. I'm well aware that honesty is hard to come by in life. I am also well aware that honesty is an inconvenience to our corporate overlords. One of the most unfortunate side effects of corporate malfeasance is that small businesses learn the wrong lesson from executive titans … that dishonesty is acceptable providing you earn a profit.

I've been called a lot names throughout my career but no one, and I mean no one, will ever be able to call me dishonest.

Honesty is a matter of respect.

My biggest gripe with Carl's article is one for which I am struggling to find a diplomatic voice.

Carl explained that nGen has stopped using contracts; rather, their client relationships are "based on nothing more than a virtual handshake and a deposit."

I am envious that nGen has been able to assemble a coterie of clients who are so trustworthy and respectful that a handshake and gesture of good will is enough to solidify a business agreement.

The problem with this fantasy is that we live in an incredibly litigious world. Promoting the idea that it is possible to accept someone else's money in exchange for services with a handshake is among the most irresponsible pieces of advice any professional can give newbies. And anyone in Carl's position should know that some young upstart will take his opinion to heart and begin building his business under the dangerous assumption that his business relationships can be equally as honest.

Whether or not a client or a vendor has the freedom to bail on any given project, the primary purpose of a contract is to protect the vendor.

I too have almost fully converted to hourly billing. I also purposely keep my statements of work vague so as not to get locked into specific criteria. Instead, I rely, exactly as Carl described, on emails and personal conversations to determine how my time is spent from one hour to the next. I don't respond to RFP's, and I stopped presenting formal proposals some time ago. But I never … Ever … Work without a signed contract.

Yes, a signed contract is no guarantee that you will skate through a trial; however, a signed contract describing the various terms of your service is far more beneficial to you than a handshake. A handshake carries as much weight in a court of law as your mother's estimation of your character.

Maintaining a good client relationship versus dealing with a bad client relationship has exactly zero to do with a signed contract. The success of your business relationships is heavily dependent on your interpersonal skills. Nonetheless, there is a reason why the words business and relationship are combined when describing the client and the vendor. And what are you more likely to trust? A handshake and a promise? Or a document with a signature that establishes the responsibilities of both parties? Relationships of any kind are built on a foundation of trust; the primary difference between a legal business relationship and a personal relationship is the physical exchange of money.

Working without a contract is just stupid. Suggesting that working without a contract is somehow the key to gaining a client's trust is not only stupid, it is cosmically irresponsible.

The only question an independent professional need ask himself is this: "Can I afford to take my chances in a court of law?" You may want to ask this question of yourself whilst you are looking at your wife and child or, if you have employees, at the people who depend on you to pay their mortgages. Can you afford $200,000 in court costs?

You may be one of the lucky people who will work his/her entire career without ever being faced with a legal threat. I truly hope you are. But I speak from experience when I say that being threatened with legal action is without question scarier than anything you can possibly imagine. One court case can not only ruin the business you have worked tirelessly to build, but also ruin the life you have worked so hard to enjoy. Are you prepared to lose everything based on a handshake and a smile?

Always use a signed contract. Fucking, period.

Rationalizing Dissatisfaction

2011-07-19T19:25:26Z

Striking a Familiar Chord

An article penned by Oliver Emberton of SilkTide entitled "Why we gave up web design after 10 successful years" has caught the attention and admiration of the greater design community. I found it exceptionally easy to relate to the conclusions Mr. Emberton draws from his experience simply because I do exactly the same thing for a living. I've had the same thoughts and have struggled with the same questions. There is simply no way I would not relate to his experiences. The difference, however, is that my rationalizations aren't so transparently one-sided.

What he has described isn't a revelation in so much as he's seen the proverbial light as a business owner because he finally opened both of his eyes and saw the big picture; rather, he has simply opened one eye while shutting the other. His conclusions merely rehash the same tired complaints and rationalizations most designers bitch about every single day: Clients. Work. Money. Effort. Service. Product. Value. Happiness. Balance. Blah.

It's the same, never-ending litany of complaints directed almost entirely at our clients or the idea that "service" is somehow lower on the totem than product.

I will argue that no matter what you do, you are always working for someone else.

Client or Customer: What's the difference?

My intention isn't to frisk Mr. Emberton, nor is it to suggest that his opinions and solutions aren't perfectly valid. My intention is to point out a blatantly obvious fact that seems to escape so many people: Client is simply another word for "customer".

Unhappy clients don't pay their bills. Unhappy customers don't buy your product. See how this works? Either way, if you aren't getting paid, it means that you are doing something wrong.

Whether you create a web site for a client or develop an application for a customer, the reality is that you are still beholden to your customers. Put another way, as long as another human being is giving you money with the expectation of getting something in return, you are working for someone else.

It's all the same. I'm baffled why so many experienced professionals try to make a distinction between the two terms when describing web services versus application development.

If you need further convincing, think about it this way:

Web design is primarily a service business.
Application development BECOMES a service business the moment you accept recurring payments or feature requests. Hence the acronym, SaaS.

Fate is Not Sealed

Why does working for a client necessarily mean your "fate is sealed"? There is a peculiar negativity inherent in this statement that threw me for a loop because, at its core, is the implied belief that "clients" are problems. It also assumes that "customers" are somehow preferable because they want to use your product and incessantly praise its functionality.

Obviously I'm paraphrasing Emberton’s lengthy rationalization, but his reasoning prompts me to ask a simple question … "Who's in control of your fate? You or your customer?"

If you answered "my customer", you need to sit down and rethink your approach.

Grow A Pair

Lastly, I cannot disagree more with the following statement: "Bit by bit, you sacrifice your ideals for expediency." Bullshit. I carved my ideals in granite the moment I took my first job, and I've never wavered in my ideals in sixteen years. I've made mistakes. We all have. But I've always maintained a steadfast foundation of moral and ethical business principles.

While I do agree there is some truth to the arguments Emberton outlines in the sections entitled "Not a great business", "The limits of size and location", and "Sacrifice your own destiny", these arguments are nothing more than rationalizations proffered to justify offering one service over another. And there is nothing wrong with that.

When you open your other eye and take full advantage of your binocular vision, you will see that the result is exactly the same. Rationalizations aside, you either work to improve your services, or you work to improve the features of your product in anticipation that someone will hand over cash money because they see value in what you have to offer.

I truly believe that as long as you have the conviction to protect your integrity, you will carve out a business that allows you to work with people who are able to recognize your unique brand of professionalism.

A Worthy Perspective

Another article making rounds is "You Should Probably Quit Your Job" by Scott Gilmore, the premise of which can be summarized with the single statement, "I'm going to get out and do something worthwhile, make a difference."

There are plenty of people in the creative world who will tell you that they got into design to "make a difference" and became disillusioned along the way. Clients are difficult, advertising is a [fill in the blank], running a business is tough … and any number of other rationalizations meant to comfort a bored and disenchanted creative soul.

It is human nature to want more than your current life situation allows. It is also human nature to feel as though helping the needy or spreading the gospel is somehow more "worthwhile" than building websites for paying clients.

While I'd prefer to see more people quit their jobs to do something to help endangered species rather than the species who is systematically destroying our planet, I will argue that no matter what you do to "help”, there is an innate selfishness to a human being's philanthropic posturing.

More to the point: Why do so many people think web design is pointless?

As a designer or a developer, you are helping an individual establish or improve his/her company. You have the opportunity to touch every aspect of their venture from branding to marketing to how their users interact with their service or product. Your position in the business relationship carries with it an enormous responsibility.

Building a successful web site means that you are helping build a business that will feed someone's family or help put someone's child through college. You may be helping a non-profit reach more people. Or giving an entrepreneur the expertise he needs to find a market for his great idea.

By my reckoning, that makes web design a fairly good candidate for "most worthwhile" career choice.

It's all a matter of perspective.

In Conclusion

I shouldn't be surprised, given human nature's proclivity for dissatisfaction, that there seem to be a great many creative people who want to believe that there is a magic potion that will open the door to everlasting satisfaction with their work.

The articles I've referenced above lend credence to the age old trope that "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." … or, more aptly, I could summarize both articles with two words: "I'm bored."

The simple explanation is that people are generally upset or conflicted over the fact that existence requires them to work, and they would prefer to live their lives completely untethered from societal pressures. I admit I'd like nothing more than to have the resources to ski six months out of every year and spend the remaining six months supporting any number of wildlife preservation initiatives.

Life being what we have created, we have to work. And web design is great work.

I don't want to quit my job because I love my job. I also understand implicitly that I am in complete control over the direction I take my business and how I interact with my clients.

In the end, no matter what I do, whether I'm accepting payment for a job, authorizing a recurring charge for my service-as-a-software application, building a home for Habitat For Humanity, or helping save Green Sea Turtles, I will be working for someone else … on my own terms.

htm-ale Interview

2011-06-10T09:05:23Z

@zacharylang and @sethpbrown graciously invited me to join them on their podcast, htm-ale, for a rousing conversation covering self-employment, community, and general business advice.

If you're not offended by colorful language and brutally honest declarations, by all means, have a listen.

http://htm-ale.com/episodes/9-16toads