Ryan I Am

In case you haven’t figured it out already, here’s a handy forumla:

1. Look in your 1999 tech IPO database for the name of some has-been entrepreneur you haven’t heard of in ten years.
2. Figure out whatever project he’s working on now and regurgitate its business plan. Bonus points if it’s in biotech.
3. Add in the mad scientist angle. Use words such as “faith” and “lone ranger” to paint him as a solo misunderstood genius.
4. Write the headline: How [name] is Changing the World: One [widget] at a Time.
5. ????
6. Profit!

Well, I’m actually not so sure about about that last part.

First, I’ll admit it: I’m a Google fanboy. I switched to Google Search in late 1999 and never looked back. I’ve lost track of how many Google services I use. Sometimes, I wonder what my life would be like without Google. Between my phone number and email alone, it’s really infiltrated almost all areas of my life.

But Secure Search is here, and that’s cause for concern. I love privacy, really. With secure search, people who fear they’re being spied on can safely search without fear of consequences, right? And I prefer Google Search. So isn’t this the perfect match?

The problem lies in the fact that when someone clicks on a link from within Google Secure Search to go to a new site, that new site won’t know where they came from. Let’s suppose you run an eCommerce site that sells pet food. when somebody searches for ‘organic dog food’, they’ll land on a web page such as http://www.google.com/search?q=organic+dog+food. When they click on your link in the search results, Google sends that address as the HTTP referrer to the your site, and your analytics software logs that page as the source (and is also smart enough to know that the visitor searched for ‘organic dog food’). You might be interested to know that a certain percentage of your visitors arrived on your site by searching for this particular term. Perhaps you will tailor a portion of your site for this clientele, or offer them a discount on a certain product. At the very least, you’d like to know your most common referrers (also known as incoming links), and most popular search terms.

But if your visitor arrives from Secure Search or any other page served over HTTPS, their browser won’t send you the referrer. So you can’t customize your site for different visitors. Your analytics software can’t tell you what your most popular search terms are, or which search terms brought visitors to which pages.

Of course, Google knows where you went. And webmasters will still be able to see their most popular search terms through Google Webmaster Tools. But now you’ll have to check two different places: your analytics software, and Webmaster Tools. Obviously, having that information integrated with analytics software (as is the case today) is much more convenient, and can provide much more useful information. For example, did the people who searched for organic dog food live primarily in certain regions of the country? Did they use a particular browser or operating system? This type of information can prove invaluable in creating a custom user experience that can eventually increase your sales. But without knowing those pieces of information together, you’ll have to give everyone the same generic web page.

And that’s why I believe Google is planning on tight integration between Google Analytics and Google Webmaster Tools. GA will be able to snag all those missing HTTP referrers from Webmaster Tools, and give you the complete picture. But what about those of us who use non-Google analytics software, such as Clicky? We’ll be left in the dark. Despite Clicky’s superiority, some people will undoubtedly migrate back to GA due to this integration. There’s the Mountain View muscle at play.

One other thing. HTTPS traffic really isn’t secure anymore. With devices on the market like this one, anyone between you and your destination can still conduct a man-in-the-middle attack and see what you’re doing. If you were really concerned about security, you wouldn’t even need Secure Search, because you’d be using other technologies such as Tor, VPN, and SSH tunneling that mask your complete identity, not just your search results.

This isn’t about security. It’s a power play.

I’ve recently been tasked with flowcharting many of my organization’s processes. This sort of task typically falls to software such as Microsoft Visio, which retails at around $559, or SmartDraw, a much more reasonable $159 (for the Mac, there’s also OmniGraffe). Still, if you’re like me, you only need this type of software occasionally, making those prices seem pretty steep.

For this reason, I was pretty excited to try Google Drawings. There already seems to be some good momentum behind the app. For example, others in the web design community have already begun creating wireframing templates. And being a regular Google Apps user, the interface felt right at home.

But for flowcharting, Google Apps is just about as good as Microsoft Word. Here’s why: The arrows don’t snap to the shapes. Drawings does have a nice feature that helps you align shapes to each other. However, it doesn’t always work, especially when you’re trying to connect the endpoint of an arrow to a new shape.

Consider the following scenario: You start out with a large canvas, and leave a generous amount of space between shapes.

But as you continue to draw, you start to run out of space. This document must be printed, remember, so you’re working on a fixed-sized canvas, not a limitless expanse of drawing area. The bottom right corner of your flowchart is densely packed with a plethora of process boxes and decision diamonds, while the top left remains sparingly spacious. So, you decide to rearrange them, to space them more evenly, and you end up with this:

And you realize that you have to manually reconnect every arrow to every shape you moved. Oh, and the sharp point of the arrow is the side that doesn’t snap. And you can’t see the point of the arrow as you move it around, it suddenly disappears, until you let go of the mouse. It’s as if Google doesn’t want flowcharts to flow.

Which means, to flowchart for a reasonable price, it’s back to the old freeware standby, Diagram Designer. It amazes me that this software designed for Windows 98 and written in Delphi is still the best option right now. Hopefully Google will change this, and soon! Perhaps if I procrastinate a bit longer…