Burningbird's RealTech

Virginia DeBolt has another Women in Technology series entry, this one on the Drupal community's Addison Berry.

Addison demonstrates something I've noticed: Drupal attracts the women in technology. There's something about the Drupal that has made the Drupal community friendly and encouraging to women. Other applications/companies/organizations should take note.

The interview with Addison is excellent, a lot more positive and upbeat than mine was.

I purchased my Kindle because I liked the idea of my library of books being at my fingertip. I also liked the fact that ebooks are, typically, cheaper than paper books. What I didn't expect was how much the Kindle opened up new avenues in reading for me, and it did so through the concept of Kindle samples.

As you're browsing through books, either with the Kindle, or online at Amazon, if you find one that's interesting but not sure whether you want to buy it or not, you can download a sample to your device for review. The sample is automatically sent to the Kindle, at no cost. At the end of the sample, you're asked whether you want to buy the book, or read more about it at Amazon. If you decide you don't want to buy the book, you can then use the Kindle's Content Manager to delete the sample.

How big the Kindle samples are depends on the size of books. Some of the samples were quite large, others the briefest of introductions. The structure of the samples differed, too, probably based on the ebook structure as determined by the publisher. Many books started directly in the first chapter, without having to traverse any preliminary dedication or cover. Other books, though, led off with every last bit of paper that proceeded the book in hard format, including copyright pages, forwards, dedications, publisher contact information, and so on.

I have purchased, and enjoyed, several books via Kindle samples—books I probably wouldn't have bought if it weren't for the samples. I've also avoided many more books because the writing in the samples proved disappointing, or not what I expected.

What was it about each sample that led to the Buy, No Buy decision? In answering, I decided to review the Kindle samples I download, regardless of whether I bought the book based on the sample or not. If I buy the book, the review will then transition into a full book review. If not, then the review will be of the sample, only, including a discussion of why I did not buy the book.

I begin my new sample reviews with an author whose name might be familiar to some of you: Seth Godin's Tribes.

Virginia DeBolt did me the honor of interviewing me for her first Women in Technology series at Blogher. If you're curious about my early years, my views on the semantic web, women in technology and how to modify the computer tech curriculum in order to obtain greater diversity, whether I like animals more than people, as well as some of the tech folks I read on a daily basis, you might want to check it out.

Warning, though, it is all about me, me, me.

And you will be tested.

As I wrote in comments to the last post, I think we've discovered the Rosetta stone for English, and it's {}.

These are curly brackets, squiggly brackets, worms, curlies, curly parenthesis, and braces. Conversely, braces are suspenders, or pairs of pheasants. I wrote, seeking a map, and discovered a journey, instead.

How serendipitous, then, to receive an email, last night, from Joe Clark about the publication of his new e-book on Canadian English, Organizing Our Marvellous Neighbours: How to Feel Good About Canadian English. According to his email, the book should hit the streets today.

Knowing Joe, the writing should be colorful. Or is that colourful? He spent time organizing the efforts, but to those across the sea, he's really spent time organising the effort.

Even when there are no differences in spelling or meaning, cultural differences can have a significant impact on our use of English. I recently ordered a book through Amazon UK, and marveled at the emails telling me it's progress, up to and including when it was "dispatched" (not sent), and through the Royal Mail, no less. I must do it again, it was like a verbal carnival ride.

Or would that be fun fair dobby?

This one came up during the tech edit and now during the copy edit on my last book: the use of "curly bracket" as compared to "curly braces" or "brace".

I have used the term "curly bracket" for decades, and have seen the term used in other programming contexts. Wikipedia, though not the definitive source of information on a topic, also seems to promote curly bracket over curly brace. In addition, Wikipedia and other sources also point out that the curly part of "curly braces" is redundant, because there are no other braces but curly ones.

So which is the proper term? When you see "curly bracket" do you itch to take editing pencil to "bracket", to replace with "brace"? Are you confused when you see the word "brace" used in a programming context? Or paired with the "curly"?

The downside of the recent flurry of activity regarding JavaScript/ECMAScript is that I'm in the middle of tech editing Learning JavaScript, second edition, and not sure what to include.

On the one hand, it's extremely important to me that the book be accurate, so my inclination is not to including anything that isn't implemented in all four of my target test browsers (IE8, Firefox 3.x, Safari 3.x, and Opera 9.x). However, we plan on the book having a two year shelf life, and the discussion around Harmony notes implementations of ES 3.1 as early as next spring.

It used to be, at one time, companies and organizations would work with tech book companies and authors in order to ensure the accurate representation of information. What's happened, though, is that many of the people working these issues on the committees are now writing their own books, and don't particularly care about the accurate dissemination of information in other books. This in addition to everyone and their brother (rarely sister) having their own weblog, wiki, email list, Twitter, ad nauseum and if books like mine have inaccurate information, they can just publish The Truth in their own spaces.

So, now I'm left with a decision: don't include anything at all on ES 3.1, and face emails and book criticisms about why I didn't include coverage of such and such; or try to decipher what will eventually be implemented from this new effort, and run the risk of the pundits carefully pointing out everything wrong with the book, and how can O'Reilly publish a book by an author who is too stupid to know what she's talking about.