Why Java Will Drive Your Visitors Away.
By Ben | August 27, 2008
Microsoft and Sun.
Java is an open standard, and it's one that Microsoft originally embraced. They made their own Microsoft JVM (Java Virtual Machine) part of Internet Explorer. This led to the rapid growth of Java on the web.
Sun, Java's creator, then decided to sue Microsoft, for being anti-competitive in bundling the Microsoft JVM with the world's most popular web browser. This was a bad move – Sun wanted Microsoft to bundle its JVM instead, but it actually led to Microsoft simply removing all Java support from Internet Explorer, and forcing users to go and download Sun's (from www.java.com) if they wanted to see Java content.
That leaves us in the situation we're in today, where users can be divided into three groups:
Users with old versions of Internet Explorer. They have the Microsoft JVM, which is wildly incompatible with Sun's.
Users with new versions of Internet Explorer but no JVM. They don't have a JVM, meaning that you'll have to get them to download Sun's to see Java content – and Sun's JVM is a big download.
Users with Sun's JVM. They're not only the smallest group, but they're also using a JVM that is incompatible with Microsoft's.
This leads to a situation where you can either code for the smallest group of users (who have a supported plugin), or the next largest one (who have an unsupported one), or try to force the largest group (who have no plugin) to get one. This is obviously an extremely bad situation to find yourself in.
The Speed Problem.
Java's problems, though, don't end there. Even assuming that your user has one JVM or the other, they still won't want to use Java content. The big reason for this is that Java is very, very slow.
How slow? It's slow to the point where going to any page that has Java on it will cause most browsers to freeze up for about 30 seconds or so, appearing to have crashed completely. Users are unlikely to be patient enough to wait for the Java to load, instead press control, alt and delete to get out of there.
Java's adherents mostly refuse to acknowledge the speed problem, but it's bad enough that downloadable desktop programs written in Java have become a complete joke – anything useful written in Java will be pretty promptly re-written in someone else to make a more responsive and usable version. Java programs are simply impractical thanks to their speed problems, and no matter how fast computers get it doesn't seem to get any better.
The Looks Problem.
The next problem is the way Java tends to look. It uses non-standard buttons, not to mention rather simple and overly programmatical ways of producing graphics. To put it less kindly, content produced with Java tends to be ugly.
If you try producing the same application in Java and in Flash, there's just no comparison. The Flash version might be a little harder to code, but it will work in so many more browsers, load much faster, and look better when it does. You would be very silly at this point to use Java instead of Flash, and there are very few things that Java applets can do but Flash can't.
Java on the Server.
At this point, Java is pretty much dead on the desktop, or in the web browser. For this reason, if you're going to write programs in Java, you should keep them where they belong and work best – on the server. Java on the server is growing all the time, and is a good alternative to many other ways of doing things, providing your server is powerful enough for it. Sun knows this, and is re-focusing its Java efforts at server installations, as an alternative to Microsoft's .Net. Let's leave client-side Java to rest in peace.
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »
Why Java Will Drive Your Visitors Away.
By Ben | August 27, 2008
Microsoft and Sun.
Java is an open standard, and it's one that Microsoft originally embraced. They made their own Microsoft JVM (Java Virtual Machine) part of Internet Explorer. This led to the rapid growth of Java on the web.
Sun, Java's creator, then decided to sue Microsoft, for being anti-competitive in bundling the Microsoft JVM with the world's most popular web browser. This was a bad move – Sun wanted Microsoft to bundle its JVM instead, but it actually led to Microsoft simply removing all Java support from Internet Explorer, and forcing users to go and download Sun's (from www.java.com) if they wanted to see Java content.
That leaves us in the situation we're in today, where users can be divided into three groups:
Users with old versions of Internet Explorer. They have the Microsoft JVM, which is wildly incompatible with Sun's.
Users with new versions of Internet Explorer but no JVM. They don't have a JVM, meaning that you'll have to get them to download Sun's to see Java content – and Sun's JVM is a big download.
Users with Sun's JVM. They're not only the smallest group, but they're also using a JVM that is incompatible with Microsoft's.
This leads to a situation where you can either code for the smallest group of users (who have a supported plugin), or the next largest one (who have an unsupported one), or try to force the largest group (who have no plugin) to get one. This is obviously an extremely bad situation to find yourself in.
The Speed Problem.
Java's problems, though, don't end there. Even assuming that your user has one JVM or the other, they still won't want to use Java content. The big reason for this is that Java is very, very slow.
How slow? It's slow to the point where going to any page that has Java on it will cause most browsers to freeze up for about 30 seconds or so, appearing to have crashed completely. Users are unlikely to be patient enough to wait for the Java to load, instead press control, alt and delete to get out of there.
Java's adherents mostly refuse to acknowledge the speed problem, but it's bad enough that downloadable desktop programs written in Java have become a complete joke – anything useful written in Java will be pretty promptly re-written in someone else to make a more responsive and usable version. Java programs are simply impractical thanks to their speed problems, and no matter how fast computers get it doesn't seem to get any better.
The Looks Problem.
The next problem is the way Java tends to look. It uses non-standard buttons, not to mention rather simple and overly programmatical ways of producing graphics. To put it less kindly, content produced with Java tends to be ugly.
If you try producing the same application in Java and in Flash, there's just no comparison. The Flash version might be a little harder to code, but it will work in so many more browsers, load much faster, and look better when it does. You would be very silly at this point to use Java instead of Flash, and there are very few things that Java applets can do but Flash can't.
Java on the Server.
At this point, Java is pretty much dead on the desktop, or in the web browser. For this reason, if you're going to write programs in Java, you should keep them where they belong and work best – on the server. Java on the server is growing all the time, and is a good alternative to many other ways of doing things, providing your server is powerful enough for it. Sun knows this, and is re-focusing its Java efforts at server installations, as an alternative to Microsoft's .Net. Let's leave client-side Java to rest in peace.
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »
Why Doing It Yourself is Best.
By Ben | August 25, 2008
What I'm here to tell you, though, is that you should consider doing things another way. I'm telling you that you should go get yourself some wood and a saw. In short, you should do it yourself.
Why Would I Do That?
No matter what you might do, unless you're doing it yourself – that is, coding your website by hand – you're not going to have full control. Doing it yourself gives you control over every tiny, tiny detail, and puts you in a situation where there should never be a problem you can't fix. You're not relying on a company, or a designer, or anyone else – whatever goes wrong, you can fix it.
Thanks to XHTML and CSS, creating websites by hand has never been easier – in fact, once you know the basics, it's often easier than fighting with some piece of software to get it to make things look the way you want. Once you know the tag for an image, it's much easier to just type it than go through a bunch of menus. When you know you want something to be a certain width, it's easier to type that in than to try to make it the right size using the mouse. Web design benefits from the kind of preciseness that you get from doing it by hand.
At every stage in the process, you know what you've done and you know what you have left to do. If something isn't working the way it should, you can easily look through, find the problem, and make it right. Altogether, not only do you save the money that you would have spent on Dreamweaver or FrontPage, but you also end up with a better website in the end.
Tables and Coding.
For a long time, the biggest reason to stay away from hand-coding websites was that most complex layouts were done using tables, and tables were hard, especially when you had to put one inside another. Any modern website, though, really shouldn't be using tables at all, which means that you won't have to learn how to do them – that takes down the biggest barrier to hand-coding. HTML is very easy to figure out, and from there all you have to do is learn a little CSS (there are plenty of good books on it, and there's not that much to learn altogether) and you're away.
Re-using Code.
There are only a limited number of things that you'd want to do in HTML, and they've all been done by someone, somewhere. When you see an effect you'd like to use on any website, anywhere, knowing HTML means that you can simply use your browser's 'View Source' function to see how it was done and adapt it for your own website – this is generally considered an OK thing to do.
You'll also be able to start building up little libraries of code you've written yourself – a two-column layout, a splash page, and so on – and quickly adapt them as they're needed. Even better, if you already have some HTML from a template that you bought or that came with some software, having built websites yourself will give you enough know-how to figure out how to edit it and make it look exactly the way you want.
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »
Why Doing It Yourself is Best.
By Ben | August 25, 2008
What I'm here to tell you, though, is that you should consider doing things another way. I'm telling you that you should go get yourself some wood and a saw. In short, you should do it yourself.
Why Would I Do That?
No matter what you might do, unless you're doing it yourself – that is, coding your website by hand – you're not going to have full control. Doing it yourself gives you control over every tiny, tiny detail, and puts you in a situation where there should never be a problem you can't fix. You're not relying on a company, or a designer, or anyone else – whatever goes wrong, you can fix it.
Thanks to XHTML and CSS, creating websites by hand has never been easier – in fact, once you know the basics, it's often easier than fighting with some piece of software to get it to make things look the way you want. Once you know the tag for an image, it's much easier to just type it than go through a bunch of menus. When you know you want something to be a certain width, it's easier to type that in than to try to make it the right size using the mouse. Web design benefits from the kind of preciseness that you get from doing it by hand.
At every stage in the process, you know what you've done and you know what you have left to do. If something isn't working the way it should, you can easily look through, find the problem, and make it right. Altogether, not only do you save the money that you would have spent on Dreamweaver or FrontPage, but you also end up with a better website in the end.
Tables and Coding.
For a long time, the biggest reason to stay away from hand-coding websites was that most complex layouts were done using tables, and tables were hard, especially when you had to put one inside another. Any modern website, though, really shouldn't be using tables at all, which means that you won't have to learn how to do them – that takes down the biggest barrier to hand-coding. HTML is very easy to figure out, and from there all you have to do is learn a little CSS (there are plenty of good books on it, and there's not that much to learn altogether) and you're away.
Re-using Code.
There are only a limited number of things that you'd want to do in HTML, and they've all been done by someone, somewhere. When you see an effect you'd like to use on any website, anywhere, knowing HTML means that you can simply use your browser's 'View Source' function to see how it was done and adapt it for your own website – this is generally considered an OK thing to do.
You'll also be able to start building up little libraries of code you've written yourself – a two-column layout, a splash page, and so on – and quickly adapt them as they're needed. Even better, if you already have some HTML from a template that you bought or that came with some software, having built websites yourself will give you enough know-how to figure out how to edit it and make it look exactly the way you want.
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »
Which Database is Right for You?
By Ben | August 23, 2008
MySQL.
MySQL is the most common database software for small websites, but is laughed at in the rest of the industry. It's fine for simple insertion and retrieval of data, but if you start trying to do anything more advanced with it, you're going to start running into problems.
So what doesn't MySQL support? Today, MySQL doesn't support views ('virtual' tables made from other tables), stored procedures (small programs that can be stored in the database) or triggers (actions that the database can be told to do automatically when certain things happen). However, many of these features are promised in future versions.
What does MySQL have going for it? Well, for one thing, it's free, and it's the most-used database on the web. The database has speed, simplicity, and a no-nonsense attitude on its side. MySQL is usable with a lot of different programming languages instead of being artificially restricted, and runs on a lot of operating system. There's no shortage of big websites using MySQL and doing just fine: CNet and Friendster spring to mind.
Visit www.mysql.com for more information.
PostgreSQL.
MySQL's biggest open source competitor is PostgreSQL (www.postgresql.org). It's often considered to be a better database overall than MySQL, and yet it has a much smaller market share. It a more established and mature database than MySQL, with roots in the early '80s compared to MySQL's start in the mid-'90s, and is also released under a more flexible license.
The biggest strength of PostgreSQL is that it lets the database do more of the work: you define rules to say how your tables relate to each other, and PostgreSQL 'understands' and make things easy on you. It supports all the latest standards and features, making it a much better choice as a drop-in replacement for an expensive enterprise database than MySQL is.
Microsoft SQL Server.
Microsoft's SQL Server supports lots of extra features that other databases don't – because they were entirely made up my Microsoft. There are two reasons why some people use SQL Server: first, it works well with IIS and ASP, and second, it works graphically instead of using text.
However, as with most Microsoft products, security has proved to be SQL Server's weak point. Back in 2003, the Slammer worm demonstrated how insecure the software is when it spread between servers using a vulnerability in SQL Server. The problems caused were bad enough that the entire Internet actually slowed down, and although Microsoft says it has committed to improving security in all its software, it remains to be seen whether something similar might happen again.
Oracle.
Oracle is widely considered to be the best database out there. It's a very old, stable database, and is the most-used in big enterprise operations, mainly because it's so much faster than anything else out there. Oracle works on lots of different operating systems, and has support for lots of interesting features like Java and XML.
Oracle offers a lot of documentation and support on its website and, despite what you might think, is usable with languages like PHP. People used to avoid Oracle because it was wildly expensive compared to other database soft out there, but Oracle now makes a 'Standard' version available for around $150 per user – quite comparable to Microsoft's SQL Server. At this point, the only reason not to use Oracle is that you want your database to be entirely free – you'd be a fool to choose SQL Server instead of this, for sure.
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »
What You See Isn’t Always What You Get.
By Ben | August 21, 2008
When you use a visual HTML editor like FrontPage or Dreamweaver, they tell you that WYSIWYG: what you see is what you get. This means that, in theory, what you see while you're editing the page should look just like what you get when you're done. While word processors have pretty much got the concept working now when it comes to printing (it didn't used to be as reliable), there are still problems when it comes to HTML editors and web browsers – of course, if you've spent more than five minutes using visual HTML editors, then you'll know that.
The Advantages of WYSIWYG.
WYSIWYG is quite uncontroversial at this point – its advantages are clear, in that it lets you make your page look exactly the way you want it to while you're writing it, with no surprises. In the early days, it was sometimes referred to as being like a kind of 'interactive print preview'. Professional typesetters were at first opposed to its use in publishing, but it's easy and quick enough that it has come to dominate. The alternative now, though, is to go back to the days of layout commands, which isn't something most users want to do.
On the web, WYSIWY it can be far more problematic, because what comes out of the other end of the program isn't a static, printed page – it's computer code, HTML, that has to be interpreted by a web browser before it becomes anything viewable.
Not Even All Browsers are the Same.
The first problem with what you see in an editor being what you get in a browser is that all the different browsers available don't always make the same page look the same way. How are HTML editors supposed to account for bugs in Internet Explorer? They can't, really.
Each piece of HTML editing software is forced to either write its own HTML rendering engine (the engine that decides how the code is translated to a visible page), or use one from an existing program. Recently, for example, Dreamweaver moved over to Opera's engine, which means that it shows pages the way Opera does. FrontPage has always been closest to Internet Explorer. Because Mozilla is open source, there are a lot of HTML editors based on its engine, the most usable of which is Nvu.
That doesn't exactly help, though, when it comes to things looking the same in every browser – if you use Dreamweaver, for example, what you see will be what you get in Opera, but not necessarily in Internet Explorer. This is a problem that can be partially solved by testing everything in every browser, but doing that doesn't let you see what your page is going to look like as you're going along.
Maybe What You See Shouldn't Be What You Get.
While users demand WYSIWYG software, it's somewhat misguided when it comes to the web, for the simple reason that it expects everyone to be using your site the same way, and designs towards that expected use.
In reality, the web was designed to be a document format that was interpreted by the program receiving it, meaning that if a browser wants to leave out all the graphics, or ignore all your tables, then it's perfectly justified in doing so. This is especially significant when it comes to mobile browsers – they simply don't have large enough screens to display normal designs, and it's silly to force them to try.
Realising this is one of the most important differences between being a good designer and being a bad one. Bad designers will be constantly nudging at their designs, doing everything they can think of to get them to look exactly the way they intended in every browser possible, even if it doubles the size and complexity of the code. A good designer will write good code that displays in all browsers, but doesn't necessarily have to be pixel-perfect.
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »
What Do You Want Your Website to Do?
By Ben | August 19, 2008
The Business Card Website.
For many people, having a website is something they feel the need to do as a duty, not because they really want to do it. In this case, it's perfectly justified to put up a website with nothing more than your name, your business name (if any), and your email address. You could also include your real-world address and your phone number, if you're comfortable with that. The key here is to at least put up something for someone who happens to be looking for you with a search engine.
You have to understand, though, that these kinds of sites can be as frustrating as they are helpful. Friends and co-workers may be excited to find your site, only to say "oh... is that all it does?" Customers, especially, have a tendency to get upset, especially if they just wanted to know something about your products or pricing. Not having a complete website makes work for them when they have to ask you about these things, and for you when you have to answer.
The CV/Portfolio Website.
An extension of the business card format is to make your website brief, and directed at getting people to call you if they're interested in you. It could just be a listing of the jobs you've had, or it could be an archive of the articles you've written for various publications – whatever, it's there to get you work. These kinds of websites can be effective, although you should realise that you're more likely to get some work because of a site that people find useful than because of one that's just about you.
The Brochure Website.
They're often-mocked in web design, but they're not really that bad: brochure-style websites simply reproduce the kind of material you would send out in a brochure to an interested customer, complete with pictures and technical details. Instead of actually doing any business online, you give the customer your contact information.
In many industries, really, this is the only way to work. There are things you just can't do with shopping carts and credit card processing, after all, especially when it comes to services. These kinds of websites are especially prevalent among businesses with a more local focus.
The E-Commerce Website.
There are two situations where e-commerce works really well: if you're selling a service that can be provided over the web, or if you're selling a small product that you can handle shipping for. In these situations, e-commerce websites are very powerful. You can sell your product direct online, cutting out whatever middlemen there might be.
The Content Website.
Ever more popular, content websites work by providing useful writing and then putting ads around it. That's the whole business model in a nutshell, but it works surprisingly well. The more writing you can do (or get), the better it works for you. If you want, you can even leave off the ads and put up a small button asking people to donate to your site if they found your information helpful – people can be nicer than you'd expect.
The Community Website.
Finally, an often-ignored kind of website is one that exists to serve a community. The community might be geographical (people who live in the same town), or it could an interest or hobby community (a forum for people who really like a certain genre of TV show, for example). Community websites can be fun to participate in, and they can make a lot of money if you can find advertisers who are interested in the very specific audience your site has got. If your site gets popular, you might even be able to charge people for membership! Even if it stays free and small, though, it's nice to have a web community to call your own, and you're likely to benefit in all sorts of ways that you wouldn't expect
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »
What Do You Want Your Website to Do?
By Ben | August 19, 2008
The Business Card Website.
For many people, having a website is something they feel the need to do as a duty, not because they really want to do it. In this case, it's perfectly justified to put up a website with nothing more than your name, your business name (if any), and your email address. You could also include your real-world address and your phone number, if you're comfortable with that. The key here is to at least put up something for someone who happens to be looking for you with a search engine.
You have to understand, though, that these kinds of sites can be as frustrating as they are helpful. Friends and co-workers may be excited to find your site, only to say "oh... is that all it does?" Customers, especially, have a tendency to get upset, especially if they just wanted to know something about your products or pricing. Not having a complete website makes work for them when they have to ask you about these things, and for you when you have to answer.
The CV/Portfolio Website.
An extension of the business card format is to make your website brief, and directed at getting people to call you if they're interested in you. It could just be a listing of the jobs you've had, or it could be an archive of the articles you've written for various publications – whatever, it's there to get you work. These kinds of websites can be effective, although you should realise that you're more likely to get some work because of a site that people find useful than because of one that's just about you.
The Brochure Website.
They're often-mocked in web design, but they're not really that bad: brochure-style websites simply reproduce the kind of material you would send out in a brochure to an interested customer, complete with pictures and technical details. Instead of actually doing any business online, you give the customer your contact information.
In many industries, really, this is the only way to work. There are things you just can't do with shopping carts and credit card processing, after all, especially when it comes to services. These kinds of websites are especially prevalent among businesses with a more local focus.
The E-Commerce Website.
There are two situations where e-commerce works really well: if you're selling a service that can be provided over the web, or if you're selling a small product that you can handle shipping for. In these situations, e-commerce websites are very powerful. You can sell your product direct online, cutting out whatever middlemen there might be.
The Content Website.
Ever more popular, content websites work by providing useful writing and then putting ads around it. That's the whole business model in a nutshell, but it works surprisingly well. The more writing you can do (or get), the better it works for you. If you want, you can even leave off the ads and put up a small button asking people to donate to your site if they found your information helpful – people can be nicer than you'd expect.
The Community Website.
Finally, an often-ignored kind of website is one that exists to serve a community. The community might be geographical (people who live in the same town), or it could an interest or hobby community (a forum for people who really like a certain genre of TV show, for example). Community websites can be fun to participate in, and they can make a lot of money if you can find advertisers who are interested in the very specific audience your site has got. If your site gets popular, you might even be able to charge people for membership! Even if it stays free and small, though, it's nice to have a web community to call your own, and you're likely to benefit in all sorts of ways that you wouldn't expect
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »
Websites and Weblogs: What’s the Difference?
By Ben | August 17, 2008
How Did Weblogs Start?
Many people say that there have been weblogs (or blogs, as they're sometimes called) for as long as there has been a web. Back when there were only a few thousand websites, the 'What's New' page that announced each new one (yes, there really was such a thing!) worked in just the same way as blogs do today.
Early weblogs included Scripting News, Robot Wisdom and Camworld, which all started in 1997. To begin with, blogs mostly consisted of often-updated lists of useful and amusing links to other websites, but it gradually became clear that the format was just as good for distributing longer articles. Blog software started to be developed, and their popularity quickly exploded. By 1999, everyone was talking about blogs.
Why are Blogs So Popular?
In recent years, the blog format has very much taken over from the 'personal home page'. People seem to find it much easier to just put a kind of public diary online, instead of putting up a little biography of themselves and a collection of articles. It's more personal, more fun, and more interactive day-to-day.
Businesses have started to open blogs too – in many ways, they're like a replacement for newsletters. A regularly-updated blog gives customers a great sense of what a business is like, while giving the business a great way to keep communicating with its customers and being useful to them, even when they're not buying anything right this minute.
In my opinion, the biggest reason for blogs' popularity is that they make publishing to the web very easy. You don't really have to know anything about what's happening behind the scenes: blogs finally make publishing your thoughts for everyone to see as easy as posting to a forum or sending an email. In a way, blogs fulfil the original promise of the web.
Weblog Software.
Today, there's a lot of blog software out there – if you want a blog, you're spoiled for choice. What you get will depend on how comfortable you are with technical stuff, and whether you want it to be part of your main website or not.
Movable Type. This is software that you install on your web server. You simply log in and type your post, and it creates your pages for you. Movable Type can be a little complex to set up, but you can use a version called Typepad that is hosted by its creators instead of using your server.
Blogger. You don't install Blogger on your server – instead, you give it your FTP password and let it upload files to your web server for you. If you don't have any hosting, you can also host blogs for free at Blogger's Blogspot. Blogger is owned by Google.
WordPress. WordPress is a free alternative to blogging software. It works in basically the same way as Movable Type, but without the restrictive licensing and with nicer-looking default templates. Many people have switched to WordPress out of frustration with Movable Type and not looked back. You have to host it on your own server, but it's very simple to set up – don't be scared!
LiveJournal. LiveJournal is a completely online service, meaning that it has nothing to do with your website, except that you can link to your LiveJournal if you want. LiveJournal is more social than most blogging, allowing you to join communities relating to your interest.
There are plenty of other online services, but they're all pretty much the same: MSN Spaces, AOL Journals, and so on. You're unlikely to get taken very seriously if you have a blog at any of these places, although it'd be easy. In the end, it's all about power versus convenience: the more work you put in to get your blog working, the more likely that it's going to be what you really wanted it to be. If you're creating a website anyway, you'd be silly not to put a blog on it.
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »
Websites and Weblogs: What’s the Difference?
By Ben | August 17, 2008
How Did Weblogs Start?
Many people say that there have been weblogs (or blogs, as they're sometimes called) for as long as there has been a web. Back when there were only a few thousand websites, the 'What's New' page that announced each new one (yes, there really was such a thing!) worked in just the same way as blogs do today.
Early weblogs included Scripting News, Robot Wisdom and Camworld, which all started in 1997. To begin with, blogs mostly consisted of often-updated lists of useful and amusing links to other websites, but it gradually became clear that the format was just as good for distributing longer articles. Blog software started to be developed, and their popularity quickly exploded. By 1999, everyone was talking about blogs.
Why are Blogs So Popular?
In recent years, the blog format has very much taken over from the 'personal home page'. People seem to find it much easier to just put a kind of public diary online, instead of putting up a little biography of themselves and a collection of articles. It's more personal, more fun, and more interactive day-to-day.
Businesses have started to open blogs too – in many ways, they're like a replacement for newsletters. A regularly-updated blog gives customers a great sense of what a business is like, while giving the business a great way to keep communicating with its customers and being useful to them, even when they're not buying anything right this minute.
In my opinion, the biggest reason for blogs' popularity is that they make publishing to the web very easy. You don't really have to know anything about what's happening behind the scenes: blogs finally make publishing your thoughts for everyone to see as easy as posting to a forum or sending an email. In a way, blogs fulfil the original promise of the web.
Weblog Software.
Today, there's a lot of blog software out there – if you want a blog, you're spoiled for choice. What you get will depend on how comfortable you are with technical stuff, and whether you want it to be part of your main website or not.
Movable Type. This is software that you install on your web server. You simply log in and type your post, and it creates your pages for you. Movable Type can be a little complex to set up, but you can use a version called Typepad that is hosted by its creators instead of using your server.
Blogger. You don't install Blogger on your server – instead, you give it your FTP password and let it upload files to your web server for you. If you don't have any hosting, you can also host blogs for free at Blogger's Blogspot. Blogger is owned by Google.
WordPress. WordPress is a free alternative to blogging software. It works in basically the same way as Movable Type, but without the restrictive licensing and with nicer-looking default templates. Many people have switched to WordPress out of frustration with Movable Type and not looked back. You have to host it on your own server, but it's very simple to set up – don't be scared!
LiveJournal. LiveJournal is a completely online service, meaning that it has nothing to do with your website, except that you can link to your LiveJournal if you want. LiveJournal is more social than most blogging, allowing you to join communities relating to your interest.
There are plenty of other online services, but they're all pretty much the same: MSN Spaces, AOL Journals, and so on. You're unlikely to get taken very seriously if you have a blog at any of these places, although it'd be easy. In the end, it's all about power versus convenience: the more work you put in to get your blog working, the more likely that it's going to be what you really wanted it to be. If you're creating a website anyway, you'd be silly not to put a blog on it.
Topics: Articles, Marketing | No Comments »