Of course, as I mentioned before, I am still on hiatus. Even after the redesign I still have much that I want to accomplish outside of writing here. I am unable to explain it, but since announcing that little detail our feed subscribers and traffic has been slowly increasing. If you notice anything broken, or acting strange, please feel free to contact me. I am going to try to make a few tweaks to the functionality, but the design is complete, and I will not be doing another redesign for a very long time… I say that now.

Standardization and interoperability

Tim Berners-Lee, known as the inventor of the Web, has always held a clear view that information exchange should be a process without limitation. These limitations include those introduced by technology devices, as well as the software that runs within a device. The concept is known as interoperability. A brief hint of this view was made apparent to the public for the first time when he responded to a post on the alt.hypertext newsgroup:

“The WWW project was started to allow high energy physicists to share data, news, and documentation. We are very interested in spreading the web to other areas, and having gateway servers for other data. Collaborators welcome!”

Conventional wisdom states that a standardized set of computer communication languages, which every device understands, is a necessary component of interoperability. The most popular of these languages being Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). However, in order for this idea to come to fruition, all hardware and software vendors must come to a consensus on implementation techniques, as well as features and functionality. As the Web continues to grow, and the cost of developing new technology decreases, this becomes increasingly difficult to manage.

In order to support standardization efforts, Berners-Lee founded the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1994, and still serves as Director. According to the consortium’s Web site:

“The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. W3C primarily pursues its mission through the creation of Web standards and guidelines designed to ensure long-term growth for the Web.”

The current endeavors of the W3C have been focused on reclaiming a Web that primarily exists as an entertainment and commercial enterprise. This effort has been dubbed the Semantic Web, and it is a reborn Web where standardization is the primer for artificially intelligent personal assistants. These assistants would rely on a common framework, and implied relationships that associate data with real world objects. This was first envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler and Ora Lassila in a paper published by Scientific American.

Not mentioned in the paper, but one of the understated realities by those who support standards, is that perfect adherence to a standard would flood the market with implementors. As the ease of development increases, the level of knowledge required to support communication technologies would decrease. This saturation would slowly diminish pay scales as certain tasks are automated or relegated to less-experienced individuals. Diversity in platforms has actually given developers a heightened level of specialization, which keeps up the demand for this experience.

Web standards

Although the W3C continues to generate interest in academic and technical circles, the rise of standards was given new life by outspoken voices in the Web development community. Initiatives like The Web Standards Project (WaSP), which is a grassroots campaign, continues to fight for equal access rights to Web technologies. Published authors and well-known speakers on the conference circuit also generated a new interest in creating Web sites and Web applications devoid of market fragmentation, and full of promise for all. Development techniques like Hijax, Graceful Degradation and Progressive Enhancement, breathed new life into what was once considered a Utopian ideal.

The most popular proponent of standards, the organization and Web site A List Apart, is edited by individuals such as Aaron Gustafson, who is Technical Editor as well as WaSP Group Manager. Influential developers like Gustafson are trying to balance a system of standards with the commercialized success of the Web, primarily because of (or despite) Internet Explorer.

In a controversial post on A List Apart, Beyond DOCTYPE: Web Standards, Forward Compatibility, and IE8, Gustafson highlights an “end-game” approach for IE8 that attempted to mirror forward thinking Web innovation with standard’s support. The outcry from some hard-liners in the community was an indication of the difficulties the movement is going to face. Most believe rightfully so that market segmentation and standards are mutually exclusive, which will become more evident in the years to follow.

Even though there continues to be widespread support for Web standards, there is still an undercurrent of dissenters who believe that the complexity of an application and the target audience preclude the need for standards. The objections are not often spoken of in the public domain because it is usually perceived as the purposeful exclusion of disabled Internet users. These users typically require a set of standards to be followed so that information can be accessible by assistive devices, such as screen readers.

There are illustrations that support the objections of these dissenters, proving that a corporation can be a financial success without standards in light of public opinion. Netflix enjoys a great deal of success by offering instant online streaming for a number of movies, but the service requires ActiveX controls, Windows Media Player 11 with proprietary DRM, and Internet Explorer. A small subset of the community has complained, but Netflix is committed to this technology.

Entertainment venues are not the only businesses to inherently shun standards support. Social networking Web sites and news outlets often require plugins and custom frameworks, and gleaning information across multiple platforms is rarely possible. A focus on interoperability is usually driven by demand, for instance, making information available to iPhone users. The most visited and influential of these virtual meeting places are adding features that differentiate, and alienate standards in favor of marketability amongst competition.

Stagnation among bureaucrats

Of course, there is nothing erroneous about supporting standards, or belonging to a group that forwards the cause of standardization. This is simply one view of the Web, and how it should be managed.

However, there is the mistaken notion that standards will actually drive innovation, and that a further investment in the endeavor will spark change. This is actually not the case. Even Berners-Lee is aware that in order for standards to be created, updated and maintained, there must be a governing body. These governing bodies are run by committees, and the bureaucratic process is extremely slow. When discussing the governance of top-level domains by the United Nations, Berners-Lee stated:

“I think that the top level domains, it is very important, are run fairly internationally with a fair representation of businesses and consumers worldwide, not just the companies that run the Internet. I think that whenever you have something that represents the whole world, like the United Nations, it becomes bureaucratic and it becomes slow, because it takes a long time to take into account everybody’s point of view. So we should be prepared to put up with some bureaucracy.”

Amid these views, people still incorrectly liken standards to the open-source movement, where contributions by the community facilitate change quickly. Yet, with open-source software, if you disagree with the prevailing opinion, then you can change it by creating your own software while leveraging the core technology. The competition and choice given to those that use the software in all its forms is what encourages modifications, and garners support, which then drives further innovation from contributors. There is no governing body that makes final and binding conclusions. The Mozilla Foundation and Firefox browser is the perfect example of this process at work.

The truth is that the Web already had its most important standards movement more than a decade ago. Establishing a standard system by which all individuals could communicate and share information was the essence of the WWW project. That was just the beginning of another revolution, and whether some like it or not, it was one with capitalist appeal. Most of what has come about today that gives the Web a broad appeal — the change, the innovation, the continued progress, is the result of competition, commercialization and commoditization.

Commercialization and commoditization

Henry Ford introduced the Model T on October 1, 1908, in the throws of the Second Industrial Revolution. Not only was it an automobile that most American workers could afford, but it was the result of a mass production technique known as the moving assembly line. The standardized process of assembling car parts was an instant success, and Ford paid mechanics twice the average daily wage in order to keep turnover low, and also to meet public demand. By 1918, half of all cars in America were Model T’s, but as Ford himself pointed out, this was not without shortcomings:

“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”

Other car manufacturers mimicked the success of the Model T by integrating modern labor practices like the moving assembly line. They also offered more features and color choices, and instituted payment plans that over the long term increased affordability and market reach. Ford was slow to respond, and over the next few decades increasing competition forced the company to explore other makes and models. This competition eventually resulted in an explosion of choice for the consumer, which includes decisions ranging from environmental impact to an option for heated seats.

This brief history of Ford Motor Company is analogous to the Internet in the early days of the World Wide Web. It was standard practices, as well as the implementation of technology specifications to be recognized by computers, which eventually paved the way for companies like AOL and Comcast to provide access for everyone. There is little doubt that we would not have the Web we have today without the initial efforts of Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues. However, it also must be said that the Web we have today is not the end result of Berners-Lee, and those like him.

The Web as a commodity can be difficult to digest, especially if you consider the efforts by broadband providers who would benefit from an Internet that placed additional constraints on how the commodity is used. Early debates about network neutrality highlighted the worst-case scenarios in this enterprise, where large organizations who control majority stakes on the Web could stifle special interest groups by cutting off Internet access. Although this has been the case only in limited situations, there is always the potential that further treating the Web as a commodity trade could destroy the dissemination of important information.

Into the future

That brings the Web to its current form today, where the two opposing views are divided on how to manage the most influential cultural phenomenon to affect a global society. There is a view, which is socially conscious, and continues to believe that information exchange is a given right for those that can get access to the Web. In contrast to that view is the one that states that the Web is a developing enterprise, where economics should determine the outcome of how information is exchanged. For those that desire the Web to move forward, and to progress technologically, competition and market segmentation is a necessity. For those that desire equal accessibility, progress will have to stall while interested parties determine the best outcome technologically.

Proponents on both sides will always state that there can be a middle ground, but given that browsers are the primary agents of change for the Web, it is unlikely that a middle ground can ever be reached. Two or three browsers might implement a standard one-in-the-same, but the browser that provides users with capabilities unlike the others, and useful to many, will win a new war. Striking a balance at this juncture is near impossible, and in most respects letting market trends ebb and flow unimpeded is the best outcome.

Event Binding

A simple, cross-browser event model is easy to achieve with a few lines of code, and without a framework. However, if you find that you need to bind events to elements based upon class name or attributes, then you will need events and advanced DOM selectors. Extensions to some libraries even provide persistent event listeners that reattach events after an element has been removed and then inserted back into the DOM.

Another consideration is whether or not you will need an event queue, which is beneficial to have if you only want events to be bound when certain conditions occur, and only after a specified interval of time has passed. This type of functionality is often built on top of a framework’s core functionality with plugins. So, if you are unable to find it within the core, check for an extension that provides this complicated functionality.

Further reading:

• Quirksmode Event Properties
• Dean Edwards: addEvent()
• John Resig Flexible JavaScript Events
• Equalizing JavaScript Event References across IE and EOMB (Every Other Modern Browser)

DOM Selectors

Depending upon the level of complexity you need in order to find elements within the DOM, you might not need a framework. It is often assumed that if you need anything beyond getElementById, or getElementsByTagName, then it is best just to source a framework. However, even a custom getElementsByClassName, and a few custom CSS selectors will not run you more than a few dozen lines of code.

If you find that you want to incorporate many of the CSS3 selectors, as well as XPath selectors for the retrieval of XML nodes as well, then it is probably best to use a framework. Doing much more than just getting information can be difficult as well, and if inserting nodes back into the DOM with preciseness is a necessity, then a framework is a good idea.

Further reading:

• Roll out your own JavaScript Interfaces
• Introduction to using XPath in JavaScript
• Beginning JavaScript with DOM Scripting and Ajax (Book Code Snippets)
• Selectors in JavaScript

Ajax

This is the one aspect of JavaScript that leads programmers directly to a framework, regardless of the complexity of the asynchronous requests. However, what appears to be extremely complicated functionality, again, can be accomplished cross-browser without too much effort. Instead, it becomes more difficult when you want to traverse the nodes of a text response as JSON, or queue up several requests much like you would events (as described earlier).

I think it should be said though, that this is also the one aspect of JavaScript that should be explored first without the use of a framework. Too many developers have invested little time into understanding the foundational aspects of the Web like the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP), and exploring Ajax in depth will help to familiarize them with these concepts.

Further reading:

• What I Didn’t Know About XHR
• W3Schools.com Ajax Tutorial
• Mozilla Developer Center AJAX
• XHR Concepts: A Comprehensive Guide

Effects

I believe that effects are the one aspect of any application, when required at any level of frequency, merit the use of a JavaScript framework. When it comes to drag-and-drop, sliders, and animation, the number of cross-browser inconsistencies can seem insurmountable. Relying on a trusted framework that has taken all of these into account can save a tremendous amount of time and frustration. However, just because the effects are available, does not mean they should be utilized.

Effects also tend to be the one area where frameworks differ significantly. If you need a number of special effects, then it is best to take the time to review each framework in depth. Wipes or fades are a dime-a-dozen, but when you need to animate along points in a curve, or queue up several animations, then your choice of framework is crucial.

Further reading:

• Highslide JS
• How to Create an Animated, Sliding, Collapsible DIV with Javascript and CSS
• Javascript Tutorial - Simple Fade Animation
• WebReference.com: How to Drag and Drop in JavaScript

Further Reading

For more on JavaScript frameworks and modern day JavaScript techniques, the following two posts can be helpful:

• How to choose a JavaScript framework
• Mastering JavaScript — concept and resource guide

This is actually a revamp from Chris Double, who commented in the article that an anonymous function would be better suited for the task. I now agree, since in all my code since then I have yet to use my first code snippet, which was a strict application of OOP. I am not going to touch on currying though (noted by Chris as well), since that is a separate technique altogether.

JavaScript:

/*
	Calculate the amount of energy a relative mass generates at
	the speed of light one second after this page loads, which is in
	accordance with Albert Einstein's famous equation.
*/

function calculateEnergy( m ) {

	// m (mass) = kilograms
	// 299792458 = speed of light

	return m * Math.pow( 299792458, 2 );
}

window.onload = function() {
	
	window.setTimeout( function() {
		
		var mass = 1
		var energy = calculateEnergy( mass );
		
		alert( [ mass, " kilogram(s) of mass generates \n\n", energy, " joules of energy \n\n", "when traveling at the speed of light." ].join( "" ) );
		
	}, 1000 );
	
}

You can see the code is fairly straightforward. The setTimeout method will take an anonymous function object as the first argument. Within this function you can perform the calculations necessary, and work with other named functions throughout the application that require any number of parameters. It is also worth mentioning that in my first post I wrongly stated that energy in joules was based upon a mass at rest. It is actually based upon a mass at the speed of light.

This works the same for the setInterval method. However, if you find that you need to clear either, then you will need to use a variable reference to the method. Also, you should abstract out as much behavior as possible in this scenario. Any repeatable functionality should go in another function, and it should return a value for use within the anonymous function. Hope this is helpful!

It got me thinking, and I determined that there will be data that is missing altogether that would be difficult to extrapolate with a simple set of questions. The true nature of Web development is a complicated metric to gage without being in the field for many years, and without reading about and listening to thousands who are in the field with you. It can be a frustrating experience for any one person graduating college and starting their career, or wanting to transition into a separate discipline. I decided to try and change that with some personal reflection.

Information Architecture

The examination of how users interact with information on Web sites was first given a name when the book Information Architecture for the World Wide Web was written by Louis Rosenfeld and Peter Morville. Before the IA was born, there was a disparaging lack of data on how best to organize information, and designers were given a great deal of freedom to explore the Web as a medium. After formal user testing procedures were developed, and after much trial-and-error, it was determined that some assemblage of order was required.

Information architects had previously performed the role of business analyst or programmer, but the field has centered fundamentally now around library and information sciences practices. Several veterans began their career focusing on an entirely separate discipline, but graduates entering the field will usually have a strong focus on behavioural sciences like psychology, sociology, or a degree in human-computer interaction. The role is often given to those demonstrating a high capacity for organizing information in a fashion that benefits profiled groups of users.

There has been a further split in the last few years, with user testing and analytics analysis requiring unique skills, and wireframing, profiling and user specifications requiring a completely different set of skills. This depends greatly on the size of the organization, with some individuals being required to perform all of these duties on any given project. It is rare that any information architect will be required to perform the duties of other disciplines, such as design and programming. It is also the discipline, more than any other, that plays a central role in defining core functionality for a Web site or Web application.

Some information architects prefer the title Usability Expert or Interaction Designer, and also focus on areas such as accessibility as it relates to information design and architecture. Usability is a term that has become synonymous with the field, but the meaning is broad as it is applied to Web pages.

Although there are those who falsely believe that information architects deal in absolutes, the best are actually able to think critically from the viewpoints of an entire audience. Much of this has to do with Jakob Nielsen, an unofficial spokesman for the field, who is emphatic about concrete rules surrounding Web design. This has caused an uncomfortable rift between designers and information architects that still exists today. It is a constant fight to balance human-computer interaction with brand integrity.

Resources

• Usability Professionals’ Association
• SIGIA-L Mail Archives
• The Information Architecture Institute
• Information Architecture for the World Wide Web
• Don’t Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability
• Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design

Web Design

One of the travesties of this profession is that it is one of the few where so many can claim expertise with very little hands-on experience. The term Web design and Web designer has grown to encompass an abundance of roles and responsibilities, and it is difficult to determine who is a valid authority. Your neighbor’s twelve-year-old nephew is a Web designer because he can use Dreamweaver, as is your classmate because she can wield a brush in Photoshop. It never ceases to amaze me, that second only to our human bond, our next strongest bond is that we are all Web designers.

Yet, among professionals we know there is a greater truth. It even goes well beyond artistic talent, striking a nice balance with usability, practicality and technical feasibility. The best Web designers are well-rounded individuals, who possess knowledge about color theory, typography, cultural trends, market trends, brand and identity conceptualization, video production, information organization, photography and illustration. The majority of Web designers today will have some education in creative and visual arts, whether it be digital or the fine arts.

There is a misnomer in the field that Web designers must be practitioners of client-side programming, standards and accessibility. However, this continues to be the result of an outspoken minority who claim to speak for a vast majority. The reality is that many very successful Web designers understand the medium and the constraints without ever touching code. It is simply that more individuals have chosen to branch out, and there is no indication of competence as a Web designer with respect to client-side development skills.

One other aspect of Web design relates to Adobe Flash. Just like analytics analysis has become an offshoot from information architecture, so has Flash development. There are many individuals who make a living solely through the design and development of fully featured Flash modules and Web sites. Among those, a few are programmers dabbling in ActionScript and other frameworks like Microsoft Silverlight and Adobe AIR, while some are designers who design the composition and contract out the technical aspects of the job.

Web design continues to be a controversial field because designers are often judged on the depth and quality of their portfolio with little regard for anything else. Advancement is difficult unless there is an obvious improvement in style and compositions in peer reviews. However, the opportunities available for Web designers today is probably greater than for any other discipline.

Resources

• The Favourite Website Awards
• I Love Typography
• CSS Zen Garden
• The Principles of Beautiful Web Design
• The Design of Everyday Things
• Universal Principles of Design

Client-side Programming

Client-side programming (or scripting) has become a mixed-bag of sorts, and can be masked behind several titles like Front-end Developer, Web Developer and even Web Designer. In the early days of the profession, a basic knowledge of HTML could land you a well-paid position. This is no longer the case, and the best client-side programmers are experts with XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, ActionScript, XML, standards, accessibility, have a very firm grasp of design theory, and often have some basic experience with a server-side language like PHP, Ruby, Java, or C#.

The primary calling card of any competent client-side programmer is the ECMAScript specification, which is the foundation for JavaScript and ActionScript. The language is used in frameworks like jQuery and Prototype, and is also used in conjunction with XML in the Silverlight API and the AIR API. Feature rich functionality on Web sites and Web applications requires a command of the language, and there are still very few who can code custom secure applications from scratch with confidence.

Continuing trends over the last few years for client-side programmers has put an obscene amount of attention on several fronts, including standards support in IE, semantics, CSS 3, the HTML5 specification, and JavaScript 2.0. In some respects the discipline is at a lull while technologies slowly advance, and the social aspects of the Web are now garnering more attention than the programming required for execution. A generous number of books and resources are available, and there continues to be an emphasis on joining camps that subscribe to particular theories of Web development.

Even though some people in the field will deny it, there is an undercurrent of disrespect for client-side programmers. The focus is split because the profession requires an attention to detail on both the design front, and the programming front. This push-pull eliminates the possibility of both creating award-winning design, and developing applications that require knowledge of environments and server-side programming. This can be viewed by designers as an inability to let go of inhibiting standards, and viewed by server-side programmers as an inability to grasp more demanding languages.

Resources

• Web Developer’s Handbook
• A List Apart
• W3 Schools
• JavaScript: The Definitive Guide
• Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML
• Essential ActionScript 3.0

Server-side Programming

There are several titles for this discipline, which include Programmer, Software Engineer and Web Developer to name a few. The field has seen numerous changes over the last five years, and it covers a broad spectrum of languages, platforms, technologies and frameworks. More than any other discipline, this one has the greatest number of passionate voices, who often grasp onto a concept and never seem to let go. It is highly competitive, stressful, and regularly requires “work” outside of work.

Although system administration can be a requirement, knowing an environment is typically confined to how a language or technology works within it. There is an extreme polarization between Windows and Unix programmers, as well as an interest in the many flavors of Linux. The majority of server-side programmers, even though some claim otherwise, spend their time specializing in one camp. The dedication needed to master one language leaves little time for learning all languages at once.

Frameworks are a mainstay, and there is a growing concern that the next generation of developers will know little about a language in favor of using an abundance of APIs. Ruby on Rails, Spring, .NET MVC and Django are a few popular frameworks, but choice is usually determined by demand. Among languages, Java, C#, C++, Ruby, PHP, Perl, and Python are the most widely used, and object oriented languages still have more traction than functional language counterparts. Again, this mostly depends on choice and demand.

Server-side programming also requires an understanding of version-control systems like SVN, CVS or GIT, as well as an ability to architect database schema. Depending on the organization, an ability to program with JavaScript is a nice compliment, since so many applications now require asynchronous calls to server-side code. This has also increased the demand for programmers who can eliminate cross-site scripting and cross-site forgery vulnerabilities, as well as address other security concerns.

Web services have become increasingly important in a new era of development, since the sharing and manipulation of data outside “walled gardens” is constantly emphasized. Overall, the idea of open applications has gained more traction than software as services, since it gives the community an opportunity to inspect an application for flaws before investing time and money.

Resources

• PHP 101
• Learn Ruby on Rails
• Learning the Java Language
• Getting Started with Visual C#
• Learn Perl
• Beginner’s Guide to Python
• SQL Tutorial
• Version Control with Subversion

Conclusions

Quite honestly, I could have said a lot more than I did about each discipline, but this provides a nice overall summary without giving undo attention to any discipline, theory or technology. I think an important point to consider is that I do believe we are at a lull, or a crossroads in the field. When reviewing all the tools available at our disposal, most are old technologies with a new twist. It seems that the greatest innovations are figuring out how best to recycle those technologies.

The two brothers, Julius and Vincent, are the result of a failed science experiment from the 50s that intended to breed the perfect human being. Early in the pregnancy the zygote split unevenly, with Julius (Schwarzenegger) receiving all the strength, brains and personality, and Vincent (DeVito) getting everything that was left over. Like any good comedy, this results in an exaggerated conclusion, where Julius is athletic, intelligent and morally sound, and Vincent is a broken-down shyster.

Of course, there is one simple fact that remains, which was briefly touched upon in the opening narrative. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, Julius spent his entire life becoming the man he was intended to be, and that meant working out, eating right, studying philosophy, reading literature and unraveling the mysteries of science. He never had a job, a wife, or a family, and he was free to think uninhibited by the normal stresses of life.

Vincent, on the other hand, grew up with little time to examine the fine arts, and all his days were spent simply surviving. In the end we learn it is not that Vincent lacks the talents or physique that Julius possesses. He is just talented in something entirely different — street smarts. This comedic element is apparent throughout the entire movie. Your professional life might be an illustration of the same point. You have the talent to succeed. You just do not have the time to make it happen in one particular area.

Your interests lay elsewhere

Where are you trying to succeed, and how interested are you in getting to the point that it is considered a success in this particular endeavor? If you are not successful in the near future, then invariably you will succumb to the notion that you do not have the natural-born talent required. No one expects that it should take painstaking hard work, and an entire life dedicated to the craft. With the advent of TV and now the Internet, amazing achievements can be summed up in 10 or 30 second spots. Everything looks easy, and all is attainable.

There is a tendency to ignore the common knowledge and advice from those who are currently successful in most professions. Their story is the same. It takes an entire lifetime to achieve greatness, including sacrifice. (I will get to that in a moment.) Consider even those individuals who are the most notable prodigies. Claude Monet and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart spent every waking hour dedicated to art and music respectively. Chess player Bobbie Fischer played chess since he was age six. Tiger Woods has been playing golf since age three.

The truth is that your interests probably lay elsewhere. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but we treat it that way. In my field, programming, there is a belief that the most talented individuals make up only ten percent of the workforce, and complete ninety percent of the “real” work. The rest of us are dead weight, incompetent, and just along for the ride. No one stops to consider that not everyone loves to be on a computer all day, and then be on a computer all night and on weekends as well.

People like to spend more time with family and friends, and invest personally in other hobbies or interests. I used to believe that not everyone was cut out for such a competitive field, and that those experiencing trouble with advancement had hit an intellectual ceiling. After observing others in my profession over the last ten years, I am beginning to see that my focus was misplaced. Because I was so absorbed in what I do, I could not look past my situation, understanding that it was not my DNA that predisposed me to programming, but the fact that I spent so much time doing it.

Looking around, I see a lot of very intelligent and competent programmers who are satisfied with going into work at 9am and punching out at 5pm. If they wanted to, they could invest more time, be on call, seek out a management position, and take on overtime, but they choose something else entirely. Yet, they are branded as an undedicated waste of space for presuming they could do such a thing in such a field. Yet, people do it every day, in every field, and live happy and healthy lives.

You have to make a sacrifice

The trouble with having to dedicate time to an endeavor that you are interested in, is that you have to make a sacrifice. However, the majority of people who do have the drive, fail to eliminate activities from their schedule, instead trying to stretch out the week. Given enough repetition, this will result in total burnout, which is another enemy of talent. As much as we would like to believe we have limitless supplies of energy, the body must rest in order to rest the mind.

Seasoned writers tell authors-in-waiting the same thing. You have to instead make the time. Writers who claim they do not have the time of day will never write a novel. Of course they do not have the time, because they have given it all away. This is a difficult concept to come to grips with, especially in America, where ownership rights are a sense of pride. We want to amass a great deal of things, all of which steal our time and steal our energy. I think about that every time I want to write something.

Almost every success story will result in some tale about the sacrifices made to achieve a level of talent previously unknown to man. The greatest human beings throughout history all share that common biographical element. While on the surface we take it for granted, it was not just happenstance, or biology, but dedication and sacrifice. A strong interest was gained and held for a long period of time, and the result was generations in awe.

No one would argue that it takes more time and more sacrifice for some more than others. However, that does not negate the fact that two very different individuals can be considered successful in the same profession. Consider for a moment the Poker greats, Puggy Pearson and Stu Ungar.

Pearson and Ungar are heralded as two of the most successful gamblers of all time. Pearson was dirt poor, grew up in a shack and joined the Navy at age sixteen. This is where he learned to gamble. Ungar’s father actually owned a bar that doubled as a gambling establishment, and this is where he learned to play cards. Ungar ended his career with five World Series of Poker bracelets and fifteen money finishes totaling an estimated $30 million. Pearson has four bracelets and seven money finishes, and has been inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame.

What was it that made these two very different men so great at playing Poker? They gambled… all the time. Not only that, but they took high-stake’s risks… all the time. People looking from the outside in to the Poker tournaments fail to understand that the game not only involves strategy, but a great deal of pressure. How good can you play the game if you have never put up the cash, and lost? The psychology behind Poker is mind-numbing and nerve-wracking.

Caveat

I feel as if I should add a caveat to this post, but I have nothing to offer. Realistically, people are born with mental and physical disabilities that prohibit certain talents from evolving. Even in these situations though, I am reminded of the handicapped who have overcome tremendous odds in order to attain success. Do not take my word for it. Do the research, and understand the odds. Then take the time to achieve greatness.