Category: Technical

Talking Technical with Non-technical Audiences

Communication has always been key to any sort of technical activity, but the need to communicate efficiently is greater today than ever before. The fact that early developers were successful despite having limited communication skills is more due to the fact that early users were also technical (so they shared the same frame of reference), rather than the superiority of the application environment at the time. In fact, applications are a form of communication specific to computers, but until recently, most developers didn’t view them in that light.

The days of the solo developer working in a darkened room and subsisting on a diet of pizza and soda are gone. Applications today have to appeal to a broad range of people-most of whom have no technical skills and have no desire whatsoever to develop such skills. The complex application environment means that developers must possess the means to articulate abstract coding issues in a concrete and understandable manner to people who view their computers as appliances. In addition, developers now commonly work as part of a team that includes non-developer members such as graphics designers. In short, if you don’t know how to tell others about your ideas and the means you plan to use to implement them, your ideas are likely going to end up on the junk heap. That’s why I wrote, “10 Reasons Development Teams Don’t Communicate” for SmartBear Blog.

The problems that developers experience today have more to do with limited communication skills, than technical ability. It’s quite possible to write amazing applications without developing the skills to communicate the concepts and techniques demonstrated in the applications to others. In fact, the stereotype of the geek is funny, in part, because it has a basis in fact. Schools don’t spend much time teaching those with technical skills how to communicate effectively and the graduates often struggle to understand the basis for miscommunication, even amongst peers. Schools will eventually catch up and begin teaching developers (and other technical disciplines) strong communication skills, but in the meantime, developers and other members of the technical professions will need to rely on articles such as mine to obtain the information needed to communicate clearly.

A successful developer now needs to listen to others actively-to be able to repeat the goals others have for an application in terms that the listener understands. In addition, the developer needs to know how to communicate well in both written and oral forms. The transition between the abstract world of code and the concrete world of the typical user is something that a developer needs to practice because there are no books that adequately address the topic today. To keep costs to a minimum, developers must accomplish communication tasks within a limited time frame and without error. In short, there is a significant burden on the developer today to create an environment in which users, administrators, management, DevOps, and other interested parties can communicate both needs (required application features) and wants (nice-to-have application features) in a way that the developer can interpret and turn into a functioning application. Luckily, there are ways to make this a bit easier on the developer. For example, when it comes to DevOps: Agosto offers expertise to help you rapidly deliver what’s needed.

What sorts of communication issues have you faced as a developer or other technical specialist? Do you often find that people look at you quizzically and then proceed as if they understand (but you can tell they don’t)? Let me know your thoughts about communication issues at [email protected].

 

Interesting Money Issues for Computer Users

I was reading an article by John Dvorak entitled, “The Secret Printer Companies Are Keeping From You” recently that caused me to think about all of the ways in which I look for ways to reduce the costs of my computing experience without reducing quality. In this article, John discusses the use of less expensive replacements for inkjet printers. I found the arguments for the use of less expensive inks compelling. Then again, I’m always looking for the less expensive route to computing.

I’ve often tried the less expensive solution in other areas. For example, are the white box labels any different than the high end Avery alternatives? I found to my chagrin that this is one time when you want to buy the more expensive label. The less expensive labels often come by their price advantage in the form of less reliable adhesives or thinner paper. This isn’t always the case, but generally it is. When it comes to labels, you often get what you pay for. I tried similar experiments with paper and found that the less expensive paper was a bit less bright or possibly not quite as nicely finished, but otherwise worked just fine. It’s important to look carefully at the cheaper brands when you make a decision to buy them and determine whether there are any actual quality differences and whether you can live with those differences when present.

John is right about more expensive labeled products being passed off as less expensive off brand products. In some cases, I’ve found all sort of items that didn’t quite meet a vendors strict requirements for a labeled product sold as a less expensive off brand product. Sometimes you’d have to look very closely to see any difference at all. I also know that some white box vendors have name brand vendors product equipment with less stringent requirements or possibly not quite as many bells and whistles. The point is, that you can find new products that works almost as well as the name brand for substantially less money if you try.

However, let’s say you’re not willing to take a chance on a white box option. There is also a strong market now in rebuilt and refurbished equipment. Often, this is last year’s model that someone turned back in for the latest product. After a required check of the hardware and possibly a refit of a few items, a company will try to sell it to a new customer at a significantly reduced price. These refurbished items usually work as well as the new products. Because they’re already burned in, there is also less of a chance that you’ll encounter problems with them. Even Apple has gotten into the refurbished product game—I’m planning to buy a refurbished third generation iPad in the near future.

Getting systems designed for expandability is another good way to extend your purchasing power. You might not be able to afford absolutely everything you want today. Get what you can afford and then add onto the system later. This is the route I take quite often. I’ll get a motherboard and other system components that offer room for expansion and then I add what I need until the unit is maxed out. I can then get the next generation setup, move the parts that are still viable, and use the parts that are outdated for some other purpose. Often I’ll take pieces and put them together for a test system or for a unit that I’ll use to run an older operating system.

Some people have asked why I go through all this trouble when you can get a truly inexpensive system from a place like TigerDirect for under $500.00. I’ve looked at this systems closely enough to figure out that they usually won’t work for my needs right out of the box—I always end up adding enough to bring the price near to $1,000.00 and usually more. Once the system is delivered, I find there is little documentation and that the box is too small to accommodate any upgrades. I would have saved money in the long run by getting a better system that has expandability built in. Here is where the trap occurs. There is a point where you have cut costs so much that the PC ends up being a throwaway that proves frustrating. It’s false economy for a power user (the systems often work just fine for students or users who don’t run anything more complex than a word processor).

Getting the most out of your computer purchasing power takes thought and research. What has your best purchasing decision been? How about the worst mistake you’ve made? Let me know your thoughts about computer hardware purchases at [email protected].

 

The Bionic Person, One Step Closer

When The Six Million Dollar Man first arrived on the scene in January of 1974, most people thought it was simply another science fiction television show. The addition of The Bionic Woman in January 1976 was just more good entertainment. The only problem is that these shows really aren’t just entertainment anymore. I’ve already discussed the use of exoskeletons to help those who have lost use of their legs in Exoskeletons Become Reality. No, none of the people using these devices can run 60 mph or make incredible leaps—that part is still science fiction, but I’m beginning to wonder for how long. (Just in case you’re interested, there is also a bionic arm in the works.) Today I read an article entitled, “Australians implant ‘world first’ bionic eye” that appears to take the next step in the use of bionics with humans. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that these things would happen when I originally wrote Accessibility for Everybody. I’m happy that they have !

Of course, the bionic eye of today is quite limited. Early bionic eyes have relied on a camera built into a pair of glasses to help someone see. You need a lot of hardware to make these eyes work and the best you can hope to achieve in many cases is to see light and dark. The part I find interesting about this new bionic eye is that the apparatus is actually inserted into the person’s living eye on top of the retina (yes, you still need the glasses, but just for the camera part of the technology)! This is a true innovation because it means that we’re headed in the direction of bionics becoming nearly impossible to detect. Once this technology leaves the laboratory, the doctors envision the person being able to see a 1,024 × 1,024 image. OK, that’s not HDTV standard, but it’s a lot better than someone who is blind has today.

In many respects, the technology advances we’re seeing today are both amazing and a bit scary at the same time. Scientists are literally probing every element of the human body, discovering how they work well enough to help people live better lives, and then using technology to fill in the gaps. I see a time coming when no one will have to suffer with a devastating loss that significantly limits the enjoyment of life. What do you think about the coming of the real bionic person? How far do you think this technology might go? Let me know your thoughts at [email protected].

 

Dealing with System Differences in Books

It’s unlikely that there are two computer systems on the planet that are precisely the same. Even if the two systems have precisely the same hardware and software, and the administrator configuring the systems uses an image file so that every setting is in precisely the same place, the two systems will have differences. It could be something as simple as the memory delay for one system is just a tad different than the other system. In fact, timing issues cause programmers more headaches than you might think. Environmental factors also play a role in how two systems work. The temperature in one room might be higher than another—affecting the way the systems work. Everything else considered, the users interacting with the systems will be different. The user is part of the system, after all. Therefore, no matter how hard you try to create two systems that are precisely the same, you’ll fail because there are simply too many variables to consider. These differences, no matter how small and subtle, affect how I write my books. The procedures I write for my books must work well for a wide variety of systems, including the users who are using the book to learn how to perform a task.

Let me state up front that there is always a possibility that a procedure you find in one of my books may not work on your particular system, no matter how much time and effort I put into creating the best procedure possible. I apologize in advance for any errors on my part that hinder your learning. It’s never my goal to make things difficult for anyone—quite the contrary, I take great pleasure in making your life easier. One of the reasons I created my beta reader program is to reduce errors in my books. Another reason is to reduce the chance that you’ll encounter problems with procedures in my books due to system differences. More beta readers mean more test systems and a lower probability that some oddity will get past everyone and make it into my books.

However, the fact remains that no amount of effort on my part will ever produce a procedure that always works on absolutely every system on the planet because each system is unique. I can’t possibly test the procedure on absolutely every system out there—much as hardware vendors can’t foresee potential conflicts or software vendors can’t predict a particular system combination that will cause an application to fail. In fact, given the limited resources at my disposal, it’s quite possible that you’ll encounter a problem with a procedure. When this happens, I invite you to contact me at [email protected]. We’ll work together on a solution to the problem you’re experiencing with the procedure. When a problem is severe enough, I’ll post an update for that book on my blog so that everyone can benefit. After all, the purpose of my books is to help you learn how to do something interesting with your computer system.

There are a few things you can do to reduce the potential for problems with the procedures in my books. The following list contains the difficulties that I encounter most often and solving these issues often helps my readers get back on track with the book.

  • Use the software and hardware that the book is designed to work with. Older or newer versions of software and hardware often work differently and cause the procedure to fail.
  • Read the steps carefully and verify that your display looks similar to the one in the book. Differences between my system and your system will sometimes mean that your screen will look a little different from mine, but the screens should at least look similar.
  • Make sure you have the knowledge required to use the book. I’ve been trying to become more careful in stating the knowledge a reader needs as part of the book’s introduction. If you don’t have this knowledge, you’ll find that you have a hard time learning the material.
  • Check your system for failures. In some cases, a reader’s system isn’t working right in the first place and the failure of the procedure merely mirrors this fact.


I always want to hear from my readers. Your e-mails to me brighten my day because I know someone is using the material I’ve worked so hard to create. I’m quite serious when I say, “Contact Me, Please!” Please do make sure to follow the guidelines in my Sending Comments on My Books post when sending me e-mail so that I have the information needed to help you as quickly as possible.

Pondering the Death of the Desktop Computer

Being an author of computer books makes me naturally curious about the health of certain technologies. After all, I need to know what to write about next. Lately there has been all sorts of ruckus generated about the death of the desktop computer. Many people claim that the desktop computer is on its last legs with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. The expression is cliched and so are the arguments about the desktop computer you’re probably using at work most of the time.

At issue is whether everyone can use a small device to perform all of their work. From some of what I read, I get a picture of a teenager texting a tome the size of War and Piece on a smartphone. (You can even find articles that tell you how to replace your laptop with a smartphone.) The moment that the visualization is complete, I admit that I get a good laugh from the picture. Imagine for a moment seeing someone’s thumbs flying at a speed that defies imagination for months on end to complete the book. The whole idea is ludicrous, but I’m sure someone will try it and succeed as a proof of concept.

You can create a Dick Tracy style computer in a watch. The technology has no size restriction. In fact, I’m not entirely sure that you’d even require the space consumed by the entire watch anymore. The problem isn’t one of making the technology small enough, but one of allowing a human to interact with the technology safely. The reason that the teenage texting of War and Peace brings tearful laughter to my eyes is the insanity of even attempting it. At issue are repetitive stress injuries and special needs.

Desktop computers provide an instrument that is large enough for most people to interact with successfully without incurring almost immediate trauma. That trauma occurs even with this form factor should tell you something. In order to work successfully for long periods of time, the environment must suit the human form factor—something that smaller devices simply can’t provide. As keyboards get smaller and people start typing in crouched or other uncomfortable positions, the opportunity for serious injury increases. In short, the reason the desktop computer won’t go away completely is that people need something large enough to perform large quantities of useful work successfully.

The issue of special needs would seem to seal the deal for desktop computers. People constantly complain about the size of smartphone screens—how the text is nearly impossible to see. It’s hard to believe that anyone would seriously consider trying to write large documents, work on graphics, or create presentations on such a small display. In fact, as the population ages, I see a problem performing even minor tasks with the small screen in some cases. People simply won’t be able to see the display to use it.

It was with great interest that I recently read a post entitled, “Post-PC Bunkum” by John Dvorak. In it, John mentions something that should make everyone aware that the desktop computer isn’t going away—it has become a commodity. It has become something that most people are familiar with and have in their home, office, or both. The desktop computer has almost become a refrigerator in terms of ubiquity in the home and office environment. However, the reason most people are uncomfortable with the desktop computer is that it truly is a complex device capable of performing some truly amazing feats in the right hands. People want to make tasks and their environment mindlessly simple and the desktop computer doesn’t do that for them. Even so, I doubt very much we’ll see the desktop go away anytime soon.

What is your take on the death of the desktop computer? What sorts of devices do you work with to perform most of your tasks? What sorts of tasks do you perform most often? Let me know at [email protected].

 

Thinking About Robotic Physicians

I have had a long term interest in enhancing the human condition using technology in a positive way (which is the main reason I wrote Accessibility for Everybody). For example, I explored how exoskeletons can help those who don’t have use of their legs to walk as if they did. The Robotics in Your Future post started things off though by reviewing the topic of robotics as they relate to humans. Recently I read an article about robotic physicians in ComputerWorld. The robot is simply a method for a real person to interact with a patient over a distance. Using the robot’s functionality, a doctor can perform a number of checks on a patient and learn what has gone wrong. The technology is obviously in its infancy at this point, but I already had questions about it as soon as I read the article.

While writing Determining When Technology Hurts, I tried to consider the negative aspects of a particular technology. For example, a doctor doesn’t have a face-to-face environment in which to interact with the patient in this case. Consequently, the doctor could miss subtle cues as to the actual issues that a patient faces. This sort of technology depends on the doctor’s ability to use instruments that are attached to a robot in a remote location. The doctor may not even know whether the instruments are fully functional and providing accurate information. I’m sure the technology will eventually include safeguards (and may even include some now), but these concerns are something that we as a society must ponder before making the technology generally available. Of course, there is the major issue of dealing with the human reaction to a robotic doctor. I’m sure many people will refuse to the submit to the cold hand of technology in place of the warm hands of a real doctor.

Even with these concerns, however, there is real potential for the robotic physician. For one thing, you can find any number of articles online about the expected shortfall in doctors. There simply won’t be enough doctors to go around at some point. Some plans for addressing this shortfall include using nurses to perform more of the work normally associated with doctors. Of course, because a nurse doesn’t have the same level of training, there are some serious issues with this approach. The robotic physician could help address the shortfall, especially in rural areas where patients typically have to wait now for the one day a week that a specialist visits.

The robotic physician could also fill in when there is no doctor available. Smaller, isolated communities could finally have a doctor available, even if that doctor isn’t physically present. A robotic doctor will also be necessary as our ventures into space increase. It’s also easy to imagine larger nursing homes staffing a robotic doctor who could help with critical patients until physical help can arrive and take over. The loss of life will be reduced in such situations because the doctor could be there in seconds. In short, this is an exciting development in technology that will have practical uses as long as we’re careful in applying it.

How would you react to a robotic doctor? Would you even let it touch you? I would imagine that human reluctance will be one of the major issues we’ll have to overcome, but I’d like to hear your take on the matter at [email protected].

 

Technology Addiction

Whether a tool is an asset or a hindrance often hinges on how the tool is used. A recent Baseline slideshow added to my perception that addition really is becoming an issue with many technology users today. For example, the slideshow pointed out that 65 percent of iPhone users can’t get along without their iPhone, while only one percent said they can’t get along without Facebook. The issue from my perspective is that it should be possible to get by without either of these technologies for some period of time—they’re simply tools and not needs essential for life. How does a technology become so important that 65 percent of its users would feel some sort of withdrawal symptom without it?

The slides went on and I’ll spare you the crudity of some of the questions the author asked of the respondents. However, as you read through the slides, it becomes apparent that the respondents would willingly give up contact with loved ones in order to maintain a grip on their iPhone. There was one statistic that really got to me though. If you have personal business in the bathroom, please complete it before you call me. I’m more than happy to wait.

That this phenomenon truly is an addiction is no secret. A recent article in the Telegraph talks about students having withdrawal symptoms akin to drugs when denied access to their technology. The LA Times reported that technology addiction is more extreme than addictions to chocolate, caffeine, and alcohol. Even Web MD has gotten into the act and provided articles about the symptoms of technology addiction. Psychology Today recently provided an article that helps explain the underlying metal and physiological basis of the addition. My experiences with addiction tell me that it won’t be long and Americans will start seeing the rise of centers devoted to helping people overcome their technology addictions. At some point, people will be forced to do without their technology in order to save their lives. In fact, I’m already seeing articles such as the on The Guardian that describe how others have beat their technology addictions.

I’m often asked why I’m not using Twitter and Facebook (amongst other social media products). I do have a LinkedIn account that I visit it once every week or so, but I don’t devote a lot of time to it. In fact, I don’t carry a cellphone either and I perform all of my work using a desktop system. For many people, the lack of technology on my person is a bit puzzling. After all, I write about technology and I’m obviously familiar with it at a significant level. However, for me, computers are a tool and will remain so. I use my computer to write books, create applications, perform research, and do other sorts of useful work. However, when I’m done for the day, I gratefully shut my system down, turn off my office light, and close the office door. I go out and do something different for a while in order to actually enjoy my life. I’ve also written about how the technology is turned off during vacations—I really do need time to unwind.

The topic of just how much technology useful will take a long time to work out. The whole idea of a personal computer isn’t that old and the older systems weren’t user friendly. People haven’t had time to build up any sort of knowledge level about them. I imagine that the conversation about how much technology one can enjoy without becoming addicted will be a long one, with many professionals taking part. In the meantime, take time to enjoy life. Shut the cellphone off for a while. Better yet, just leave it at home. You really don’t need to be connected to the thing 24 hours a day.

What is your experience with technology addiction? Let me know at [email protected].

 

Power Management and Computers

I have written more than a few times about power management issues. For example, my CFLs for Free and More on CFL Usage look at the benefits of using Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) in the home. Over the years, readers have asked me time and again about power management on computer systems. Microsoft and other vendors have come up with all sorts of automation for turning hard drives, monitors, and even processors off in an attempt to use less power. In many cases, these strategies start with laptop devices and quickly move to desktop computers as well. The strategies often sound good in theory, but do they work in practice? In addition, does a practice that works well on a laptop translate into equal savings on a desktop system?

The main annoyance issue is one of turning off parts of the computer after the system sits idle for a while. I can’t tell you the number of times where I stopped to read something and suddenly found myself without a monitor. In some cases, I needed to wait until the hard drive powered up before I could continue working. There are even some situations where the system powered down other components that didn’t power back up correctly, causing me to reboot the system in order to restore stability. There are also times when there is a sudden power failure which causes the system to shut down or not give the desired outcome. In case you’ve trouble to fix a switching power supply like a pro, you should learn from a pro. There are quite a few websites on the internet which could help you learn more about the same.

Does turning off parts of the computer for a few moments actually save money in the long run? I think you have to weigh the cost savings against several other factors:

 

  • The cost of asking the user to wait while the components power back up.
  • The cost of powering the component off, rather than have it simply sit idle (start up power is normally higher than idle power).
  • Wear and tear on the equipment (although, most computer components never serve their entire lifetimes).
  • Support requirements for users who don’t understand the power saving features.


I admit to using power saving features to an extent with laptops because battery life suffers otherwise. It’s worth a little of my time to extend the life of the battery. However, some users with laptops plug them in wherever they go anyway, so battery life isn’t such a big deal for them. In short, you need to also consider how the user works with the computer. A laptop that is normally plugged in doesn’t really need a long battery life.

On my desktop system, I normally run in high performance mode. My time is more precious than the part of a cent that I would save by turning the monitor off for five minutes while the system waits for me. This strategy seems to run counter to other posts I’ve made, but devices are there for the convenience of the user, not the other way around. Saving power when it makes sense to do so is one thing-having the monitor turn itself off while you’re in the midst of reading something is quite another.

I never put my system in hibernate mode. When I’m finished for the day, I turn my system off. There are a lot of reasons for this strategy:

 

  • The system doesn’t use any power when it’s off, so turning the system off consumes less power than hibernate mode.
  • The system doesn’t produce any heat when it’s off, so I also save money on cooling bills.
  • Restarting the system each morning clears memory, so I encounter fewer memory corruption issues.
  • Because I get a cup of coffee after starting my system, it doesn’t cost me any time to turn it off at night.
  • Turning the system off reduces noise in the house.
  • Even though my system is protected by an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), turning the system off reduces the risk of damage to the system during the evening hours.
  • Powering the system down reduces the risk of fire from the computer system components overheating while I’m not there to watch them.


I realize that corporations often perform maintenance during the evening hours, so placing the system in hibernate mode means that any automated updates can wake the system long enough to get the maintenance done. Still, I can’t help but think that leaving the system on during one night of the week would be sufficient to accommodate updates. The organization would realize significantly more cost savings by turning systems off at night.

What is your take on power management with computer systems? I’m currently exploring this issue as part of one of the books I’m writing and would love to hear what you think. Is there a good reason to turn that monitor off after a short interval of inactivity? How do you normally configure your system? Let me know at [email protected].

 

Equipment Failures and Local Backups

I had originally thought to provide a post today on the TimeCheck application. Friday is normally series day on the blog. Unfortunately, my computer had other ideas. Yesterday morning it decided not to work any longer. I heard a pop and then the screen went black—no helpful error message like 0x000000D1 and no blue screen of death—nothing at all. Replacing the power supply with my ready backup brought no joy. I’m sure I’ll find the cause of my woes eventually, but for now, I need to get up and running so I can meet my deadlines (and write this blog).

Fortunately, I had already decided to upgrade my computer and have all of the parts on hand to build my new dream machine (at least, what I can afford of that dream machine). In addition, I had made a local backup of my system the day before, so I’ll lose one day’s worth of work at most. What all this means is that I’ll be back online soon with a newer system that will provide me with everything needed to complete my work for the next while.

Using my emergency online e-mail will help keep me in contact with the few people who absolutely must contact me. Others are relying on the phone to contact me. If you’ve sent me e-mail about a book issue, I apologize in advance for not addressing your question in a timely manner. I hope that you’ll understand that it wasn’t my idea to have a system failure (it’s never my idea—the computer apparently has a mind of its own).

The one thought that has come to mind during this current crisis is that I’m extremely happy that I don’t rely on an online backup service. In order to get some things working on my new system, I needed the backup files, but I didn’t have access to the Internet. If I had relied on an online backup service, things would have gotten extremely interesting. Fortunately, my local backup is easily accessed despite the lack of connectivity, so everything is fine. I mention this in passing because I know that online backups have become quite popular. They have their place, but don’t neglect local backups because you never know when you’ll run into a situation like mine where online access is impossible.

As far as the TimeCheck application is concerned, we’ll restart the series as soon as is possible on Fridays. I appreciate your patience while I get things sorted out. In the meantime, let me hear about your dream machine at [email protected].

 

Subscribing to this Blog

Sometimes the simplest things cause problems for people, even those of us who have been working with computers for a long time. When Really Simple Syndication (RSS) first came out, it took me a while to figure out that I could subscribe to news stories or other items of interest online by clicking a link. Because Outlook was behind the technology curve, it took even longer for me to find, install, and learn how to use a third party RSS feed reader add-on. The feed reader makes it possible for Outlook to receive and use RSS posts (something that Outlook 2010 provides by default). Once I understood how RSS worked, it seemed so simple, but getting to the point of actually using RSS was daunting in a way because it was something new.

That’s one reason why I think this post is important. I imagine that there are many people out there who are just like I was—they don’t understand that RSS makes it possible to read this blog every day by having it automatically delivered to their e-mail application’s inbox or to their browser. So, just how do you subscribe to my blog? Look at the left side of my blog and you’ll see a category called Syndicate as shown here.

BlogSubscription01

Within this category you see links for subscribing to my posts, comments people make about my posts, and any podcasts I upload. Clicking these links subscribes you to various portions of my blog using either Atom or RSS. Atom is simply an alternative to RSS, but both technologies work essentially the same way. You click the link, your feed reader receives a request to make a new subscription, and then you subscribe to the content. Once subscribed, you receive updates about content on the site automatically through the feed reader. Feed readers are normally part of a browser or e-mail application.

In order to choose the right link, you need to know what sort of post notifications your feed reader supports. The help that comes with the application should provide the information you need. In addition, you need to decide whether you want to see posts, comments, or both. I don’t currently provide podcasts, so even though there is an option for them, you won’t receive any notifications at this point.

What happens after you click a link depends on which feed reader you’re using. For example, I use Outlook 2010 as my feed reader. When I click on an RSS link, I see a copy of Outlook 2010 open and a dialog box telling me about the feed like this one.

BlogSubscription02

When I click Yes, Outlook adds a subscription to the RSS feed for me. Every time I check for updates from that point on, I also receive any RSS feeds that I’ve subscribed to and can read the posts they contain. In my case, the RSS feeds appear in a site-specific subfolder of the RSS Feeds folder in Outlook. It really is that simple.

Many RSS feed readers support additional features. For example, clicking Advanced displays other information about the feed in Outlook as shown here.

BlogSubscription03

I can use the options on this dialog box to tell Outlook to download articles, rather than just headers. I can also automatically download any enclosures supplied with the post, such as source code. The point is that you can use your RSS feed reader settings to modify how your system works with RSS. Downloading complete articles makes sense only when you intend to read entire articles most of the time—headings make more sense when working with sites that you read some of the time.

This is a brief introduction to RSS that should make it easier for you to subscribe to my blog and enjoy it on a daily basis. Please let me know if you have any questions about subscribing or if you encounter any difficulties at [email protected].