But in order to provide materials for the widest range of digital users, we decided that the print and PDF viewbooks required a mobile counterpart — an option that could be used in conjunction with strategically distributed QR codes on print postcards, or simply be accessed via a link. This counterpart needed to be done expediently and efficiently… without, of course, sacrificing quality.

Enter JQuery Mobile, a framework designed to replicate the aesthetic and functionality of stand-alone mobile apps, but within the convenient environment of the mobile browser. We leveraged its broad platform support to create a product that could serve as many mobile or tablet-based viewers as possible.

Utilizing the framework’s collapsible blocks, we created a responsive, concise version of the viewbook. Users could use common touch-based behavior to navigate through a series of blocks containing streamlined text, mobile-optimized images, YouTube videos, and links. Some links were tailored specifically for mobile, allowing viewers to call the school with a simple press of a button.

Our team then developed a custom skin for the “app”, creating a singular aesthetic that fit the mobile viewbook into the client’s brand system with natural ease. The end result was an efficiently produced yet polished product that served the client’s needs without costing a fortune. It maintains its aesthetic and functional integrity on mobile phones, tablets, and desktop browsers.

With JQuery Mobile’s help, web developers now have a new window in to mobile optimization.

When it comes to identifying a client’s needs in a web-based project and how those needs are best fulfilled, internal collaboration isn’t just important, it’s essential. While Strategy, Design, and Digital Media can often (unfortunately) exist in vacuums, going it alone has become somewhat outdated.

Recently, our digital media team has been taking a more active role in site planning, participating in everything from estimate drafting to information architecture to wire-framing and beyond. More traditional workflow dictates that a developer is meant to focus almost exclusively on their namesake: development. Sure, they can provide some limited consultation, but otherwise coders often remain quiet until design templates and wire-frames suddenly appear on their desk.

Working in that manner comes with disadvantages. The developer may find an unexpected portion of the approved materials that proves difficult to implement within the budget, just as a web strategist/producer or designer may find themselves working with incomplete information. This kind of in-house disconnection might end up being reflected in the work… which could leave clients dissatisfied.

Our more integrated approach remedies this. During the earlier phases of a project, all in-house members of the team become, in a sense, solutions architects. We take our respective skill sets from design, development, or brand strategy and apply them equally to determining the content structure of a new website. The result is a situation where all members of the team are on the same page. Collaborating on its construction not only grants team members a better understanding of the site structure, but makes them truly invested in maintaining its integrity throughout the process.

A web project is more than just its individual parts. The same can be said for the team that’s building it. Designers shouldn’t be limited to Photoshop, and we developers have more to offer than just code.

A few weeks ago, our friends over at KMA wrote a post about a very important concept in the modern browsing era: Graceful degradation.

Website construction has always required a multi-pronged perspective: not only must you consider the inner workings of the site you’re putting together, but also the broader context in which an audience of users are accessing your content in constantly evolving ways — namely, through a variety of browsers.

There was not always a Firefox, nor a Safari, nor the newly available release candidate of IE9. Likewise, while some users like to stay up to date and fashionable with their technology, others are understandably content with older ways of browsing the web.

Each browser, monitor, or platform interprets code with its own set of nuances. As new tags, properties, and techniques become available (like HTML5/CSS3), it takes a while for users to catch up. Think of it as watching an HD channel without an HD television.

So what are developers to do?

Generally, this issue is addressed by one of two similar, yet opposing philosophies: an approach called “progressive enhancement”, or the aforementioned “graceful degradation”. The first describes the act of designing for the most dated users, while simultaneously scaling up for those with modern browsing capabilities — and the second, the same in reverse. Both approaches yield comparable results, and their only real differentiation is their starting point.

At Sametz, our approach splits the difference.

On a project-by-project basis, we establish a baseline consisting of a broad user base with access to some of the latest capabilities of the web — but perhaps out of reach of the very latest in updates. We then pay careful attention to browser releases, the intended audience(s) for the site, and existing analytics for the site we’re working on to further define the baseline. From there, we focus on creating code that allows users with proper equipment to gain an enhanced experience — while still allowing those with older browsers maintain the integrity of their user experience.

The result is a project which takes advantage of the various extras of modern browsers, while still maintaining conceptual integrity in “legacy” browsers. Everyone ends up with the best experience possible.

We’ve put together a basic example to illustrate this, using our basic CSS reset and some HTML5 form elements. Then we specifically skipped our usual cross-browser testing to observe the results. Observe the following form as a baseline:

For this hypothetical project, we’ve determined that the user base is likely to be using relatively modern browsing platforms with roughly the capabilities of Firefox 3.6. Though the form elements are plain text boxes, some slick new CSS capabilities like box shadows and rounded corners apply.

This form scales back to IE6 (~2001), observe the legacy version:

While the newer CSS features (rounded corners, drop shadow, etc) are no longer present, the functionality of the form remains intact as well as the clarity of the concept.

And finally, our enhanced version (all features viewable in Safari 5, etc):

There are several enhancements unique to this example, including the placeholder on the email field, the invalid states on the email and number forms, the extra incremental buttons on the number field, and the slider with the updating value on the right. As you can see, the base functionality of the form remains the same.

The fields obtain information identical to the baseline, but with more specific methods. Additionally, this model represents forward-capability (meaning that you get the baseline now but as these features become commonplace, they’re already working once you update your browser).

We feel this philosophy will help us tackle the modern browsing era, allowing us to work with the most advanced techniques available — without leaving any users behind.

“Well this feels entirely unnecessary.”

That sentiment seems so prevalent among my friends and various internet outlets that I can practically reach out and touch its tangible form. Google TV, like Apple TV before it, seems to have provided a bountiful fount of unsure head-scratching. I can sort of understand the sentiment, as the apparatus does not provide access to any new content or shows. Hence, it’s logical for users to wonder about what exactly the thing does, in fact, do.

I would argue that people are, much like my more tech-minded friends when the iPad was announced, looking at it wrong. It’s not about content (or specs). Those traits are irrelevant compared to what it is about: changing the otherwise God-awful user experience of watching TV.

Think about it. When you go to a friend’s house and they have a different media set up than yours, how often do you find yourself trying multiple remotes in a fruitless effort to get to a 900 channel guide with numbers that are about as consistent as the Boston road system? Navigating content on TV is reliant on a set of GUI principles that are a chore to learn. We only do it so successfully because the end benefit outweighs the training and/or acclimation time. Why do we constantly navigate through hundreds of shows and channels to watch the 5-8 shows on the 3-4 channels that the average person watches at any given time, ever?

If TV were a website, people would think it was awful. That’s what Google is trying to tackle.

Their device allows users to create a customized experience to streamline content access. Have a homepage with your favorite shows right in front of you every time you turn on the TV; a search bar conveniently accessible when you want to branch out; and aggregate all methods of accessing that show into one place. That show isn’t on your traditional Cable right now? Maybe it’s on Hulu or Youtube. Bam, suddenly you’re watching.

There’s also the open source development potential and introduction of TV apps that may go beyond the “Netflix and Facebook” offerings of current TV manufacturers. There’s a lot going on here that may, if nothing else, lay the foundation for the future of TV.

That all said, is Google TV going to be successful? Doubt it. Highly, highly doubt it. It’s just too expensive given how much money people already pay to simply watch things in their living room. If a family has already shelled out the upfront and reoccurring costs for a TV, cable service, and game console, they’re simply not going to want to drop $300 for a device with benefits as ambiguous as these.

Still, I think it’s cool. I also think its principles will be something our grandkids take for granted. When they look back at how TV is now, they’ll be the ones scratching their heads.

The video above (courtesy of TIME’s Techland) is full of rather colorful and accurate metaphors to describe the gap that Microsoft is attempting to fill with its new mobile OS.

Apple’s hardware policy, much like its software development paradigm (note: that post is somewhat dated, and Apple has made some concessions since its publication), relies on strict first party control over all hardware production and implementation. Google’s Android OS, on the other hand, is practically open source for hardware manufacturers.

Microsoft’s policy seems implies that these two polarities are unreasonable extremes in need of a happy medium. The company will open up its operating system to multiple manufacturers, but with an approval process that maintains a set of minimum guidelines. As the above video puts it, a splitting of the difference.

But in a smart phone market where even Google struggles against a very established Apple, can Microsoft really hope to compete for a legitimate market share?

The Windows OS demo is receiving some strong press. Similar to the Microsoft Zune’s GUI, the operating system is pushing the boundaries of what’s expected from a mobile OS in a surprising and refreshing way. But as with the Zune, critical success may not translate into consumer popularity, in the same way that the best-reviewed independent movies bomb with theater-goers sometimes… especially when there are too many blockbusters in theaters.

That said, Microsoft has a few gimmicks which may give it an additional edge from the get-go, like Xbox Live tie-ins and neat Silverlight tricks. I certainly hope they bring the type of competition that pushes the market forward, and don’t evaporate from the scene before they get the chance to issue that challenge.

The first thing we noticed was how much of the screen was absolutely dominated by the site content. They’ve reduced the amount of “browser clutter” considerably, merging the navigation bar and tabs onto a single line and compressing all tools and favorites to a series of unobtrusive buttons in the top right corner. If you prefer your favorites or tools on traditional bars, you can revert the display by right clicking to the right of the tabs area and specifying which bars you’d like to show. This design is a bit jarring at first, but we quickly figured out where all necessary bits and pieces were for a complete browsing experience.

Likewise, the notification bar has been modified considerably. In previous versions, this feature would appear beneath the tabs to inform users of important status or security issues. Your most likely interaction with it occurred when installing web software (probably lots of “ActiveX Control” warnings). Now the bar is much larger and at the bottom of the screen. It appears in a manner similar to an AJAX interaction, subtly fading in when necessary and disappearing in a similarly smooth manner once the notification has been addressed. While it’s not a massive change, it contributes to a much more immersive web experience that seems in line with the “get out of my way” philosophy of the GUI.

We also noticed the addition of “pinning”. You can now take sites and pin them directly to your explorer bar in Windows 7. Windows will then use the site’s favicon to create what effectively feels the same as a desktop application button for immediate, 1-click browsing.

While this isn’t exactly creatively groundbreaking, the integration of web-favorites with traditionally offline mechanics is intriguing for a few reasons. First, it’s indicative of a larger technology trend that’s chipping away at the barrier between online and offline applications and features. As our infrastructure becomes more and more wired, software is operating more and more under the assumption that internet access will be constant. The result has been desktop software interacting with the internet to create considerably more dynamic experiences. Second, it represents the potential for future bridges between IE and Windows 7. Frankly, there’s no longer too much of a reason for Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer to be separate entities in the first place. We may soon find browsing the internet and browsing our own computers strikingly seamless.

I wanted to keep this post focused primarily on the user experience, but as a developer I’d be remiss not to mention that we’re a bit unexcited about the asterisk that seems to follow html5 and css3 support. At the very least, though, we’ll be able to get some nice rounded corners working on the browser. In the end, that’s enough of an improvement over previous iterations of IE to keep us happy.

If you’re a Windows user and you’re tired of stuff forcing its way between you and your web content, I’d suggest upgrading to the beta. As a bit of a GUI minimalist myself, I certainly will be on my desktop at home.

Being a Digital Media Developer allows me to really enjoy the “The Five Years Ago Game,” an exercise in which I try to think up as many everyday 2010 things as I can that five years ago either did not exist or meant something different. These can be everything from proper nouns to phrases and slang, or even broad concepts. Given the absurdly dynamic nature of how we access and use the Internet, sometimes I feel like I can play for hours.

Here are a few I’ve recently come up with:

In August of 2005:

1. YouTube’s company headquarters consisted of a small office on top of a pizzeria.
2. Gmail was still invite-only.
3. There was no such thing as an iPhone, and the phrase “mobile apps” would’ve elicited strange looks.
4. Using the term “Blu-Ray” meant you were strictly an insider.
5. High School Students couldn’t use Facebook (not until September, anyway).
6. Twitter was just a word used in semi-common colloquialisms (e.g. “I’m all atwitter!”).
7. Movies were overwhelmingly “2D.”
8. Windows Vista had just been announced.
9. Saying “I’m a Mac” may have gotten you committed.
10. “Social Media” likely meant going out to the movies with friends.
11. MySpace was still at least sort of hip.
12. Consumer processors were almost entirely single-core (Pentium 4!).
13. Apple still used their own processors.
14. People were using Firefox 1, only recently changed from “Firebird.”
15. Kindle just meant “to catch fire.”

Care to join in? Post yours in the comments! And don’t feel restricted to just technology….

Attempting to understand the nuance of “net neutrality“—the idea that Internet access and content should remain free of government or corporate control—is a tall order. It requires the observational skills, experience, and understanding of an anthropologist coupled with the book-smarts of a seasoned lawyer.

Tragically, most of us are neither of these things (myself included). And yet, anyone who spends a great deal of time dealing with the Internet (i.e., most of us) has a great stake in the outcome(s) of the debate surrounding the issue.

After all, the very definition of digital space and the rights of those that traverse it are at stake.

Recently, Google and Verizon released a short list of legislative recommendations summarizing their contemporary views on the subject. These include basic consumer-protections, transparency and non-discriminatory requirements, establishment of network management standards, and more.

The general reaction has been…hyperbolic. Articles with eye-popping headlines like “Google Goes Evil,” ”Google-Verizon pact, makes BP look good,” etc. have been fairly commonplace throughout the web. I would expect this kind of thing from HuffPo, of course, but I’ve read plenty of forum threads on the subject that haven’t been terribly inspired as well. I’ve seen one too many posts along the lines of “This could be the end of the internet as we know it!”

Fortunately, a few more level-headed responses have emerged. The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), an internet-oriented civil liberties group, has done a series of more detailed analyses on the recommendations. Their viewpoints focus more on the troubling vagaries, such as the nebulous concept of “network management standards” and consequences of “lawful content,” along with the highly conspicuous lack of standards for wireless networks (Google and Verizon suggest that for now, only the transparency standard should apply given the current dynamism of the technology/content).

I still think they may be a bit too troubled by the concepts they deem overly vague, as law is full of such language (e.g., the concept of “probable cause”) and we just sort of have to live with it. Still, I’m glad that a reasoned cautionary body like the EFF exists to counteract the natural flaw inherent in ANY legislation recommended by corporate entities. After all, Google and Verizon are ultimately self-interested.

Our government has a strong tendency to look for private sector “expertise” when dealing with complex issues like net neutrality. While this often generates problems, I find it understandable. Imagine you’re an elected official and are expected to formulate an opinion on net neutrality. Where do you look? To people you perceive have a great deal of knowledge regarding the Internet, of course: CEO’s of Google and Verizon, etc. This principle is applied across the board, particularly with executive branch appointees (just look at Henry Paulson‘s credentials before he became Bush’s second treasury secretary).

Even though I find the Google/Verizon recommendations perhaps more innocuous than most; I still think it’s fortunate that some very smart people out there are attempting to provide an alternative source of information. For every evil king, there tends to be a Robin Hood.

Frankly, it could be a lot worse. At least they have a non-discrimination requirement for land-line broadband in there. That’s essential to the very basis of net neutrality. Now if only they could apply it to large-scale wireless networks as well….

What do you think? Is this the end of the Internet as we know it?
And how can we move towards a more productive debate?

Image credit: Jason Walton