Northeast PHP 2012
11 - 12 Aug 2012
at Northeast PHP Boston
Talk comments
Hmm, "Anonymous" user #1, perhaps you missed the first section of the talk in which I defined the HTML "Core" vs. the HTML "Family"? Or perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, in which case my bad.
CSS3 is obviously its own specification and is not part of the HTML5 "core" specification. However my point was that designers and developers need to understand that features of CSS3 are commonly lumped into the larger term "HTML5" out there in the marketplace. Same thing with JavaScript APIs such as Canvas. Hence the term HTML5 "family" is used by me to describe a number of related technologies including CSS3.
To make it clear, I wish it were otherwise and that companies used more precision when talking about the web, but they generally don't. If you visit this url at Apple's site: http://www.apple.com/html5 (notice the URL) you see they lump all these technologies into one category. Should Apple be more specific? Probably. My role is to help people sort through the marketing-speak. Hopefully this explanation makes my stance a little less confusing to you.
I really enjoyed seeing the speaker's passion for community. An example of how to improve could be expanding the content to showcase examples of successful community projects and groups in a "case study" format. Also, the speaker should work on projecting his voice, since no microphone was used, but the room was small enough that this did not hurt the presentation.
In all, a great topic and a good presentation that could be an excellent presentation with these few minor changes.
Good overview of how to QA
Very nicely done, thank you!
very nicely done, thank you!
Amazing talk, amazing speaker. He clearly knows his stuff and is very passionate about it. Brilliant!
great talk - well presented. good amount of info!
Great talk - a lot of practical options discussed and loads of references to research later. Great Q&A afterwards also.
Somewhat difficult to follow, I think that it was assuming a lot of previous experience. Good for general knowledge.
Good resources were discussed but the prep for this talk was way off - examples were too fast, ran a half hour over and STILL had enough material for another hour. Needed to focus on a particular aspect, setting up a basic QA setup. Folks were here to learn about it so no need to preach about the benifits of QA, attendees knew they wanted it already.