• You are currently browsing the archives for the General category.

  • Archive for the ‘General’ Category

    Evangelism conundrum: Don’t mention the product

    Sunday, October 12th, 2014

    Being a public figure for a company is tough. It is not only about what you do wrong or right – although this is a big part. It is also about fighting conditioning and bad experiences of the people you are trying to reach. Many a time you will be accused of doing something badly because of people’s preconceptions. Inside and outside the company.

    The outside view: oh god, just another sales pitch!

    One of these conditionings is the painful memory of the boring sales pitch we all had to endure sooner or later in our lives. We are at an event we went through a lot of hassle to get tickets for. And then we get a presenter on stage who is “excited” about a product. It is also obvious that he or she never used the product in earnest. Or it is a product that you could not care less about and yet here is an hour of it shoved in your face.

    Many a time these are “paid for” speaking slots. Conferences offer companies a chance to go on stage in exchange for sponsorship. These don’t send their best speakers, but those who are most experienced in delivering “the cool sales pitch”. A product the marketing department worked on hard to not look like an obvious advertisement. In most cases these turn out worse than a – at least honest – straight up sales pitch would have.

    I think my favourite nonsense moment is “the timelapse excitement”. That is when when a presenter is “excited” about a new feature of a product and having used it “for weeks now with all my friends”. All the while whilst the feature is not yet available. It is sadly enough often just too obvious that you are being fed a make-believe usefulness of the product.

    This is why when you go on stage and you show a product people will almost immediately switch into “oh god, here comes the sale” mode. And they complain about this on Twitter as soon as you mention a product for the first time.

    This is unfair to the presenter. Of course he or she would speak about the products they are most familiar with. It should be obvious when the person knows about it or just tries to sell it, but it is easier to be snarky instead of waiting for that.

    The inside view: why don’t you promote our product more?

    From your company you get pressure to talk more about your products. You are also asked to show proof that what you did on stage made a difference and got people excited. Often this is showing the Twitter time line during your talk which is when a snarky comment can be disastrous.

    Many people in the company will see evangelists as “sales people” and “show men”. Your job is to get people excited about the products they create. It is a job filled with fancy hotels, a great flight status and a general rockstar life. They either don’t understand what you do or they just don’t respect you as an equal. After all, you don’t spend a lot of time coding and working on the product. You only need to present the work of others. Simple, isn’t it? Our lives can look fancy to the outside and jealousy runs deep.

    This can lead to a terrible gap. You end up as a promoter of a product and you lack the necessary knowledge that makes you confident enough to talk about it on stage. You’re seen as a sales guy by the audience and as a given by your peers. And it can be not at all your fault as your attempts to reach out to people in the company for information don’t yield any answers. Often it is fine to be “too busy” to tell you about a new feature and it should be up to you to find it as “the documentation is in the bug reports”.

    Often your peers like to point out how great other companies are at presenting their products. And that whilst dismissing or not even looking at what you do. That’s because it is important for them to check what the competition does. It is less exciting to see how your own products “are being sold”.

    How to escape this conundrum?

    Frustration is the worst thing you can experience as an evangelist.

    Your job is to get people excited and talk to another. To get company information out to the world and get feedback from the outside world to your peers. This is a kind of translator role, but if you look deep inside and shine a hard light on it, you are also selling things.

    Bruce Lawson covered that in his talk about how he presents. You are a sales person. What you do though is sell excitement and knowledge, not a packaged product. You bring the angle people did not expect. You bring the inside knowledge that the packaging of the product doesn’t talk about. You show the insider channels to get more information and talk to the people who work on the product. That can only work when these people are also open to this. When they understand that any delay in feedback is not only seen as a disappointment for the person who asked the question. It is also diminishing your trustworthiness and your reputation and without that you are dead on stage.

    In essence, do not mention the product without context. Don’t show the overview slides and the numbers the press and marketing team uses. Show how the product solves issues, show how the product fits into a workflow. Show your product in comparison with competitive products, praising the benefits of either.

    And grow a thick skin. Our jobs are tiring, they are busy and it is damn hard to keep up a normal social life when you are on the road. Each sting from your peers hurts, each “oh crap, now the sales pitch starts” can frustrate you. You’re a person who hates sales pitches and tries very hard to be different. Being thrown in the same group feels terribly hurtful.

    It is up to you to let that get you down. You could also concentrate on the good, revel in the excitement you see in people’s faces when you show them a trick they didn’t know. Seeing people grow in their careers when they repeat what they learned from you to their bosses.

    If you aren’t excited about the product, stop talking about it. Instead work with the product team to make it exciting first. Or move on. There are many great products out there.

    Reconnecting at TEDxLinz – impressions, slides, resources

    Saturday, September 27th, 2014

    I just returned from Linz, Austria, where I spoke at TEDxLinz yesterday. After my stint at TEDxThessaloniki earlier in the year I was very proud to be invited to another one and love the variety of talks you encounter there.

    TEDx_Linz_2014-5783

    The overall topic of the event was “re-connect” and I was very excited to hear all the talks covering a vast range of topics. The conference was bilingual with German (well, Austrian) talks and English ones. Oddly enough, no speaker was a native English speaker.

    TEDx_Linz_2014-5622

    My favourite parts were:

    • Ingrid Brodnig talking about online hate and how to battle it
    • Andrea Götzelmann talking about re-integrating people into their home countries after emigrating. A heart-warming story of helping people out who moved out and failed just to return and succeed
    • Gergely Teglasy talking about creating a crowd-curated novel written on Facebook
    • Malin Elmlid of The Bread Exchange showing how her love of creating your own food got her out into the world and learn about all kind of different cultures. And how doing an exchange of goods and services beats being paid.
    • Elisabeth Gatt-Iro and Stefan Gatt showing us how to keep our relationships fresh and let love listen.
    • Johanna Schuh explaining how asking herself questions about her own behaviour rather than throwing blame gave her much more peace and the ability to go out and speak to people.
    • Stefan Pawel enlightening us about how far ahead Linz is compared to a lot of other cities when it comes to connectivity (150 open hot spots, webspace for each city dweller)

    The location was the convention centre of a steel factory and the stage setup was great and not over the top. The audience was very mixed and very excited and all the speakers did a great job mingling. Despite the impressive track record of all of them there was no sense of diva-ism or “parachute presenting”.
    I had a lovely time at the speaker’s dinner and going to and from the hotel.

    The hotel was a special case in itself: I felt like I was in an old movie and instead of using my laptop I was tempted to grow a tufty beard and wear layers and layers of clothes and a nice watch on a chain.

    hotel room

    My talk was about bringing the social back into social media or – in other words – stopping to chase numbers of likes and inane comments and go back to a web of user generated content that was done by real people. I have made no qualms about it in the past that I dislike memes and animated GIFs cropped from a TV series of movie with a passion and this was my chance to grand-stand about it.

    I wanted the talk to be a response to the “Look up” and “Look down” videos about social oversharing leading to less human interaction. My goal was to move the conversation into a different direction, explaining that social media is for us to put things we did and wanted to share. The big issue is that the addiction-inducing game mechanisms of social media platforms instead lead us to post as much as we can and try to be the most shared instead of the creators.

    This also leads to addiction and thus to strange online behaviour up to over-sharing materials that might be used as blackmail opportunities against us.

    My slides are on Slideshare.

    Resources I covered in the talk:

    Other than having a lot of fun on stage I also managed to tick some things off my bucket list:

    TEDx_Linz_2014-5792

    • Vandalising a TEDx stage
    • Being on stage with my fly open
    • Using the words “sweater pillows” and “dangly bits” in a talk

    I had a wonderful time all in all and I want to thank the organisers for having me, the audience for listening, the other speakers for their contribution and the caterers and volunteers for doing a great job to keep everybody happy.

    TEDx_Linz_2014-5806

    Notes on my closing keynote of From the Front 2014

    Monday, September 22nd, 2014

    These are some notes about my closing keynote at From the Front in Bologna, Italy last week. The overall theme of the event was “Temple of the DOM” thus I kept it Indiana Jones themed (one could say shoehorned, but I wasn’t alone with this).

    from the front 2014 speakers

    The slides are available on Slideshare.

    In Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom the Sankara Stones are very powerful stones that can bring prosperity or destroy people, depending how they are used. When you bring the stones together they light up and in general all is very mystic and amazing. It gives the movie an adventure angle that can not explained and allows us to suspend our disbelief and see Indy as being capable of more than a normal human being.

    A tangent: Blowing people’s mind is pretty easy. All you need to do is take a known concept and then make an assumption from it. For example, when you see Luigi from Super Mario Brothers and immediately recognise him, there is quite a large chance you have an older sibling. You were always the one who had to wait till your sibling failed in the game so it was your turn to play with “green Mario”. Also, if Luigi and Mario are the Mario brothers then Mario’s name is Mario Mario. Ponder this.

    The holy trinity of web development

    On the web we also have magical stones that we can put together and create good or evil. These are the standardised technologies of the web: HTML, CSS and JavaScript. These are available in every browser, understood by them without any extra compilation step, very well documented and easy to learn (but harder to master).

    Back in 1999, Jeffrey Zeldman taught us all not to write tag-soup any longer and use the technologies of the web to build intelligent solutions that use them to their strengths. These are commonly referred to as the separation of concerns:

    • Structure (HTML and added extra-value semantics like Microformats)
    • Presentation (CSS, Images)
    • Behaviour (JavaScript)

    Back then this was a very necessary stake in the ground, explaining that web development is not a random WYSIWYG result but something with a lot of planning and organisation behind it. The separation of concerns played all the different technologies to their strengths and also meant that one or two can fail and nothing will go wrong.

    This also paved the way for the progressive enhancement idea that all you really need is a proper HTML document and the rest gets added when and if needed or – in the case of JavaScript – once it has been tested to be available and applicable.

    The problems started when people with different agendas skewed the concept of the separation of concerns:

    • HTML and semantic markup enthusiasts advocated far too loudly for very clean markup, validation and adding things like Microformats. For engineers just trying to get something to show up in a browser this has always been a confusion as the tangible benefits of this are, well, not tangible. Browsers are very forgiving and will fix HTML for you and when there is no interface in browsers that surfaces the data in Microformats, why do it? Of course, I disagree and stated very often that semantic, clean markup is the good grammar of the web – you don’t need it, but it does make you much easier to understand and shows that you learned what you are doing. But that doesn’t really matter. Fact is that we continuously try to make people understand something we hold dear without giving them tangible benefits.
    • JavaScript enthusiasts, on the other hand, create far too much with JavaScript. This is a matter of control. You know JavaScript, you are happy seeing parts of an app or a page as objects and you want to instantiate them, inherit from them and re-use them. You don’t want to write much code but feel that generating it is the most clever way of using technology. Many JS enthusiasts also keep citing that browser differences are a real issue and that in JS they have the chance to test and fix problems browsers have. The fallacy here, of course, is that by doing that they also made the current and future browser issues their own.
    • CSS enthusiasts started to shoot against JavaScript as a tool when CSS became more powerful. Are animations and transitions behaviour or presentation? Should it be done in CSS or in JS where there is much more granular control? What about generated content? Where does this fall into? We can create whole drawings from one DIV element, but should we?

    All of this, together with lots and lots of libraries promising us to solve all kind of cross-browser issues lead to the massively obese web we see today. An average web site size of almost 2MB would have blown our minds in the past, but these days it seems the right thing to do if you want to be professional and use the tools professionals use. Starting a vanilla HTML file feels like a hack – using a build script to start a boiler plate seems to be the intelligent, full stack development thing to do.

    Best practice reminders, repeated

    This is nothing new, of course.

    Back in 2004, I wrote a self training course on Unobtrusive JavaScript trying to make people understand the need for separation of behaviour and look and feel. In 2005 I questioned the validity of three layers of separation as I worked on CMS and framework driven web products where I did not have full control over the markup but had to deal with the result of .NET 1.0 renderers.

    Web technologies have always been a struggle for people to grasp and understand. JavaScript is very powerful whilst being a very loosely architected language compared to C or Java. The ability to use inline styling and scripting always tempted people to write everything in one document rather than separating it out into several which allows for caching and re-use. That way we always created bloated, hard to maintain documents or over-used scripts and style sheets we don’t control and understand.

    It seems the epic struggle about what technology to use for what is far from over and we still argue until we are blue in the face if an animation should be done in CSS or in JavaScript and whether static HTML or deferred loading and creation of markup using template engines is the fastest way to go.

    So what can we do to stop this endless debate?

    The web has moved on a lot since Zeldman laid down the law and I think it is time to move on with it. We have to understand that not everything is readily enhanceable. We also have standard definitions that just seem odd and could have very much been better with our input. But we, the people who know and love the web, were too busy fighting smaller fights and complaining about things we should have taken for granted a while ago:

    • There will always be marketing materials or commercial training programs that get everything wrong we stand for. Mentioning them or trying to debunk them will just get more people to look at them. Yes, I do consider W3Schools part of this. We make these obsolete and unnecessary by creating better resources, not by telling people about their dangers.
    • Browsers will always get things wrong and no, there will not be an amazing future where all browsers are ever-green and users upgrade all the time.
    • Materials by standards bodies like this “Standards for Web Applications on Mobile: current state and roadmap” will always be verbose and seem academic in their wording. That’s what a standard is. There can not be wiggle room that’s why it sounds far more complex than we think it is.
    • There will always be people who use a certain technology for things we consider inappropriate. A great example I saw lately was a Mandelbrot fractal renderer creating a span for each pixel written in SASS and needing 5 minutes to compile.

    A fault tolerant web? Think again

    One of the great things of old about the web was that it was fault tolerant. Meaning that if something breaks, you can provide a fallback or the browser ignores it. There were no broken interfaces.

    This changed when multimedia became a larger part of HTML5. Of course, you can use a fallback image for a CANVAS element (and you should as these get shown as thumbnails on Facebook for example) but it isn’t the same thing as you don’t add a CANVAS for the fun of it but as an interactive part of the page.

    The plain fallback case does not quite cut it any longer.

    Take a simple example of an image in the page:

    <img src="meh.jpg" alt="cute kitten photo">

    This is cool. If the image can not be loaded or rendered, the browser shows the alternative text provided in the alt attribute (no, it is not a tag). In most browsers these days, this is just a text display. You even have full control in JavaScript knowing if the image wasn’t loaded and you could provide a different fallback:

    var img = document.querySelector('img');
    img.addEventListener('error', function(ev) {
      if (this.naturalWidth === 0 && 
          this.naturalHeight === 0) {
        console.log('Image ' + this.src + ' not loaded');
      }
    }, false);

    With video, it is slightly different. Take the following example:

    <video controls>
      <source src="dynamicsearch.mp4" type="video/mp4">
      </source>
      <a href="dynamicsearch.mp4">
        <img src="dynamicsearch.jpg" 
             alt="Dynamic app search in Firefox OS">
      </a>
      <p>Click image to play a video demo of 
         dynamic app search</p>
    </video>

    If the browser is not capable of supporting HTML5 video, we get a fallback image (again, great for indexing by Facebook and others). However, these browsers are not that likely to be in use any longer. The more interesting question is what happens when the browser can not play the video because the video codec is not supported? What end users get now is a grey box with the grace of a Java Applet that failed to load.

    How to find out that the video playback failed? You’d expect an error handler on the video would do it, right? Well, not according to the specs which ask for an error handler on the last source element in the video element. That means that if you want to have the alternative content in the video element to show up when the video can not be played you need the following code:

    var v = document.querySelector('video'),
        sources = v.querySelectorAll('source'),
        lastsource = sources[sources.length-1];
    lastsource.addEventListener('error', function(ev) {
      var d = document.createElement('div');
      d.innerHTML = v.innerHTML;
      v.parentNode.replaceChild(d, v);
    }, false);

    Codec detection is incredibly flaky and hard as it is on OS level of the hardware and not fully in the control of the browser. That’s probably also the reason why the return value of the canPlayType() method of a video element (which is meant to tell you if a video format is supported) returns “maybe”, “probably” or an empty string. A coy method, that one.

    It is the web, deal with it!

    We could get very annoyed with this, or we can just deal with it. In my 18 years of web development I learned to take things like that in stride and I am actually happy about the quirky issues of the web. It makes it a constantly changing and interesting environment to be in.

    I really think Mattias Petter Johansson of Spotify nailed it when he answered on Quora to someone why JavaScript is the only language in a browser:

    Hating JavaScript is like hating the Internet.
    The Internet is a cobweb of different technologies cobbled together with duct tape, string and chewing gum. It’s not elegantly designed in any way, because it’s more of a growing organism than it is a machine constructed with intent.

    This is also why we should stop trying to make people love the web no matter what and force our ideas down their throats.

    Longevity? Meh!

    One of the main things we keep harping on about is the lovely longevity of the web. Whether it is Microsoft’s first web page still working in browsers now after 20 years or the web being the only platform with backwards compatibility and forward enhancement – we love to point out that we are in for the long game.

    Sadly, this argument means nothing to developers who currently work in the mobile app space where being first out of the door is the most important part and people know that two months down the line nobody is going to be excited about your game any more. This is not sustainable, and reminds me of other fast-moving technologies that came and went. So let’s not waste our time trying to convince people who already subscribed to an idea of creating consumable software with a very short shelf-life.

    I put it this way:

    If you enable people world-wide to get a good experience and solve a problem they have, I like it. The technology you use is not the important part. How much you lock them in is. Don’t lock people in.

    Let’s analyse our own behaviour

    A lot of the bloat and repetitiveness of the web seems to me to stem from three mistakes we make:

    • we optimise prematurely
    • we tend to strive for generic solutions for very specific problems.
    • we build stop-gap solutions to use upcoming technology before it is ready and become dependent on those

    A glimpse at the state of the componentised web seems to validate this. Web Components are amazingly necessary for the future of apps on the web platform, but they aren’t ready yet. Many of these frameworks give me great solutions right now and the effort I have to put in to learn them will make it hard for me to ever switch away from them. We’ve been there before: just try to find a junior JavaScript developer that knows the DOM instead of using jQuery for everything.

    The cool new thing now are static HTML pages as they run fast, don’t take many resources and are very portable. Except that we already have 298 different generators to choose from if we want to create them. Or, we could write static HTML if all we have is a few sites. But where’s the fun in that?

    Fredrik Noren had a great article about this lately called On Generalisation and put it quite succinctly:

    Generalization is, in fact, prediction. We look at some things we have and we predict that any current and following entities in that group will look and behave sufficiently similar in the future to what we have now. We predict that we can write something that will cater to all, or most, of its future needs. And that makes perfect sense, if you just disregard one simple fact of life: humans are awful at predicting the future!

    So let’s stop trying to build for an assumed problematic future that probably will never come and instead be thankful for what we have right now.

    Such amazing times we live in

    If you play with the web these days and you leave your “everything is broken, I must fix it!” hat off, it is amazing how much fun you can have. The other day I wrote Makethumbnails.com – a quick app that allows you to drag and drop images into your browser and get a zip of thumbnails back. All without a server in between, all working offline and written on a plane without a web connection using only the developer tools built into the browser these days.

    We have an amazing amount of new events, sensors and data to play with. For example, reading out the ambient light around a laptop is a simple event handler:

    window.addEventListener('devicelight', function(e) {
      var lv = e.value;
      // lv is the light in lux
    });

    You can use this to switch from a dark on light to a light on dark display. Or you could detect a 0 and know that the end user is currently covering their camera with their hands and provide a very simple hand gesture interface that way. This sensor is always on and you don’t need to have the camera enabled. How cool is that?

    Are there other sensors or features in devices you’d like to have? Please ask on the feedback form about Open Web Apps and you can be part of the next iteration of web interaction.

    Developer tools across browsers moved on beyond the view-source functionality and all of them now offer timelines, step-by-step debugging, network information and even device or screen emulation and visual editors for colours and animations. Most also offer some sort of in-built editor and remote debugging of devices. If you miss something there, here is another channel to tell the makers about that.

    It is a big, fragmented world out there

    The next big boom of the web is not in the Western world and on laptops and desktops that are connected with massively fast lines. We live in a mobile world and the predictability of what device our end users will have is gone. Surveys in Android usage showed 18,796 different devices in use already and both Mozilla’s and Google’s reach into emerging markets with under $100 devices means the light-weight web is going to be a massive thing for all of us. This is why we need to re-think our ways.

    First of all, offline first should be our mantra. There is no steady connection we can rely on. Alex Feyerke has a great talk about this.

    Secondly, we need to ensure that our solutions run smoothly on very low end devices. For this, there are a few tricks and developer tools give us great insight into where we waste memory and framerate. Angelina Fabbro has a great talk about that.

    In general, the web is and stays an amazingly useful resource now more than ever. Tools like Github, JSFiddle, JSBin, CodePen and many others allow us to build things together and be in constant communication. Together.js (built into JSFiddle as the ‘collaboration’ button) allows us to code together with a text or voice chat and seeing each other’s cursors. This is an incredible opportunity to make coding more human and help another whilst we develop instead of telling each other how we should develop.

    Let’s use the web to work on things together. Don’t wait to build the perfect solution. Share it early, take on advice and pull requests and together we can build much better products.

    How to draft a speaker information email

    Tuesday, September 9th, 2014

    I just had a real happy moment when I got an email from a conference organiser telling me all they need from me and all I need to know in a simple email:


    Hi Christian.
    I hope you are doing fine.
    Your talk “$title” is scheduled for $date at 9:45am (it’s a 40 min talk, plus 5 for Q&A). This is the link to your slot.
    $conference will be hosted at $place, $address (map).
    Please, send me some options of flights and I will book one for you. I may need your passport number.
    We will organize a (free) dinner for all speakers the night before, so you should arrive at least on $dinnerdate.
    We will book a room for you for the following nights: $dates. The hotel is the $hotel **** .
    Please remember to bring your laptop, charger and A/C adapter. In Spain we use Plug Type C, and you shouldn’t need any current transformer for your laptop.
    There will be reinforced WiFi at the event and a separate segment for speakers, but please be prepared to deliver your presentation without access to the Internet, just in case. Remember to include any fonts or alternatively use a PDF version.
    We are providing our speakers with a template that can be used for your talk, but feel free to use your own format if you have one.
    Your talk may be recorded and shared later in our Youtube channel. We understand to be authorized to do so, unless you say otherwise.
    Looking forward to hearing from you!

    This is excellent, and a great blueprint to re-use. Well done, codemotion.

    I have a similar way to tell conference organisers all I expect and give them the things they need with my conference organiser cheatsheet.

    Coldfrontconf is one to watch

    Friday, September 5th, 2014

    I’ve said it before and I stick by it: conferences stand and fall with the enthusiasm of the organisers. And it is a joy for someone like me who does spend a lot of time at conferences to see a new one be a massive success from the get-go.

    Yesterday was the Coldfront conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. A one day conference organised by Kenneth Auchenberg, @Danielovich (and of course a well-chosen team of people). It was very rewarding to work with him to give the closing keynote of the inaugural edition of this event.

    The slides of my closing keynotes are available on Slideshare.

    And, amazingly enough, the video is out, too:


    Chris alt Coldfrontconf
    (Notice the fan behind me giving me that wind-swept look that so fitted my physical state going directly from the plane to the venue)

    I am sad that because of other commitments I had to miss the first talks, but here are my main impressions of the event:

    • I love the pragmatism of it – one track, good break times, a very simple and straight-forward web site and no push to “download the app of this event”.
    • The location – a program cinema – had great seating, working WiFi (with a few hickups but the hotel next door also had available WiFi that worked in the first rows) and very adequate facilities.
    • The projector and audio set up was great and the switch from speaker to speaker worked flawlessly.
    • All talks were streamed on the web
    • Even a last minute speaker cancellation didn’t quite disturb the event (thanks for the reminder Steen H. Rasmussen)
    • Instead of keeping people perched up inside, the breaks had coffee available for self-service and the food and branded ice cream was served outside the building in the street. This was also the spot for the beers and cupcakes after the event and the final venue was just down the road.
    • The after party was in a beer place that has over 40 beers on tab and the open bar lasted well till after midnight. Nobody got blindly drunk or misbehaved – it actually felt more like a beer tasting experience than a drink-up. There was a lot of seating and no loud music to discourage or hinder communication after party
    • All the videos of the talks were already available on the day or the day after. I managed to see myself whilst my head was still hurting from the party (and my lack of sleep) the night before.
    • Elisabeth Irgens did a great job doing live sketch notes of each talk and uploading them immediately to Twitter.
    • The audience was very well behaved and it was a very inviting and inspiring environment to share information in. Good mix of people with various backgrounds.
    • Whilst there was a bit of sponsorship being shown on the big screen and there were sponsor booths in the foyer all of it was very low-key and appeared utterly in context. No sales weasels or booth babes there. The sponsors sent their geeks to talk to geeks.
    • I felt very well looked after – the organisers paid my flights and hotel and the communication with the speakers as to where to be when was only a handful of emails. Things just fell in place and there was no hesitance to make sure everybody gets there in time.
    • It is very worth while to watch the recordings of the talk. All of them were very high quality. Personally, I was most impressed with Guillermo Rauch“’s How to build the modern, optimistic and reactive user interface, we all want.

    All in all, this was a conference that was as pragmatic and spot-on as Kenneth is when you talk to him. It felt very good and I was very much reminded of the first Fronteers event. This is one to watch, let’s see what happens next.