PHP NorthEast and a couple of Podcasts

I’ll be speaking at PHP NorthEast (a PHP and UX conference) next week in Boston, providing the closing keynote. The opening keynote is Steve Krug, so, uh, no pressure, right?

I believe there are still tickets available, so come on by and say hi to me.

If you want an idea of the sort of things I’ll be chatting about, you might want to listen to an interview I recorded with Jen Kramer a couple of weeks back.

Also, I forgot to mention that Matthew Sheret and I recorded a show with CivicCast a couple months ago, talking about GDS and Design Principles. Find Episode 1 on their website to listen to it.

April recap – TXJS & Front-Trends

April was pretty decent. I got to attend two very good conferences and I got to speak at them.

TXJS, Austin, USA

Austin! One of my favourite cities (mostly because I love tacos). Was very pleased to be asked to return to this conference after I spoke there last year. The day was remarkable, if only because it’s one of the first conferences in a very long time where I actually watched all of the talks (although Rebecca, being on before me, may have only had half of my attention). Really a very well curated day, and I felt very lucky to be in the line-up.

Alex was not overly prescriptive in what I should talk about, but suggested he liked the content of last year and would like a little more on that. So, I decided to pick an aspect about that that I felt was important to us at GDS and fundamental to the success of our Design Principles.

For me, it’s been our honesty and simple language. The words that we’ve used to talk about user needs, technical aspects of the site and the ethos have been plain and no-nonsense. I think this is hugely down to the strength of a team that has the confidence to cut through bullshit and say what it really means – Russell and Sarah are particularly brilliant at this, and have had huge parts to play in getting this cult of simple down in writing.

The tech scene is sort of rife with nonsense words. Buzzwords and clichés and the new name for the next big thing, which is actually the new name for the same old sensible thing – but with better marketing and a twitter hashtag. Ugh. I want a lot less of that in our world.

So, I picked on a few of these and showed a few examples from how we’re dealing with them at GDS. I believe the video for that talk is out now, but the slides are here.

Front-Trends, Warsaw, Poland

I attended this conference last year – definitely a favourite for its surprisingly sunny weather and for being one of the most friendly events I had been to in 2012. So, I was really glad to get to come back and share our Design Principles with the crowd.

It was very similar to the talk I gave at TXJS last year, except we’ve done a whole lot more at GDS since June of last year – we released v1.0 of, and a bunch of other stuff like the performance platform, Inside Government (and the 24 departments) and foreign travel advice, to name a few. I showcased some of these things, and then went through the design principles with the lovely, receptive, Polish audience and it seemed to go over rather well. The slides for this version of the talk are here.

Three days are a lot for a conference, but it was really high quality through-out and the breadth of subjects was really great. I wouldn’t recommend putting the party on the second night again, however – that last morning was something of a challenge. :)

A follow-up to “Conferences aren’t the problem”

Writing a follow-up seems necessary at this point, because my last post garnered more attention than I had anticipated, and the comments on it were much more, well, ridiculous than I think I can give justice to (thanks, hacker news!).

I thought I’d take the time to clarify a few points and respond generally.

The first thing I’d like to say is how shocked I was at two things:

  1. Respondents simply didn’t appear to have read the post before commenting – infuriating, many are programmers being dicks (as if we needed more evidence of sexism and racism etc.).
  2. Respondents appear to still believe we live in a meritocracy, free from discrimination with complete equal opportunity.

Unfortunately, point two is bogus. Discrimination is a problem. I, personally, don’t give a monkey’s how many women or whoever are in our industry, as long as everyone who wanted to be here could and had free opportunity to do so, but sadly that is not the case and as such our community is not representative of all those that could be here if discrimination, from stereotyping roles to outright sexism/racism/agism/*ism, was not present. As such, we have a duty to address the problems that disable people’s opportunities.

Comments from people who aren’t living under rocks mostly took issue with the idea that I was letting conferences off the hook. That was my own poor writing skills, and I added a note to the end of the last post to clarify slightly. In short: Conferences can make changes that have the potential to improve diversity in our circles, but it’s not the only place we can and should be putting pressure. And, in fact, if we can work on other ways to improve diversity we can help conferences achieve a more diverse voice.

Finally, .NET magazine asked my opinion on a couple of questions, and I responded. The article in it’s completeness, unfortunately, created a platform for a ridiculous parody site that I believe not only denies the issues at hand but conflates and confuses matters even more. I apologise for that fact, as I was not aware of it before publish. Update: .NET have removed the link to the parody site I refer to, due to it’s offensive nature.

My full responses for .NET are below, as I think they explain some more detail on my overall thoughts on diversity, but before that – if you can just take one thing away from this know that I believe: Equal opportunity matters more than anything else and we don’t have it, which has resulted in a lack of diversity. We can fix that.

Q&A with Craig Grannell of .NET

Craig: Why did you feel the need to write the piece?

As I intimated at the start of the article, there have been various outbreaks of finger pointing at conferences over the last few months about lack of diversity, and I guess I was just getting bored of it.

I felt that conferences were being blamed somehow for creating a lack of diversity within our industry, which appeared to me as unfair considering that there simply are, relatively speaking, very few women within our industry (particularly in development circles) who are also at the level to be able to provide a relevant, expert opinion and then also have the relevant speaking experience (or even the desire to speak at all).

I simply wanted to add a differing view to the discussion that perhaps we should see the lack of diversity in conference line-ups as symptoms of much deeper issues, and as well as demanding the conferences fairly represent our interests and experts, we should also start looking at other ways to create and encourage diversity and develop a better representation of the world at large. That maybe it’s time to start treating the lung cancer, instead of just the cough?

Craig: Do you think positive discrimination would in the long run do more harm than good to non-white men. If conferences started doing quotas, would that negatively impact on women in the industry, say?

It’s difficult to say – I think if it was widely believed that positive discrimination was happening everywhere, as a given, it would cause us to eventually ask a lot of questions like “is that person on stage because they are the very best person to explain this to me, or are they fulfilling a quota?” (particularly if a talk goes badly, which can happen from time to time for a variety of reasons). No body wants to be the token member of a line-up (I certainly don’t, and would turn down any opportunity that I thought that was the case). After everything is said and done, the only people we want to see on stage, regardless of what group they may represent, should be there on merit, and have the ability to give a good talk, inspire and educate, even if that comes at the cost of not fulfilling a desired quota sometimes.

As it stands, I don’t think we’re seeing positive discrimination in that obviously negative guise, rather it’s something more akin to “I have two well placed, equally viable, experts, but one of these would help me to better represent a group of people I feel is underrepresented – so lets go with that one!”, which seems quite reasonable to me. I think it’s also really helpful when conferences make it very clear how they selected their speakers. Was it blind proposals? Did you hand select? How many submissions did you get? The more we understand about the process of finding speakers, the more we can make our own mind up about how well curated a set of talks is as audience members.

Long term, I think we should be aiming to not have to even consider whether one person should be chosen over another to help fulfil quotas or present more people of one type of group. Ideally, we’d like to be selecting from a pool of people that are *already* better representing the wealth and diversity of opinion in the world as a whole, so that it simply becomes a discussion of “which of these talks will have the most value?”.

Craig: Should more developers rather than sharing with peers get involved with local schools, to encourage more girls to become designers and developers in the industry?

I don’t think it’s an either/or scenario. More developers from more walks of life should be speaking and sharing their views, opinions and experiences. Yes, please, more of that. It would also be great if more developers wanted to go back to school, as one example, and encourage the next generation of potential web creators. We have a lot of resources, expertise and generally really nice people in our community and we could put our collective abilities together to make some really lasting changes. We’re already seeing such efforts popping up, such as various coding for kids movements.

Craig: Is there also a need to encourage more women in the industry to share their experiences and insight more often?

Again, more experiences shared is better no matter who you are or where you came from. If a group of people currently feel that they have no way or voice in the industry, then yes, we should be positively encouraging their participation, and perhaps that means creating new platforms for more people to find those opportunities to share their expertise

Conferences aren’t the problem

We’ve barely started the new year, and already there’s been a spat about a conference and their lack of diversity. Rather unfortunately, they picked 22 white, young, men and only one woman (so far) to be on their invited experts panels at a developer conference. Hey, it happens, and pretty much no one would do that out of malice, and I really don’t think boycotts are helping anyone, nor is hoping the event implodes due to twitter bullies.

Conferences are not the problem, they are just showing the symptoms of a severe lack of diversity, generally, throughout the industry. We can cover up the warts all we like with bolstered numbers of minority groups on stage, but we should probably be working out how to tackle the actual issue of why so few of them enter the industry, as novices/newbies/entry-levels/graduates etc., in the first place who would later become the experts we seek out to speak.

I turned up some stats from A List Apart’s 2011 web survey and was unsurprised to find that of the respondents that identify as developers (the largest group of respondents by a significant amount), only 9.1% of them were women. For me, seeing a fair and representative distribution of the community at large is actually acceptable (YMMV), so I don’t intend to give conferences a hard time if they don’t wish to positively discriminate (such as this note I was happy to read from the PHP conf organisers, and I am also a fan of JSConf’s blind submission process) and get more than that 1 in 10 for dev conferences (and, overall, nearer 1/5 for topics beyond pure development, going by the same survey results).

The argument that having role-models is important is often cited, and that having larger-than-representative numbers as speakers could help that, and I see the point at a certain level – but no kid at school, before selecting their academic interest (should they have one), is watching web dev conference videos for fun and dreaming about becoming a badass specification author. Don’t kid yourselves, there are no actual rockstars or ninjas in our industry.

Role-models are helpful to those already starting out, or who have made the decision to be interested in tech and the web, giving the extra push to want to explore more and speak later, but they’re already in at that point, we just have to keep them sold, but there aren’t very many of them. Sure, have role-models, but remember that if it’s speaking about performance issues in Ruby, or some such fun, you’re already preaching to the converted.

We need to get more in, in the first place. Start ’em early, reap the rewards in the future. I don’t expect to see the numbers of speakers of minority groups to go up suddenly overnight – this will take time, as most good things do.

Conferences are simply showing up the diversity problem in a particularly acute way – we will never fix it by pretending the industry is more evenly distributed than it actually is, and later blaming organisers for it. They’re working with unfair numbers. Hell, if any conference these days thinks they’ll slide by without some twitter fallout for “under representing”, they’re either brave or stupid. We’re developing a very sensitive (or egg-shell-treading) conference circle, I imagine, that is more than aware that it has a quota to meet and events that allow proposals are in particular trying very hard to accurately represent the state of affairs, and often attempting to go beyond that by reaching out to those they’d like to see speak or better represented. Good work, our industry. It doesn’t always work out, but the overall trend is what’s important.

I think at this point we should start asking questions as to why we feel the need to poke hard at conferences, why are we positively discriminating, and what should we really be fixing for lasting change. Why are our starting numbers so low?

You want to increase numbers? Go back to your universities and high schools and ask why they’re not encouraging more women into their classes and onwards to our profession. What are they doing to excite children to take maths, computer science, design, IT, etc. for long enough that they make it into the industry? How are they challenging stereotypes of what is an acceptable profession for any group of people, often defined by teachers and parents at the very earliest years?

If we’re talking about women at an age and experience level to be able to be an invited expert on a panel – we’re already too late to improve the numbers (this is not to say there are none, but there are going to be statistically fewer by some margin as it stands).

My mathematics lonely heart post: Seeking jovial, talented statistician to teach the ability to crunch grizzly numbers about diversity in the web industry to curmudgeonly developer. Apply within.

Some disclosures/clarifications

  1. One of the panelists at Edge conf is my other half, Alex. He has had no say in this minor rant, and his participation has no affect on my opinion.
  2. I am talking pretty much solely of diversity of people in web tech, where most of us work. E.g. excluding science and eng: they’ve got their own history, issues and role models (however, where’s our version of the dreamy Prof. Brian Cox on TV, eh? Now there’s a keyboard-playing, rockstar, role-model).
  3. This is not a discussion about sexism amongst professional peers, which, sadly, is still a part of every day live throughout most industries for many people. This is about the fair representation of our community today and why those distributions are as they are, although we may wish to suggest that sexism/stereotyping at early age is a root cause of our industry’s lack of diverse numbers later. If you think diversity is not an issue, you need to crawl out from under your rock.
  4. For those that still don’t understand: I am NOT pro-positive discrimination. I appreciate why it happens and how it has helped and why it continues to be necessary in some scenarios, but I am asking the question: Would we rather not have it ever, and can we not find a way to fix the underlying diversity issues that perpetuate it’s need?
  5. I apologise for unfairly suggesting that conferences shouldn’t do their part – they absolutely should, and I think we’re doing better than ever before (see previous link to JSConf for a nice example). They have an excellent opportunity to show the best and most diverse representatives from our industry. They should always strive for that, and they do often achieve this and we should be confident in letting them know, pro-actively and with good manners, when they’re not representing our interests and experts.
  6. I am not anti-diversity. Seriously? Did you read this post?

There is now a follow-up to this article, available here

Designing better user experiences – TXJS 2012

As promised, here’s a list of the resources and links and other stuff I mentioned today at TXJS in my talk

If I mentioned anything else you’d like more background on, leave a comment and I’ll find you further resources or explanation.

And my slides are available here on slideshare, although obviously my notes on the slides may be a bit too scrappy for you to re-follow along, so I’ll post a link to the video when that’s available.

SXSWi 2011 Microformats panel

It is that time of year again: SXSWi panel pimpage! I’ve put together a somewhat vague panel proposal on behalf of and I would appreciate it if you could give it a vote.

Apparently voting only counts towards a relatively small percentage (30%) of whether or not it will be selected, but with 2346 proposals in the system, I suspect it counts a lot more than that.

The session is rather vaguely defined because I’m not really sure right now what’ll still be interesting in a few months. I also want to garner as many opinions from the community as they can about what they want to know more about, see speak or show off – so do make your voice heard in the comments.

SXSW submissions are a bit nuts, really.

The mega-conference happens in March every year. By the time you’re done clearing your credit card bill and the fuss on twitter has died down a few weeks after the event, it’s already time to submit proposals for the coming year with the deadline at the start of July.

That means you need to think about your proposal a good 9 or 10 months before the next event.

In my mind, it’s incredibly difficult to predict what will be a hot topic or really relevant 10 months down the line in an industry like ours. Things move incredibly quickly. I also find it very difficult to know what to vote for – I may find at the beginning of next year that actually, I really could have done with knowing more about The Latest Technique, but right now I don’t know what it is to vote for it.

I also worry that interesting topics that I don’t know about yet don’t have the community around it to rally support and get the votes. Inevitably, the topics that are most trendy or have the most well-known organisers/panelists will be the topics that get the most votes. They tend not to be the panels I’ve enjoyed the most, though. Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly hard to figure out which sessions are going to be great and which aren’t, since SXSW is just so big now – I think it has become quantity over quality. </ complain>

Anyway, not a lot I can do about that other than play along and attempt to include a session that I will attempt to put together at a level that I deem acceptable quality. I do want to see have a representation there, so help me out, huh?

p.s. The spelling of the tag “microformats” as “micoformats” is not mine. It’s theirs. And I asked to have it corrected, but apparently their system doesn’t easily allow for that at the moment. WTF?

London Web Standards – slides and further info

Sorry for the delay, but I finally got around to sticking my presentation from last month’s London Web Standards meet-up on slideshare. Slideshare is a bit naff to be honest, but it’ll do for now. If you click through to the talk on slideshare, you’ll be able to get my notes which should hopefully make the pictures more useful. Jake‘s busy syncing up both of our presentations to the videos so that we can show them on the BBC developer blog, so as soon as they’re available I’ll link those up too and you can view me in full hand-flapping, ranting form.

I think I speak for both of us when I say that we really enjoyed the evening – everyone was lovely and friendly and asked really excellent questions. Highly recommendable meet-up, and we’re both intending to try and make it to some of the future sessions.

Some useful links from my stuff:

London Web Standards Talks

Jake and I will be guests at March’s London Web Standards meetup. We’re giving a pair of JavaScript themed talks that should give plenty of fodder for the latter half of the evening’s discussion. I’m doing “Pro bun-fighting“, covering how we manage working on a large scale JavaScript project with a small team, our process, the performance and quality testing we do, and how to integrate group hugs, and Jake will be doing “The events left behind“, talking about the horrors of keyboard events, how to work around them and what’s their future.

Although it’s not a Glow specific talk, we will be using Glow in our examples, so feel free to come along and talk to us about the library too, if you’re interested.

Tickets are available now for the event on Wednesday 31st March at The Square Pig in London.

Microformats vEvent and London Web Week

I mentioned at the start of the year that we were planning to have another “Microformat vEvent” in the first quarter… well, slightly later than planned I’m pleased to announce that we’re good to go and you can now sign up!


The event has been delayed so that we could take part in a new grander event which is London Web Week. It’s going to be a solid week of all things webby, and includes other such highlights as @media London, BarCampLondon 4, a Web Standards Group event and a new one-day conference aimed at new comers who are just interested in or starting out in web development and design, called Web Roots. Even Pub Standards is sneaking in on the act (keep an eye on upcoming for the “The Great Pub Standards Heresy“).

The full schedule of events is available here and I expect it’ll expand to contain a few of the London user groups for various web… things… over the next few weeks.

So, back to the point of my post. Microformats vEvent!

The good news is, I’ve managed to twist the arms of a couple of nice folks to do some speaking for us. We’ve got Dan Brickley and Tom Morris. Surprisingly, both usually more aligned with the RDF camp rather than microformats – but I’m personally up for breaking down that wall (and I hope they are too) and seeing if we can’t all “get along”. So, with that in mind, they will each be taking on topics that look at microformats working along side other semantic web technologies in complementary ways.

Full details on what these guys will be talking about are again, on the sign-up page, as well where and when (The Yorkshire Grey Pub, Holborn, Tuesday 27th May, 7pm) you need to show up. Make sure you sign-up quickly though – we’ve only got a limited amount of space, and entrance is with ticket only.

SemanticCamp London

I went to one day* of SemanticCamp this weekend at Imperial College in London. It was really enjoyable and it was great to see so many people show up and take part. Kudos to Tom Morris and Daniel John Lewis for their organisational skills.

Ben Ward and I represented and did a presentation-ish chat and Q&A session entitled “Microformats: State of the Nation” and covered recent happenings in the microformat world and some things we might hope to see this year.

So, when I say “presentation-ish” what we did was chat about a list of things that we’d thought about during the morning, presented via a quick list from my email inbox, via my new Asus EEE (which is still super cute, and is the black 4GB surf before you ask). Yeah, we’re professional. To sum up what we covered though, here’s an elaborated version of said list:

  • Current:
    • Big Deployments
    • Kelkoo listings (hListing, soon), hCards
    • Google Social Graph (XFN and FOAF indexing)
  • Parsers increasing:
  • New Formats:
  • Accessibility:
  • Future:
    • Distributed Social Networking
    • Google Social Graph API
    • Distributed identity with OpenID
    • Distributed contact lists
    • Build on URLs
    • Consolidate identity URLs using XFN
    • hCard providing context and detail
    • XFN describing social relationships

We had lots of questions and it was actually great. One thing that came up a couple of times in a few conversations I had was a desperate need for a full test suite for microformats. Unfortunately, such things are hard to get done because the work is time consuming and not especially interesting or rewarding. I wonder if anyone has experience on the best way to get a full test set written for all current formats?

Our session overran, but thanks for coming by if you did and as always, feel free to come by and join the mailing list(s) and get involved.

* Day two I did not make it to due to late night Brighton fun for Andy Budd‘s flat-warming. Thanks very much for putting us up for the night, Jeremy! Apologies to SemanticCampers who wanted to play with the EEE some more.