Internet Explorer 8 was unleashed earlier this week, and with it a more voluminous fervor to renounce the much-maligned (at least for web developers) Internet Explorer 6. I see references to Zeldman’s groundbreaking “To Hell With Bad Browsers” article waved around like pitchforks at the fortress gates. In the words of Twisted Sister, “we’re not gonna take it… anymore!”

The sentiment is understandable. We’ve been putting up with the bugs, inconsistencies and security holes of IE6 for nearly eight years. We’ve supported versions 6 and 7 simultaneously since 2006. The choice seems clear: Abandon version 6, or commit to supporting three versions of Internet Explorer simultaneously. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

Like it or not, IE6 rivals Firefox with 20% of the browser market share (as of February 2009, according to Wikipedia). Regardless of the cost associated with supporting this productivity vacuum, throwing away one in five potential customers is a hard sell. Even worse is the possibility of crippling your design (and thusly your potential success) to satisfy a dwindling demographic.

Luckily, there are steps you can take to acknowledge IE6 without punishing more capable browsers.

Employ a JavaScript framework

Scripting is arguably the greatest source of inconsistency between all browsers, not just Internet Explorer. Using a capable library like jQuery minimizes browser-specific bugs you (or your users) may encounter.

Develop in modern browsers

Travel to a blissful place where IE6 never existed! Attempt to develop using the best practices you can in browsers with consistent results, such as Firefox, Safari, Opera and/or Chrome. Test in modern browsers, and get things working like a well-oiled machine. If you develop from the get-go in IE6, there’s no telling if your bugs are the result of a bad browser or your own bone-headed mistakes. It happens to the best of us!

Use a conditional stylesheet

Conditional comments allow you to target markup at specific versions of Internet Explorer in a standards-compliant (only mildly hack-ish) way. This allows you to store your fixes in a separate CSS file where it can’t corrupt your otherwise competently-authored rules. If you’ve never used conditional comments before, I recommend checking out this article. Oftentimes a few extra styles will be enough to correct major bugs.

Embrace Microsoft’s proprietary styles

There are some things (such as 32-bit PNGs and opacity) that IE6 will not support without a fight—at first glance, anyway. Microsoft employs many non-standard but surprisingly customizable styles, some of which are extremely powerful. I commonly use opacity, alphaImageLoader (for transparent PNGs) and behavior (affects objects with small bits of JavaScript).

Use conditional JavaScript

When CSS just isn’t enough, use conditional comments to employ browser-specific scripts to run. Many size and positioning bugs can be corrected at page load with the help of JavaScript.

If all else fails, screw em’

Sometimes, it just isn’t worth the resources to duplicate every design jewel cross-browser. If you find yourself stumped, accept that IE6 users may have to settle for your next best option; a simple 1-pixel rule will suffice where an alpha-transparent background image fails. Better yet, take this as an opportunity for some unexpected creativity: Stuff & Nonsense shows their IE6 users a mellow, monochromatic layout.

I would love nothing more than for Internet Explorer 6 to be six feet under, but with nearly 20% of the browser market I can no more ignore it than I can Mozilla Firefox. The goal is to remain empathetic to our audience while rewarding those who graduate to more modern solutions. If we create innovations with genuine value, our users will happily come along for the ride.

Watchmen is one of my favorite graphic novels of all time. In this case, the term “graphic novel” is appropriate in describing my reading experience; I’ve never even touched the individual issues that ultimately comprised this wonderful narrative. My paperback copy was purchased spontaneously at a coastal book store, and the dog-eared corners present even then have grown more prominent with each passing year. Fans of the book shouldn’t be surprised; Watchmen demands repeated readings.

Give me smallest finger on man’s hand. I’ll produce information. Computer unnecessary.

Batman remains my favorite superhero for his conceptual brevity, but Watchmen is my favorite superhero story. You can imagine, then, the anticipation I felt up to the moment I finally experienced the long-awaited film adapation in Vancouver’s wonderful Cinetopia theater.

If the movie had attempted to completely encapsulate all of what Watchmen is in under 3 hours, it would have failed. This is why I admire the direction taken, which feels more like an incredibly vivid window into the key points of a tale wide in scope. The result is that, at it’s worst, the film feels like an impassioned love letter to a piece of iconic pop culture. At best, it captures the depth, intelligence and wonder I felt when I first read the original.

Yes, the ending feels a bit flat. Yes, the licensed music feels odd a couple times. And yes, they did omit several scenes. But when you see Dr. Manhattan glowing and Godlike while losing touch with humanity, or Archimedes bursting from the river and flying through the clouds, or Jackie Earle Haley playing Rorschach flawlessly, none of that seems to matter at all. I ate it up.

The only problem; I have absolutely no objectivity. I can’t decide if I was drooling over the film for the fact that these characters and plot points were interpreted in glorious motion, or because it was simply a good film. My geekiness has completely usurped my objectivity; I love Watchmen too much to hate this film.

So what did you think? Did the uneven pacing throw you off, or were you speaking in a gravelly voice and denouncing humanity under a creepy mask and fedora as you skipped out the theater?

Despite any punk, blues or avant-garde leanings I may have exhibited in recent years (admittedly, these genres seem like prerequisites for 95% of the Portland hipster elite), I am still very much an indie kid. Ever since the fateful day I picked up Blur’s 13 or Pixies’ Doolittle, there has been a soft spot in my heart for these garage-y, two-to-five-piece rock n’ roll machines. Many of these groups are ultimately disposable—Spoon is not one of them.

Everest proved to be a very capable opening act. Their subtly plaintive lyrics and textural guitars were enjoyable and compelling, if not altogether memorable. As they finished their set and the floor began to fill, it became increasingly apparent that a lot of women like Spoon and, specifically, frontman Britt Daniel. Many of us who prefer listening to the group without suffering an earful of desperate shrieks and woos in conjunction with a new level of uncoordinated dancing were well-served by the Crystal Ballroom. Sideline benches, when stood upon, gave a great view of the stage.

There’s no denying that Spoon are solid live. Many of the songs were nearly indistinguishable in polish from their studio counterparts, and it was refreshing to hear how honest their recorded sound had been. They interspersed a varied and eclectic set with new songs, most of which sounded competent but overly jammy in comparison to their existing catalog. Promising, but a bit self-indulgent for my tastes.

The entire show was quite good, though songs from Kill the Moonlight and Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga fared perceptibly better than their peers. While their performance of “I Turn My Camera On” was crowd-pleasing and memorable, it felt flat in comparison to their surprisingly awesome rendition of “Stay Don’t Go” (with drums replacing the love-it-or-hate-it beat-boxing of the original) or “Don’t Make Me a Target.” If they can streamline and punch up their new songs to match that level of passion, they’ll continue winning over the world… one screaming girl at a time.

I have to explain this one a lot. As often as mass media is beginning to refer to Twitter as the next web phenomenon, I meet a lot of people that are positively baffled by it. From my experience, these folks are easily split into two categories:

• Those who have never heard of it
• Those who think it’s stupid

If you’re in the first category, you should stop reading and go take a look at Twitter. Seriously, go take a look.

Back? Formed an opinion? Fantastic!

If you think Twitter looks pretty cool, you probably shouldn’t waste your time with this post. Instead, I would suggest visiting my profile and following me. Trust me, there is no better way to enjoy the service than to get yourself a constant stream of design, tech, music and geek thoughts. Would I lie to you? Of course not. The rest of you should keep reading.

I need to make a confession. I enjoy Twitter in spite of itself. It’s true; I think there are some serious problems with the service. In no particular order:

• The interface is obtuse and ill-suited for conversations
• It is almost always slower than you’d like it to be
• Despite recent improvements, the site out-and-out fails way more than much larger services
• They impose strict API limits despite the fact that it is nearly unusable without third-party applications

So why do I stick around? Because it is the largest service dedicated to the concept of mass-messaging.

Twitter started as a sort of micro-blogging platform, and the current interface is still very much catered to this behavior. I guess the idea was that, if people loved blogs so much, maybe they would love blogs that were really, really small. As in, limited to 140 characters a post. Amazing.

Then something really cool happened. Twitter users wanted a means to converse through their miniature updates. So what happened? They appropriated the ‘@’ symbol as a means of identification. Now, Twitter users could talk to each other through their status updates by referring to the intended recipient as @username.

Although Twitter has direct messaging for one-on-one conversations, @replies are much more significant. Their introduction transformed the service from a dwarf blog network to a vast, communal conversation stream. This means that Twitter no longer appeals solely to egomaniacs wishing to hurl 140 more characters into the abyss; it’s useful for anyone wishing to join a potentially ever-expanding conversation.

I have landed commissions, arranged real-life meetups, compared media center solutions and forged friendships through this service, all thanks to its aptitude for spontaneous, micro-viral thoughtstreams.

I don’t consider myself an expert of the service (in fact, I’m a rather casual user in comparison to many), and I typically frown upon articles promising seemingly lucrative Twitter tips, but here are lessons I’ve learned that have made Twitter much more enjoyable:

• Ditch Twitter.com. The default interface is fine, but not very helpful when it comes to conversations. I would recommend TweetDeck for power users, and Twhirl for more casual users. They work on all platforms, update regularly and make it much easier to segue Twitter into your day without disrupting anything.
• Talk with, not at. It’s perfectly normal to tweet statements and questions throughout the day, but make a point to join threads in progress which you find interesting. You’ll develop more meaningful interactions if you resist the need to moderate every conversation.
• Don’t follow everybody. While it’s important to build a nice, big group of Tweeple to get the updates flowing, resist the urge to reciprocate every follow you get. Take a moment to look at their profile and decide whether or not their content appears meaningful. Once you feel your Twitter profile is at the brink of being manageable, you might start requiring folks to @reply you before engaging. What better way to get to know someone?
• Follow people different from yourself. Of course you want to have a focus on topics you’re interested in, but don’t write off folks who appear uninteresting at first. Who knows if that single mom and scrapbooking aficionado  from the East Coast has some really interesting wisdom to share? Only one way to find out!
• Self-promote, in moderation. If someone follows you, it probably means they’re interested in you, so updating your profile with the occasional blog post or project launch is perfectly acceptable. If you begin bombarding your followers with nothing but plugs, do them a favor and launch separate Twitter accounts for each project. Those who are interested will gladly follow the additional account.
• Be positive! Seriously, who wants to listen to a sourpuss all day? If you have trouble maintaining followers, there’s a chance you could be depressing them. Besides, everyone knows Livejournal is the place to let loose your cranky, emo demons!

The fact remains that Twitter isn’t for everybody. It certainly does not reward private people. Your investment is participation, and you get out of it what you put into it.

Ready to get started? Follow me, then send something @tylersticka. I’d love to hear from you!

Update (5/9): I still love Tweetdeck on the PC, but I must profess that Tweetie has taken over my Twitter usage on both Mac and iPhone platforms. Give it a spin!

The term “new wave” has become a bit laughable, and with good reason. How can something supposedly “new” refer to a movement whose genesis occurred over thirty years ago? It’s as erronious a misnomer as the term “modern” applied to typefaces like Bodoni, first designed in 1798 (thanks, Wikipedia!).

But semantics be damned! Watching Blondie rock 18 songs live on stage validates, nay, elevates the term. While other splintered groups of the era continue sans visionaries (The Cars minus Ric Ocasik and Benjamin Orr is like Star Wars without any jedi or lightsabers), the heart and soul of Blondie (Debbie Harry and Chris Stein, respectively) remain, and in stellar form.

Nine out of ten opening acts will be irrevocably, unapologetically terrible. Luckily, my pessimism was defied by the inherently likable (and twice as danceable) Peaches-esque trip-hop of Portland’s own Dahlia. Their upbeat set of fun, slightly raunchy tunes was a great precursor to the headlining act, winning the audience over and making the first 30 minutes fly by.

Blondie broke up in 1982 for several reasons, not least among them the attention focused specifically on their iconic vocalist. The moment the band took the stage, it was clear why. At age 63, it is remarkable how intensely Deborah still commands her audience. While the band performed very well, orchestrating a flawlessly tight set, it seemed they had accepted her level of charisma and adjusted their focus proportionally.

What I found most appealing about the set was how much personality the band exuded. Debbie danced in the least polished way, shimmying and stomping about like a punk rock chick who just heard “London Calling” for the first time. As they stormed through material largely from Parallel Lines and Eat to the Beat (my personal favorites), they elevated and maintained a level of energy bands half their age would aspire to.

So who cares if “new wave” is an antiquated term? Blondie ruled that stage better than most contemporary artists; they’ve earned the distinction, and it’ll take more than an oxymoron to stop them.