I launched the new design with only some of the content from the old design, with every intention of migrating the rest over in the not-too-distant future. But then I got a new job. Suddenly it's three years later and I still haven't migrated any of my old projects into the no longer new site.

So today I bit the bullet and did the necessary work to move several of my art projects into the art studio. I still have to add my very early web art. But the rest is there and looking great. Now if I could just get the rest of my web design projects added to the design studio, everything will finally be in place. By then of course, it will be time for a re-design that is more mobile friendly. But I think I can let this design sit a while longer.

This revelation came to me when I discovered new drop-down menus on the Greatschools main navigation menu. Drop-down menus aren’t new, but this new drop-down menu joined pre-existing drop-down menus associated with the sub-menu that is situated below the main navigation. So Greatschools implemented a second set of drop-downs from their main navigation to “assist” users in finding content that is deeper within the site. There’s only one problem; drop-down menus are not always that easy to use.

Most drop-down menus require precise control of the mouse in order to keep a menu on the screen, if the user ventures just a little off of the menu, the menu disappears and the user has to start over. In the Greatschools example, drifting off of the main navigation drop-down might trigger a drop-down from the secondary navigation right below it. I was told by a former colleague at Greatschools that the new drop-downs were added in response to a Google adjustment. The result was a success for SEO, but a less user-friendly page for the users.

Link fields are another mechanism used to improve SEO. Examples of these can be seen at that bottom of the LetsTalk and Wirefly sites. Both sites focus on selling wireless services and devices. Note the repeated use of the word phone in many if not all of the links. These links aren’t designed to entice users to click. They’re there for search engine indexers. If a user is looking for a new phone or service plan, chances are they’re going to click on the main navigation links labeled phones or plans. They’re certainly not going to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to click on links labeled “Verizon Wireless Cell Phones”. The end result is that the user is served content that has little value in helping them to complete the task of finding and buying a new phone or plan.

Greatschools also has link fields on the home page. In fact one is “hidden” from the user under a “tab”. But the links are there for the search indexer to find. These “hidden” links are of particular interest. Each link goes to a page that features a search form specific to the state clicked on, that provides the same search functionality as the find a school search forms at the top of the page and in the column on the right. Clicking one of these links doesn’t bring the user any closer to finding a school in their state. These links don’t improve the user experience.

The dark early days of SEO are also rife with bad user experiences including invisible text, link farms and irrelevant search results. The use of invisible text and link farms has dwindled since Google made changes that penalized sites that tried to game the system, but irrelevant search results still occur frequently because someone figured out a way to raise their page rank in response to Google’s algorithm.

I want to make it clear that I don’t think that SEO is the culprit here. Responsible SEO is a valuable component to a successful online business. But getting users to a site is only half the battle. If your site is not easy to use, users will go somewhere else to complete their tasks.

I also don’t blame Google. Google is merely adhering to their stated goal of providing the best and most relevant search results to their users. Google makes adjustments to their algorithm to support their goal, not to penalize the sites that occupied the top of the results list.

I blame the reactionary stakeholders who bulldoze through poorly conceived projects that take time and resources to deliver, but provide little value to the user experience and the overall success of a company. Websites that provide quality content and good user experiences rise to the top irrespective of what their competitors do to game the system. Providing quality content and experiences may not be as easy as adding a new drop-down menu or a link field to a site, but quality content and experiences do endure. The drop-downs and link fields are just an adjustment away from oblivion.

Flash was always misused on the web. A plugin that was meant to enhance the user experience quickly became the user experience. But Flash interfaces have never been very accessible to those with disabilities. Macromedia and then Adobe, made some effort to support accessibility, but they always came up short to providing full and equivalent access to disabled users.

Flash interfaces were also practically useless for touchscreen devices. The primary reason for this has more to do with the design of many Flash UI's. In many cases the UI designers relied on feedback based on mouse over events to let a user know that some graphical element was clickable. This allowed designers to create non-conventional interfaces that were not intuitive on the surface, but became more useful as a user explored. But there are no hover or mouse over events for a touch device. So a touchscreen user trying to decipher what they had to do to complete an action have to just tap around until something happened, or give up and maybe try the next time they were using a conventional PC and mouse.

As a web designer, I have done my share of Flash projects. My own philosophy when it came to using Flash, was that of enhancement, not critical content. Flash is not SEO friendly. Flash is not easily accessible. Flash is not a native web technology. It's that last point that indicates that the future of Flash may be dim (pun intended).

Simple animations, dynamic slide shows and carousels are all things that Flash excelled at, and are all easily replicated with HTML, Javascript and CSS. The only things that can't be easily done with HTML5 techniques are highly interactive games. It's unlikely that game makers will ever use open technologies for games because they can't protect their intellectual property. Since Flash obscures the programmatical code, game developers will probably still rely on Flash for interactive game creation. But gaming companies are not a big enough customer base to justify continuing development of a dead-end technology.

I think Adobe has come to the same conclusion Apple and Steve Jobs did, Flash has become expendable. It doesn't make sense to spend money and resources to improve a product for a dwindling customer base. Better to develop new tools for designers that adhere to open standards and are supported by (nearly) all the modern browsers.

Fast forward to this past summer and the bombshell announcement from Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings that prices for the combined DVD and streaming services were going to go up 60%. Users were left with the choice of reducing their service to either DVD only or streaming only at lower prices, or accept the price increase for both services.

A few weeks later after customer defections and a drop in stock value, Hastings made another announcement that the DVD service was going to be spun-off as a "new" company called "Qwikster". Users of both DVD and streaming services would be required to maintain two accounts, two queues, and two review histories. The gist of Hastings' message was to suck it up if you wanted to continue using Netflix and Qwikster to satisfy your movie fix.

Hastings made another announcement last week that the Qwikster initiative was dead. Netflix will remain the one source for DVD and streaming services. The price hikes will remain, and Netflix will still treat the two services as separate businesses behind the scenes, but the customer experience will remain the same. Netflix stock sat at nearly 50% of what is was at the beginning of summer. Netflix' fall from grace was now complete, but what went wrong?

First, Netflix took their customers for granted. Until recently, Netflix was highly regarded by users. The website was easy to use. The movie suggestions were relevant. The movie library was enormous. But most of all, the service was convenient and affordable. One of the things that distinguished Netflix from Blockbuster was the convenience of the service. Customers could keep a DVD as long as they wanted with no late fees. Blockbuster soon caught on, but they could not catch up. Blockbuster had fomented too much bad blood with customers to win them back. Netflix subscription numbers grew exponentially. Customer satisfaction was high and users were happy. Then the infamous announcement was released.

The tone of the announcement for the DVD and streaming service split and the new pricing for the combination package was unapologetic and cavalier. Netflix basically said "This is what we are doing like it or not". It seems that they never really considered how customers would react to the service changes and pricing. They also were not very concerned with losing customers to competing services.

As criticism and account cancellations mounted, the stock price dropped. Hastings released the "apology" and Qwikster announcement. The spin-off of the DVD business was unpopular with all Netflix users. Especially the part about two separate accounts, charges, passwords and queues. Hastings even acknowledged that the changes would be inconvenient for users of both services, but Netflix was going to go ahead anyway. Netflix knew that customers would be unhappy about the changes, but wasn't going to deviate from the course it set. These are not the actions of a company that values its customers.

Next, Netflix overestimated the value of its streaming service. Netflix currently offers nearly 5 times as many DVD titles as streaming titles. They are working to expand the streaming library, but for now, the average user with 20 or more titles in their queue, could only see three or four of those titles instantly. Where is the value to customers for paying the same or more for less?

Netflix also did not factor in the hidden cost of the unlimited streaming plan; overage fees due to metered band-width. The two biggest high-speed internet providers, Comcast and AT&T have implemented bandwidth limits for all customers. The limits are generous, but most customers have to be cautious about going over. Customers who view 8 streamed titles or more a month risk exceeding their limits and paying penalty fees. Did Netflix really expect that customers would forgo the affordable DVD service for a potentially costlier streaming service?

Finally, Netflix failed to learn from history. This is the most puzzling aspect of Netflix' fall. Blockbuster customers were unhappy about late fees and the inconvenience of their services. Netflix lured them over and made them happy. Blockbuster went bankrupt. Netflix won. Now Netflix is making its customers unhappy and can't comprehend why they're unhappy.

In the meantime, other's are quickly stepping in to lure customers away. And customers are leaving. Many of those that are staying have chosen one of the cheaper DVD or streaming only service. The bottom line is that Netflix is losing customers, income and stock value. Now it's just a question of whether the damage can be overcome. The way Hastings has responded so far, I would say that the answer is no.

Nor should anyone be surprised about the fact that PG&E petitioned the CPUC to increase rates to pay for pipeline maintenance and then pocketed the money and left the pipes to rot and explode. PG&E petitioned for fees to trim trees near power lines and then pocketed the money. When tree limbs that weren't trimmed fell on power lines in Nevada County and started a wild fire that destroyed many homes, PG&E was fined and paid damages. But the total fines and penalties were a drop in the bucket compared to PG&E's profits for that period. The corporate bosses probably dismissed the fines and penalties as simply a cost of doing business.

Their petition for increased fees to to raise $5 million to fix pipes was made in 2007 and was supposed to be done by 2009. Not one shovel of dirt was moved to repair ANY pipes. They even went so far as to petition for another $5 million in fees for pipe maintenance this YEAR. They couldn't fix the pipes using the $5 million they already collected, but they could give huge bonuses to executives, and they could spend $46 million on their campaign to quash public utility startups.

Now they even want shelter from paying for damages caused by their own negligence!!! Their impudence knows no bounds!!!

It's time to hold PG&E truly accountable for their immoral negligence. DA's have prosecuted the company in the past and now it's time to also prosecute the individuals who are making decisions that disregard public safety in favor of the bottom line. We also need to tell them to fix their own damn pipes out of their own pockets. After all, if a property owner has to repair sidewalks in front of their home at their own expense, why can't PG&E bear the cost of fixing its pipes?

A few years later, I discovered Matt on one of those school class listing sites. It seems that not long after our mother died, his father moved them to Texas without telling anyone. According to the information on the site, Matt attended high school in a town outside of Dallas called Carrollton. I tried contacting him through the site, but he did not respond. His unresponsiveness led me to believe that his father had turned Matt against me.

Matt's father and I had a very contentious relationship. Things between us got so bad, that I chose to enter into the foster-care system when I was 14 to escape the emotional and physical abuse that he frequently subjected me to. So it was easy for me to assume the worst. Nevertheless, discovering even this little information about Matt provided some solace, but my concern for his well-being remained.

More recently, as the use of social networking sites grew exponentially, I tried to find Matt again without success. Then one day late last year, Leslie found an individual on Facebook who lived in Texas and resembled Matt. She tried to establish contact with him but he did not reply. She convinced me to try and add Matt as a friend to see what would happen. Several weeks later, Matt confirmed me as a friend. My surprise and joy at reconnecting with Matt were curtailed by the length of time that passed since I first tried to connect with him through Facebook, and the fact that he did not offer any communication after confirming me as a friend. So I was hesitant to do more than just browse through his profile and read his wall. We finally had a connection. The last thing I wanted to do was sever that connection by being too pushy. So I waited for Matt to make the next move.

Matt made that move in early August with a message stating that he was coming to San Francisco for five days and wanted to know if I wanted to have coffee or lunch! But he sent the message on a Saturday! I didn't check my email until Monday morning! So it was shocking and distressful at the same time. He also included a very full itinerary that seemingly left little time for us to get together.

Once I picked my jaw up off the floor, I immediately replied yes and sent him my mobile number. Except that it wasn't my number. In my haste to reply, I had typed a nine instead of a zero. Another message from him alerted me of my error and I sent him the right number. On Monday evening, he called. A quick conversation on the phone led to plans to meet for lunch on Tuesday. Lunch on Tuesday led to dinner plans that night which led to dinner plans the next night and plans to get together Thursday and Friday as well. It was a whirlwind week of getting re-acquainted.

I was relieved to find that Roger had not turned Matt against me. Roger had simply cut off his entire family when they moved to Texas. Unfortunately for Matt, this meant that the only person he could depend on for support was a neglectful and apathetic father.

Matt's experience with his father has made him very cautious about who he will allow to get close to him. He also felt that our 13-year age gap was a barrier to us being able to relate to each other. But we quickly found that that is not the case.

Now we are working to firm up our familial relationship. We're are looking forward to plans for the Winter Break (Matt has gone back to school at the University of Texas). We're having regular communications via email. We're going to keep in touch. We're going to be brothers.

In fact, Carly has forgone presenting any ideas, much less new ones. Instead, she's decided to sling some mud at Senator Barbara Boxer. Same old GOP tactic. If you can't run on ideas and merit, just muddy the field to confuse the voters. The funny thing is that Carly is putting the cart before the horse.

She is not the senatorial nominee yet. There has to be an election before that happens. So it's interesting that she is running her campaign with the presumption that the nomination is already hers.

Meg Whitman has not made that kind of presumption. But like Carly, she is trying to run on her record as the CEO of a major company. Also like Carly, her success as a CEO is up for debate. There is also some doubt that their abilities to head a large company is even relevant to the offices they are seeking.

As I said before about Whitman, running a state is not like running a company. No matter how much you think you can accomplish by trying to implement sound fiscal policy, your efforts will be thwarted by the fact that government doesn't have a bottom line. There are no profits to be made and distributed. At the same time, if you cut everything to the point that all public services cease to exist, you effectively eliminate the reason for government in the first place. So you are fighting a losing battle if you apply sound business practices to government.

As for Carly, running a business has no bearing on writing and evaluating legislation. Unless Carly can demonstrate real knowledge of formulating public policy and drafting bills, I don't see how she can be a good senator.

One more thing that both women have going against them is their poor or even non-existent voting record. People have a hard time believing in someone who neglects to exercise their right a responsibility to vote in all elections. If you can't be bothered to vote, how do we know you really care about California?

This is an obvious case of one person maliciously vilifying another, for a petty and personal reason; the victim "may have" bad-mouthed the perpetrator in front the latter's boyfriend. Now Google is being dragged into the fight because they released the perpetrator's real identity under court order and the perpetrator is suing Google for failing to protect her anonymity.

In this case, I don't think Google was wrong. They have no responsibility to shield someone who is engaging in the defamation of another, from civic justice. People should not be able to say whatever they want behind a curtain secrecy. If you want to publicly attack someone, then you should be brave enough to do so in the open.

I know that there are bloggers living in countries with oppressive governments that rely on anonymity to speak out against oppression. When Yahoo and Google cooperated in exposing some individuals who were then arrested, tried and imprisoned, I was very critical of their actions because their motives for cooperating was economical, not legal.

But speaking out for freedom is different from calling someone a skank. One is an issue of free speech, while the other libel.

On the plus side, we're saving thirty bucks a month for standard cable. And don't forget, that $30 is only good for a year. After that, Comcast jacks the price up another $20. It is outrageous to have to pay that much just to watch a couple of cable only channels. As a result, we're also watching less TV because, let's face it, the networks really don't have a lot to offer. But this is a good thing. Our Netflix queue is getting shorter by the day thanks to our changing TV habits.

On the down side, we can't watch Food TV, Discovery Channel, Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi Channel, HGTV, CNN or ESPN. We will also miss the continuing adventures of Jon & Kate's pending dissolution of their marriage. OK, maybe that's not really a down side. But I will miss Shark Week.