text:
 “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on TV One’s Close Up at 7.00pm on 7 June 2005. The item reported on the experiences of two women who were angered and disappointed by the way Wainuiomata undertaker, Darryl Angus, trading as Omega Funeral Services, had handled the funerals of family members.
 The item also included critical comment about Mr Angus from the Funeral Directors’ Association of New Zealand. Mr Angus, it noted, was not a member of that Association.
 Peter Freedman complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item breached the standards relating to privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness.
 Explaining that he was a friend of Mr Angus, Mr Freedman said TVNZ was advised early on 7 June that Mr Angus, having taken legal advice, did not wish to participate in the programme. Nevertheless, TVNZ’s film crew, travelling in a vehicle on which the TVNZ logo had been concealed, spent several hours that day trying to track him down. That included going to his home and filming it. It also involved attempting to film Mrs Angus through the window at the Wainuiomata Fire Station where she worked as a volunteer firefighter. Those efforts, Mr Freedman complained, breached the privacy principle which dealt with intentional interference in the nature of prying.
 In support of his contention that the item was unbalanced, Mr Freedman maintained that Close Up, despite Mr Angus’s refusal to take part, was required to broadcast a balanced item. Complimentary letters from former clients of Mr Angus’s Omega Funeral Services had been published in the local newspaper at the time of the recent controversy when he moved his business from an industrial to a retail area, Mr Freedman wrote.
 Other comment could have been obtained from the Police, from the website www.wainuiomata.com, or from Mr Angus himself if he had been approached informally.
 Mr Freedman said that the Anguses and Omega Funeral Services had also been subject to harassment from a small number of people for some weeks before the broadcast, but that matter was not disclosed.
 Mr Freedman argued that the item lacked impartiality as, with minimal evidence, it had referred to “claims of theft, inappropriate attention, appalling workmanship and bad debts”. The critical comment from the Funeral Directors’ Association, he added, was based on unsubstantiated rumours.
 Turning to the requirement for accuracy, Mr Freedman contended that the item failed to distinguish between fact and highly critical comment. Further, the item should have reported that efforts had been made to put Mr Angus out of business, and that had included an attack on the company’s hearse.
 Moreover, Mr Freedman wrote, the item was unfair in that it accepted without question the criticisms of Mr Angus and reported them as fact. In addition, some of the footage used in the item had been gathered through deception, while the item had also used some file footage of Mr Angus taken in 2003.
 In its response to the privacy complaint, TVNZ noted that no private facts were revealed. Further, it asserted that there had been no “intentional intrusion in the nature of prying” as the reporter, like any member of the public, had gone to places where he thought he might find Mr Angus. TVNZ also referred to the privacy principle which states that discussing a matter in the public interest is a defence to a privacy complaint. It maintained that the item was in the public interest as Mr Angus’s business went into liquidation within a month of the broadcast owing creditors $130,000.
 As for balance, TVNZ pointed out that a broadcaster was not obliged to broadcast balancing material. Rather, it was required to make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities to present balancing material. Such efforts and opportunities had been clearly given on this occasion, TVNZ wrote, pointing to the reporter’s attempts to obtain a response from Mr Angus (which had included faxing a list of questions to Mr Angus several days before travelling to Wainuiomata).
 TVNZ commented that an investigation was not abandoned if one party declined to participate. To do so, it added, would not contribute to the free and unfettered flow of information envisaged by s.14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
 As for the complainant’s suggestion that Mr Angus should have been approached informally, TVNZ said that such an offer had been made several days before the broadcast of the item. In view of the item’s focus on some specific actions of the undertaker, TVNZ did not accept that reference to the harassment Mr Angus had experienced was required under the balance standard.
 TVNZ did not accept that the item was inaccurate. It had reported accurately the claims made against Mr Angus, and the genuinely held opinions of the disgruntled families and, as noted above, it stated that “every effort” had been made to get a response from Mr Angus.
 Turning to the complaint that the item was unfair, TVNZ acknowledged that the logos on the vehicle had been covered. That had been done, it said, to avoid those who worked with Mrs Angus from impeding TVNZ’s efforts. Such a practice, it added, was not unusual and the need for it was apparent as there had been heated exchanges on this occasion between the TVNZ crew and the fire station staff.
 Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Freedman referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. The referral was accompanied by some other correspondence he had had with TVNZ in which Mr Freedman questioned the professionalism of TVNZ’s approach.
 In regard to privacy, Mr Freedman said he had not contended that the programme had disclosed private facts. The item, he pointed out, had not dealt with the publicity surrounding the decision of Omega Funeral Services to move its business, but with the concern expressed by two families about Omega’s services.
 Mr Freedman stressed that TVNZ’s reporter was informed on several occasions that Mr and Mrs Angus did not wish to participate in the item. Despite this, they were harassed for several hours and the item included footage taken on their property of the reporter knocking on the side door of their house. TVNZ could not claim that it was exercising the rights of any citizen as it was well aware that it was not going to get an interview. They had visited the property against the Anguses’ wishes, he wrote.
 As for balance, Mr Freedman did not suggest that the item should have been abandoned. Rather, he questioned whether “reasonable efforts” had been made in view of the other information which was available.
 Mr Freedman considered the item lacked impartiality by referring to Mr Angus as “the Undertaker from Hell”. He noted that Mrs Angus’ workmates were angry as they knew she did not want to be filmed but had been harassed in her work place.
 The correspondence attached to the referral included a letter from Mr Angus, apparently to Mr Freedman, to which Mr Angus attached an email from Close Up dated 3 June seeking an interview and listing the issues to be discussed. In his letter to Mr Freedman, Mr Angus said he advised Close Up on 3 June that he did not wish to participate in the programme.
 It also included an email to Mr Freedman from Close Up’s reporter, dated 8 July, in which the reporter expressed surprise that Mr Freedman was “still defending” Mr Angus in view of his actions. It was followed by a letter to Mr Freedman from TVNZ’s Head of News and Current Affairs, who said it was not appropriate for a reporter “to independently engage in argument over the validity of a story” and he had been counselled accordingly.
 TVNZ maintained that the issues surrounding Omega Funeral Services remained issues of “broad public interest”. The liquidator, it added, had reported that among the unsecured creditors were people who had prepaid more than $36,000 for funerals.
 As for the comments made by the reporter, TVNZ said that the matter had been dealt with internally and was now closed. “That argument”, it contended, “did not impinge upon or relate to programme standards”.
 Mr Freedman said that it was “bizarre” for TVNZ to refer to Omega’s liquidation as that had occurred several weeks after the broadcast. He accepted that the email sent to him from the reporter had been dealt with internally but maintained his belief that the reporter’s actions demonstrated the “unprofessional and biased” manner in which the item had been prepared and broadcast.
 Mr Freedman contended that the item breached the Anguses’ privacy as TVNZ’s attempts to track them down amounted to intrusion. The Authority accepts that TVNZ, before it visited Wainuiomata, knew that Mr Angus, on legal advice, did not want to be interviewed. The Authority acknowledges that journalistic practice is always to attempt to obtain comment from the key subject at the time of doing a story, even if the subject has previously declined to participate. If this practice is not observed, a subject may have changed their position and complain that they were not consulted, The Authority does not intend to consider whether a reporter has an implied licence to enter private property if the reporter is aware that the visit would be unwelcome. That is an issue defined by the law of trespass, and is not an issue of broadcasting standards. In view of the nature of the complaint, the Authority’s concern is whether TVNZ’s actions on this occasion amounted – in the words of privacy principle (iii) – to intrusion in the nature of prying.
 The Authority accepts that TVNZ attempted to track down the Anguses. TVNZ visited Mr Angus’s business, Mrs Angus’s place of work, and their home. TVNZ suspected that the approaches would be unwelcome and had covered the insignia on the company car. However, beyond covering the insignia, there is no other evidence that TVNZ resorted to covert tactics. TVNZ wanted to confront Mr and/or Mrs Angus and did so in a way which it believed was direct. Taking into account the overt nature of TVNZ’s actions, the Authority concurs with TVNZ that the methods used were justified in the pursuit of a reluctant interviewee, and that they did not amount to prying that would breach Standard 3. It declines to uphold the privacy complaint.
 When an item deals with a controversial issue of public importance, reasonable efforts must be made or reasonable efforts given to present significant points of view. The Authority considers that this item did address such an issue – the potential problems with an unregulated funeral director industry. This wider issue was highlighted by the experiences of Mr Angus’s dissatisfied customers and a spokesperson for the Funeral Directors Association.
 The Authority notes, however, that the complainant’s concerns were not that the programme lacked balance in respect of the controversial issue raised by the programme. The complaint instead alleged, in essence, that the programme had portrayed the Anguses unfairly, and made insufficient efforts to put their side of the story. The Authority considers that these concerns are more appropriately addressed as issues of fairness, and therefore subsumes the balance complaint under the Standard 6 (fairness) determination.
 In his referral to the Authority, the complainant did not specify any factual inaccuracies in the programme. His complaint in relation to Standard 5 instead focussed on the requirement for impartiality, and alleged that the programme, in portraying Mr Angus as “the funeral director from hell”, had adopted a partial point of view.
 The Authority again considers that the essence of the complainant’s concerns is that Mr Angus was treated unfairly, in light of the “highly critical” comments about his business practices, and the “unsubstantiated claims” made by former clients. This aspect of the complaint is therefore dealt with under Standard 6 (fairness).
 In his original complaint, Mr Freedman also alleged that the programme’s sources were not reliable. He referred to a campaign that he alleged had been conducted against Mr Angus in Wainuiomata, and stated that reference to this campaign would have raised “serious questions” as to the interviewees’ reliability.
 Mr Freedman did not pursue this matter on referral of his complaint. For the avoidance of doubt, however, the Authority records that the complainant provided no evidence to suggest that the allegations made against Mr Angus in the programme were motivated by his disputes with other sections of the Wainuiomata community. In the absence of any information casting doubt on the credibility of the interviewees’ story, the Authority finds that TVNZ was entitled to use those sources.
the item had not advanced the Anguses’ point of view.
 While the story told in the item dealt mainly with Mr Angus’s competence as a funeral director, other material provided to the Authority suggests that a number of people in Wainuiomata were concerned about other aspects of his business – in particular its relocation to the main retail area. Mr Freedman explained that incidents involving Omega Funeral Services have been reported to the Wainuiomata police. One incident involved an attack on the company’s hearse.
 The Authority accepts that Mr Angus had been involved in other disputes with sections of the Wainuiomata community, and that these disputes were not canvassed in the item. However, it considers that the fairness standard did not require the item to detail this background. The complainant provided no evidence to establish that the concerns outlined in the programme were not genuine, or that they were part of a “concerted attack” on Mr Angus’s character, motivated by the disputes other Wainuiomata residents had with him. Accordingly, the Authority considers that the omission of the detail surrounding these other disputes did not render the item unfair.
 In relation to the second limb of the fairness complaint, the Authority observes that TVNZ was required to make Mr Angus aware of the interviewees’ criticisms, and to give him the opportunity to respond. It tried to do so. Indeed, it went to such lengths to obtain Mr Angus’ response that the complainant alleged Mr Angus’s privacy was breached.
 This, of course, does not derogate from a broadcaster’s responsibility to broadcast available information which would have advanced the criticised person’s point of view. The complainant referred to several sources of information that he maintained TVNZ should have included in the programme – information from local community newspaper the Wainuiomata News, local police, and a website, www.wainuiomata.com.
 The complainant does not advise, however, that any of these sources could have provided information that defended Mr Angus against the allegations made about him in the programme. The examples he has provided relate only to information about the other disagreements in the community involving Mr Angus. As noted above, the Authority considers that in the context of a programme that discussed specific concerns about Mr Angus’s practice as an undertaker, it was not necessary to include information about these other disputes.
 For the above reasons, the Authority considers that TVNZ gave Mr Angus a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Authority also notes that the complainant has not pointed to any information available to TVNZ that, in the absence of comment from Mr Angus, could have provided his perspective on the allegations made in the programme. Accordingly, the Authority declines to uphold Mr Freedman’s fairness complaint.

lowercased:
 “the funeral director from the dark side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on tv one’s close up at 7.00pm on 7 june 2005. the item reported on the experiences of two women who were angered and disappointed by the way wainuiomata undertaker, darryl angus, trading as omega funeral services, had handled the funerals of family members.
 the item also included critical comment about mr angus from the funeral directors’ association of new zealand. mr angus, it noted, was not a member of that association.
 peter freedman complained to television new zealand ltd, the broadcaster, that the item breached the standards relating to privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness.
 explaining that he was a friend of mr angus, mr freedman said tvnz was advised early on 7 june that mr angus, having taken legal advice, did not wish to participate in the programme. nevertheless, tvnz’s film crew, travelling in a vehicle on which the tvnz logo had been concealed, spent several hours that day trying to track him down. that included going to his home and filming it. it also involved attempting to film mrs angus through the window at the wainuiomata fire station where she worked as a volunteer firefighter. those efforts, mr freedman complained, breached the privacy principle which dealt with intentional interference in the nature of prying.
 in support of his contention that the item was unbalanced, mr freedman maintained that close up, despite mr angus’s refusal to take part, was required to broadcast a balanced item. complimentary letters from former clients of mr angus’s omega funeral services had been published in the local newspaper at the time of the recent controversy when he moved his business from an industrial to a retail area, mr freedman wrote.
 other comment could have been obtained from the police, from the website www.wainuiomata.com, or from mr angus himself if he had been approached informally.
 mr freedman said that the anguses and omega funeral services had also been subject to harassment from a small number of people for some weeks before the broadcast, but that matter was not disclosed.
 mr freedman argued that the item lacked impartiality as, with minimal evidence, it had referred to “claims of theft, inappropriate attention, appalling workmanship and bad debts”. the critical comment from the funeral directors’ association, he added, was based on unsubstantiated rumours.
 turning to the requirement for accuracy, mr freedman contended that the item failed to distinguish between fact and highly critical comment. further, the item should have reported that efforts had been made to put mr angus out of business, and that had included an attack on the company’s hearse.
 moreover, mr freedman wrote, the item was unfair in that it accepted without question the criticisms of mr angus and reported them as fact. in addition, some of the footage used in the item had been gathered through deception, while the item had also used some file footage of mr angus taken in 2003.
 in its response to the privacy complaint, tvnz noted that no private facts were revealed. further, it asserted that there had been no “intentional intrusion in the nature of prying” as the reporter, like any member of the public, had gone to places where he thought he might find mr angus. tvnz also referred to the privacy principle which states that discussing a matter in the public interest is a defence to a privacy complaint. it maintained that the item was in the public interest as mr angus’s business went into liquidation within a month of the broadcast owing creditors $130,000.
 as for balance, tvnz pointed out that a broadcaster was not obliged to broadcast balancing material. rather, it was required to make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities to present balancing material. such efforts and opportunities had been clearly given on this occasion, tvnz wrote, pointing to the reporter’s attempts to obtain a response from mr angus (which had included faxing a list of questions to mr angus several days before travelling to wainuiomata).
 tvnz commented that an investigation was not abandoned if one party declined to participate. to do so, it added, would not contribute to the free and unfettered flow of information envisaged by s.14 of the new zealand bill of rights act 1990.
 as for the complainant’s suggestion that mr angus should have been approached informally, tvnz said that such an offer had been made several days before the broadcast of the item. in view of the item’s focus on some specific actions of the undertaker, tvnz did not accept that reference to the harassment mr angus had experienced was required under the balance standard.
 tvnz did not accept that the item was inaccurate. it had reported accurately the claims made against mr angus, and the genuinely held opinions of the disgruntled families and, as noted above, it stated that “every effort” had been made to get a response from mr angus.
 turning to the complaint that the item was unfair, tvnz acknowledged that the logos on the vehicle had been covered. that had been done, it said, to avoid those who worked with mrs angus from impeding tvnz’s efforts. such a practice, it added, was not unusual and the need for it was apparent as there had been heated exchanges on this occasion between the tvnz crew and the fire station staff.
 dissatisfied with tvnz’s response, mr freedman referred the complaint to the broadcasting standards authority under s.8(1)(a) of the broadcasting act 1989. the referral was accompanied by some other correspondence he had had with tvnz in which mr freedman questioned the professionalism of tvnz’s approach.
 in regard to privacy, mr freedman said he had not contended that the programme had disclosed private facts. the item, he pointed out, had not dealt with the publicity surrounding the decision of omega funeral services to move its business, but with the concern expressed by two families about omega’s services.
 mr freedman stressed that tvnz’s reporter was informed on several occasions that mr and mrs angus did not wish to participate in the item. despite this, they were harassed for several hours and the item included footage taken on their property of the reporter knocking on the side door of their house. tvnz could not claim that it was exercising the rights of any citizen as it was well aware that it was not going to get an interview. they had visited the property against the anguses’ wishes, he wrote.
 as for balance, mr freedman did not suggest that the item should have been abandoned. rather, he questioned whether “reasonable efforts” had been made in view of the other information which was available.
 mr freedman considered the item lacked impartiality by referring to mr angus as “the undertaker from hell”. he noted that mrs angus’ workmates were angry as they knew she did not want to be filmed but had been harassed in her work place.
 the correspondence attached to the referral included a letter from mr angus, apparently to mr freedman, to which mr angus attached an email from close up dated 3 june seeking an interview and listing the issues to be discussed. in his letter to mr freedman, mr angus said he advised close up on 3 june that he did not wish to participate in the programme.
 it also included an email to mr freedman from close up’s reporter, dated 8 july, in which the reporter expressed surprise that mr freedman was “still defending” mr angus in view of his actions. it was followed by a letter to mr freedman from tvnz’s head of news and current affairs, who said it was not appropriate for a reporter “to independently engage in argument over the validity of a story” and he had been counselled accordingly.
 tvnz maintained that the issues surrounding omega funeral services remained issues of “broad public interest”. the liquidator, it added, had reported that among the unsecured creditors were people who had prepaid more than $36,000 for funerals.
 as for the comments made by the reporter, tvnz said that the matter had been dealt with internally and was now closed. “that argument”, it contended, “did not impinge upon or relate to programme standards”.
 mr freedman said that it was “bizarre” for tvnz to refer to omega’s liquidation as that had occurred several weeks after the broadcast. he accepted that the email sent to him from the reporter had been dealt with internally but maintained his belief that the reporter’s actions demonstrated the “unprofessional and biased” manner in which the item had been prepared and broadcast.
 mr freedman contended that the item breached the anguses’ privacy as tvnz’s attempts to track them down amounted to intrusion. the authority accepts that tvnz, before it visited wainuiomata, knew that mr angus, on legal advice, did not want to be interviewed. the authority acknowledges that journalistic practice is always to attempt to obtain comment from the key subject at the time of doing a story, even if the subject has previously declined to participate. if this practice is not observed, a subject may have changed their position and complain that they were not consulted, the authority does not intend to consider whether a reporter has an implied licence to enter private property if the reporter is aware that the visit would be unwelcome. that is an issue defined by the law of trespass, and is not an issue of broadcasting standards. in view of the nature of the complaint, the authority’s concern is whether tvnz’s actions on this occasion amounted – in the words of privacy principle (iii) – to intrusion in the nature of prying.
 the authority accepts that tvnz attempted to track down the anguses. tvnz visited mr angus’s business, mrs angus’s place of work, and their home. tvnz suspected that the approaches would be unwelcome and had covered the insignia on the company car. however, beyond covering the insignia, there is no other evidence that tvnz resorted to covert tactics. tvnz wanted to confront mr and/or mrs angus and did so in a way which it believed was direct. taking into account the overt nature of tvnz’s actions, the authority concurs with tvnz that the methods used were justified in the pursuit of a reluctant interviewee, and that they did not amount to prying that would breach standard 3. it declines to uphold the privacy complaint.
 when an item deals with a controversial issue of public importance, reasonable efforts must be made or reasonable efforts given to present significant points of view. the authority considers that this item did address such an issue – the potential problems with an unregulated funeral director industry. this wider issue was highlighted by the experiences of mr angus’s dissatisfied customers and a spokesperson for the funeral directors association.
 the authority notes, however, that the complainant’s concerns were not that the programme lacked balance in respect of the controversial issue raised by the programme. the complaint instead alleged, in essence, that the programme had portrayed the anguses unfairly, and made insufficient efforts to put their side of the story. the authority considers that these concerns are more appropriately addressed as issues of fairness, and therefore subsumes the balance complaint under the standard 6 (fairness) determination.
 in his referral to the authority, the complainant did not specify any factual inaccuracies in the programme. his complaint in relation to standard 5 instead focussed on the requirement for impartiality, and alleged that the programme, in portraying mr angus as “the funeral director from hell”, had adopted a partial point of view.
 the authority again considers that the essence of the complainant’s concerns is that mr angus was treated unfairly, in light of the “highly critical” comments about his business practices, and the “unsubstantiated claims” made by former clients. this aspect of the complaint is therefore dealt with under standard 6 (fairness).
 in his original complaint, mr freedman also alleged that the programme’s sources were not reliable. he referred to a campaign that he alleged had been conducted against mr angus in wainuiomata, and stated that reference to this campaign would have raised “serious questions” as to the interviewees’ reliability.
 mr freedman did not pursue this matter on referral of his complaint. for the avoidance of doubt, however, the authority records that the complainant provided no evidence to suggest that the allegations made against mr angus in the programme were motivated by his disputes with other sections of the wainuiomata community. in the absence of any information casting doubt on the credibility of the interviewees’ story, the authority finds that tvnz was entitled to use those sources.
the item had not advanced the anguses’ point of view.
 while the story told in the item dealt mainly with mr angus’s competence as a funeral director, other material provided to the authority suggests that a number of people in wainuiomata were concerned about other aspects of his business – in particular its relocation to the main retail area. mr freedman explained that incidents involving omega funeral services have been reported to the wainuiomata police. one incident involved an attack on the company’s hearse.
 the authority accepts that mr angus had been involved in other disputes with sections of the wainuiomata community, and that these disputes were not canvassed in the item. however, it considers that the fairness standard did not require the item to detail this background. the complainant provided no evidence to establish that the concerns outlined in the programme were not genuine, or that they were part of a “concerted attack” on mr angus’s character, motivated by the disputes other wainuiomata residents had with him. accordingly, the authority considers that the omission of the detail surrounding these other disputes did not render the item unfair.
 in relation to the second limb of the fairness complaint, the authority observes that tvnz was required to make mr angus aware of the interviewees’ criticisms, and to give him the opportunity to respond. it tried to do so. indeed, it went to such lengths to obtain mr angus’ response that the complainant alleged mr angus’s privacy was breached.
 this, of course, does not derogate from a broadcaster’s responsibility to broadcast available information which would have advanced the criticised person’s point of view. the complainant referred to several sources of information that he maintained tvnz should have included in the programme – information from local community newspaper the wainuiomata news, local police, and a website, www.wainuiomata.com.
 the complainant does not advise, however, that any of these sources could have provided information that defended mr angus against the allegations made about him in the programme. the examples he has provided relate only to information about the other disagreements in the community involving mr angus. as noted above, the authority considers that in the context of a programme that discussed specific concerns about mr angus’s practice as an undertaker, it was not necessary to include information about these other disputes.
 for the above reasons, the authority considers that tvnz gave mr angus a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations. the authority also notes that the complainant has not pointed to any information available to tvnz that, in the absence of comment from mr angus, could have provided his perspective on the allegations made in the programme. accordingly, the authority declines to uphold mr freedman’s fairness complaint.


text:
After much planning and preparation Soul Food Farm (http://soulfoodfarm.com/) is installing a irrigation system on their 50 acres of land near Vacaville. The installation will be taking place over four full days (9AM to 4PM - September 11, 18, 24, 25) and they are looking for volunteers interested in helping to set up the system. Volunteers will see the farm operation and be able to ask the irrigation designer and engineer questions about the system, design decisions, and other technical considerations. Volunteers are welcome on any or all the days (but need to RSVP with Alexis Koefoed (farmer/owner) so they can plan the work accordingly) and will be connecting pipes/drip lines, attaching sprinklers, or working on other farm projects.
This is a great opportunity for anyone interested in or considering installing a large irrigation system on their land. It is also a unique chance to visit an incredible pastured chicken operation that sells through farmers markets, a CSA, and direct to many fine restaurants in the Bay Area.
On a different note, with some extra acres and a need for some additional labor, Soul Food Farm is also looking for a few farmers interested in farming 5-10 acres of their certified organic land in Vacaville. Instead of leasing the land, they would like to explore work-trade arrangements, with the farmers paying for the parcel through work on Soul Food Farm.
If you have any questions about these opportunities please let me know, or if you'd like to RSVP for one of the workdays please call Alexis directly at 707--365-1798.

lowercased:
after much planning and preparation soul food farm (http://soulfoodfarm.com/) is installing a irrigation system on their 50 acres of land near vacaville. the installation will be taking place over four full days (9am to 4pm - september 11, 18, 24, 25) and they are looking for volunteers interested in helping to set up the system. volunteers will see the farm operation and be able to ask the irrigation designer and engineer questions about the system, design decisions, and other technical considerations. volunteers are welcome on any or all the days (but need to rsvp with alexis koefoed (farmer/owner) so they can plan the work accordingly) and will be connecting pipes/drip lines, attaching sprinklers, or working on other farm projects.
this is a great opportunity for anyone interested in or considering installing a large irrigation system on their land. it is also a unique chance to visit an incredible pastured chicken operation that sells through farmers markets, a csa, and direct to many fine restaurants in the bay area.
on a different note, with some extra acres and a need for some additional labor, soul food farm is also looking for a few farmers interested in farming 5-10 acres of their certified organic land in vacaville. instead of leasing the land, they would like to explore work-trade arrangements, with the farmers paying for the parcel through work on soul food farm.
if you have any questions about these opportunities please let me know, or if you'd like to rsvp for one of the workdays please call alexis directly at 707--365-1798.


text:
Come by on Sunday to watch Graham answer questions!
Don't miss out on this amazing opportunity hosted by Her Campus Kent State! Register now!
No matter your gender, sexuality, race, social class, or age, mental health can affect you in both positive and negative ways.
Oy with the boring, non-themed beverages already.

lowercased:
come by on sunday to watch graham answer questions!
don't miss out on this amazing opportunity hosted by her campus kent state! register now!
no matter your gender, sexuality, race, social class, or age, mental health can affect you in both positive and negative ways.
oy with the boring, non-themed beverages already.


text:
Akron/Family will be performing at the DAAC with Great Lake Swimmers*, plus local support TBD.
Tickets are $6 doors at 8 PM.
*Toronto-based Great Lake Swimmers is led by songwriter/vocalist Tony Dekker. The group's haunting self-titled debut was recorded in a silo in Ontario and originally released in Canada by Weewerk Records in 2003. Misra Records picked up the record and released it in the States in April of 2005. Great Lake Swimmers' second release, Bodies and Minds, is due out in August of 2005.

lowercased:
akron/family will be performing at the daac with great lake swimmers*, plus local support tbd.
tickets are $6 doors at 8 pm.
*toronto-based great lake swimmers is led by songwriter/vocalist tony dekker. the group's haunting self-titled debut was recorded in a silo in ontario and originally released in canada by weewerk records in 2003. misra records picked up the record and released it in the states in april of 2005. great lake swimmers' second release, bodies and minds, is due out in august of 2005.


text: Jira is a popular issue tracking product developed by Atlassian. It provides bug tracking, issue tracking, and project management functions. According to a 2017 survey, Jira is the most popular issue management tool.

lowercased: jira is a popular issue tracking product developed by atlassian. it provides bug tracking, issue tracking, and project management functions. according to a 2017 survey, jira is the most popular issue management tool.


text:
Ask any business, and there’s a good chance it’s into e-commerce. It may already have a shopping website, or one is already on the pipeline. Even big-time retailers such as Ralph Lauren are redirecting some of their revenues to digital marketing efforts.
No one can blame them. In the Enterprise Guide to Global E-commerce report, its revenue could increase by no less than $4 trillion in 2021. It’s a far cry from less than $1.5 trillion in 2014. It’s also the only trillion-dollar industry to post double-digit growth, according to eMarketer.
Appearance and Use across Different Platforms – The way the website looks on a PC is entirely different once consumers see and use it on a mobile device. Smartphones and tablets, for example, have a much smaller viewing area. Some parts of the site may not render well.
Loading Time – This refers to how fast someone can view the contents of a website. Statistics revealed that Internet users these days are impatient. They wait for less than three seconds before they are likely to choose another site. In the meantime, websites with a one-second load time tend to have the highest traffic growth at 4.6%.
User Experience – Also known as UX design, it is a process of designing websites to boost their usefulness, ease of use, and customer satisfaction. In other words, the pages should make viewing and eventually shopping a pleasant experience.
Because of these, e-commerce owners may benefit more from a customized web development service from teams such as Rebranded.io than from template-based systems including WordPress.
Provide different options for feedback (e.g., live chat, landline, mobile, office address, and email address).
Personalize the experience. Use analytics to create a list of recommended products, for example.
Offer many methods of payments and delivery.
About 12% of the population are into e-commerce, which means there’s still a lot of room to grow. There’s even a big market to tap. Don’t waste it by making these critical mistakes.

lowercased:
ask any business, and there’s a good chance it’s into e-commerce. it may already have a shopping website, or one is already on the pipeline. even big-time retailers such as ralph lauren are redirecting some of their revenues to digital marketing efforts.
no one can blame them. in the enterprise guide to global e-commerce report, its revenue could increase by no less than $4 trillion in 2021. it’s a far cry from less than $1.5 trillion in 2014. it’s also the only trillion-dollar industry to post double-digit growth, according to emarketer.
appearance and use across different platforms – the way the website looks on a pc is entirely different once consumers see and use it on a mobile device. smartphones and tablets, for example, have a much smaller viewing area. some parts of the site may not render well.
loading time – this refers to how fast someone can view the contents of a website. statistics revealed that internet users these days are impatient. they wait for less than three seconds before they are likely to choose another site. in the meantime, websites with a one-second load time tend to have the highest traffic growth at 4.6%.
user experience – also known as ux design, it is a process of designing websites to boost their usefulness, ease of use, and customer satisfaction. in other words, the pages should make viewing and eventually shopping a pleasant experience.
because of these, e-commerce owners may benefit more from a customized web development service from teams such as rebranded.io than from template-based systems including wordpress.
provide different options for feedback (e.g., live chat, landline, mobile, office address, and email address).
personalize the experience. use analytics to create a list of recommended products, for example.
offer many methods of payments and delivery.
about 12% of the population are into e-commerce, which means there’s still a lot of room to grow. there’s even a big market to tap. don’t waste it by making these critical mistakes.


text:
It is clear that there is an ongoing excitement surrounding web-based IDEs and tools, e.g. Eclipse Che, Eclipse Theia, Visual Studio Code, Atom or Eclipse Orion. If you attended recent presentations or read current announcements, you may get the feeling that desktop IDEs have already been deprecated. But is this really true? If you ask developers for the tools they use in their daily work, you will rarely find someone already using web-based development tools in production.
Do we go for a desktop tool, a web-based, or cloud-based solution?
Therefore, we want to share our experience on this topic. This is the first of three articles. It describes the most important drivers behind any design decision: the requirements. In the second article, we will describe challenges, technical patterns, solutions, and frameworks on how to match the requirements and how to remain as flexible as possible. In the third article, we will provide an example scenario to substantiate those best practises.
So first things first: As for so many design decisions, the most important thing is to know the requirements. Software Engineers love to talk about implementation and we also like to use new, fancy, or just our favorite technology. But in the end, we need to solve a given problem as efficiently as possible. Therefore, we should think about the problem definition first, even if that leads to a design decision that doesn’t bet on “what’s trendy right now”?
For the impatient reader, here is the possibly unsatisfying conclusion: Whether to go for a desktop or a web-based solution is a complex decision. If you want to make an optimal choice, you will need to consider your custom requirements in several dimensions. For some projects, it will be a rather simple and straightforward choice, e.g. if you are required to integrate with a given existing tool chain. However, for most projects you will need to consider the overall picture and even try to predict the future as accurately as possible.
In our experience, it is worth the effort. In the end, you will hopefully develop a good strategy. This strategy does not have to be limited to strictly choosing one option. It is also a perfectly valid strategy to choose one primary option, but also to decide on being compatible with another option. This allows for a future migration path forward. Further, it is possible to mix both worlds on a per use case basis. We will detail these particular strategies in a follow-up post.
So let’s look at the most common non-functional requirements, which play a role in the design choice between desktop and web. To be more precise, the following areas are typically treated as advantages of a web-based solution.
Installability: (also referred to as deployment or “set-up effort”): How easy and fast can you set-up the required tooling and the runtime for executing a system. Usually this is mainly referring to the developer tooling and its runtime(s) since it needs to be repeated for every developer. For simplicity, let us assume this also includes the effort to keep the system up-to-date.
Portability: How difficult is it to port a tool to another platform/hardware. In the case of IDEs this requirement is also sometimes referred to as “accessibility”. The typical use case is to access all development resources from any platform, e.g. also on your mobile device.
Performance and responsiveness: How responsive is the tool or how responsive does it feel. How long do crucial operations take to run, e.g. a full rebuild.
Besides those non-functional requirements, tools also need to fulfill functional requirements. As those are specific to a certain tool, we will only consider the cost requirement since typical projects are aimed at fulfilling their functional requirements at the lowest possible cost.
As a first requirement, we will look at installability, because it is the most obvious distinction between a desktop-based and a cloud-based solution. For this requirement, we will also introduce some example scenarios and dimensions, that recur for other requirements later on, so the next section is the most comprehensive.
Installability is probably the most prominent advantage that is advertised for web-based solutions. The vision is that you can simply log into a system via your Browser and you can directly start to code without installing anything, neither the IDE or tools, nor any runtime environment. Further, you do not need to install any updates anymore, as they are applied in a central way.
So let us look at this obvious advantage more in detail. The first interesting dimension of this is how much time you can save with improving the installability. This is connected to the number of developers that you have on-board to use the tooling and the number of people who are occasionally using those tools. Further, it plays a role on how long a developer would use the tool after installation, the shorter the usage the more significant the set-up time would be.
Let’s look at three example scenarios.
First let’s consider a tutorial/training scenario, where participants should participate in completing exercises. A tutorial/training takes usually a couple of hours or days, so the set-up time is a crucial part here. Further, trainings/tutorials are typically conducted for a bigger number of developers. Anybody who ever had to deal with preparing a setup guide for a tutorial would agree that a browser-based solution would immediately pay off here. Even the simplest and best prepared desktop-based setup will take some time to install. So this scenario is a win for a web-based solution if, and only if, you can rely on a robust high-speed internet connection. Consequently, you can observe that a lot of online tutorials already embed web-based code editors and tooling.
The second scenario is an open source project. Many OS project have a mix of different developer roles. Some developers (committers) are regularly contributing to a project. The second group of contributors typically uses a technology (“adopters”), but want to eventually contribute small enhancements and fixes. While for the regular committers, set-up is not that important compared to their time working on the project, occasional contributors are obviously often discouraged from contributing to a project by a complex set-up. Therefore, in this scenario, there is a mismatch between the requirements of two user roles that you need to balance. So is it worth to switch existing committers to a cloud-based solution to ease the life for contributors?
Ed Merks has described this issue very well in his blog post in 2014. His conclusion was the creation of a tool called Oomph, which automates the set-up of a desktop IDE for projects. For the source code, Oomph even goes partly a little further than most cloud-based solutions, as it even allows you to automatically check-out the sources. Please see here for a tutorial regarding Oomph. While Oomph greatly improves the set-up process, it does not solve the issue completely. It will still take some time to materialize all project resources (i.e. download time). So for a very small contribution, it might still be too much of a burden. Further, it does not fully automate the creation of an appropriate runtime. If a project requires a lot of external tools (e.g. databases, applications servers, etc.), those have to be installed separately. In turn, it does not touch the regular committer user, as they just continue using their existing and well-proven solutions. In scenarios with such different roles, it is always a good idea to let all developers use the same set-up and tooling. Otherwise, there might be slight differences in their output and further, the committers will usually only maintain their solution well.
The third scenario is not differentiated by the type of project, but by the use case: code review. In a scenario where a developer works on implementation within a project every day, she might not care about installability so much, at least other requirements might be more important. In turn, if you only review a code change and you do not implement something regularly, installing/updating all the required tooling plays a significant role. As a consequence, most reviews are already probably done in web interfaces (e.g. Gerrit or Pull Requests). Also the use case is focussed on reading and understanding code, rather than on changing or creating new code. Therefore, other requirements are not so important for a code review compared to a good installability.
Like the three scenarios described here, you can categorize any arbitrary project and the according use cases based on the importance of a good installability. The result of this will be very specific to a custom project set-up. Those considerations are naturally already reflected in today’s toolchains, where parts of the tool chain more focussed on reading or browsing code are often web-based.
There are some more considerations to make, which are related to installability. One is the updatability. While of course an update to the tooling is hopefully not the same as installing it from scratch, most considerations we had for the installability should be applied for the update case as well. This especially includes, how often updates to the tool are applied.
Another obvious dimension is the complexity of the project set-up. The more difficult it is, the bigger the advantage of simplifying it via a cloud solution. For this, we need to differentiate of course between the IDE tooling itself and the necessary runtime environment. The environment is often much more complicated, e.g. if you need to set-up several services, databases and so on. If only the runtime set-up is very complicated, a cloud-based IDE might not be the only valuable solution. There are several ways to ease those setups, even without using a cloud- based IDE, e.g. with docker containers or workspace servers like Eclipse Che.
Installability is one of the major advantages of a web-based solution. However, it will only provide a significant advantage, if the use case fits. Therefore, it is worth it to spend some time on defining the core users and use cases of your system and define the importance of installability for them. In a nutshell, installability pays off most in environments, where a lot of people need to and can be on-boarded very fast, and if they do not work continuously on a project. Unfortunately, when onboarding developers it is usually much more time consuming to transfer the required knowledge than to setup the IDE.
Portability is the second very obvious advantage of a cloud and browser-based solution over a desktop-based tool. The ultimate goal is that you can access the tooling and runtime with any device which has a browser. As a consequence, you can ideally fulfil your development use case at any location, even from a mobile device. In some discussions, this is currently referred to as “accessibility”. While this strictly speaking means something different, we consider Portability as the ability to access the tool from anywhere on any device.
A lot of the considerations we have described for installability can be shared when thinking about the advantage of Portability. Different project roles and different tooling use cases would benefit on a different level. Doing a code review or browsing a diagram on a tablet makes more sense than writing a lot of code. So, again, the detailed roles and use cases will need to be evaluated. We will not repeat that in detail, but focus on new dimensions, which are specific for portability.
One additional scenario connected to portability is the ability to share a certain runtime set-up or project state. That means developers always have exactly the same environment. This obviously simplifies life as the typical phrase “I cannot reproduce this on my machine” would no longer occur. However, this only fully applies to the tooling. For the runtime, it plays a role if the runtime platform for a system is unified, too. If the system under development runs natively on different operating systems again, you still need to test different runtime environments. As a consequence, cloud-based tooling currently seems to get adapted in the area of cloud-based development, first.
And like mentioned for installability, there are other ways to achieve a uniform setup, although not as unified as a cloud solution.
A disadvantage of a pure cloud-based solution is that they often rely on constant internet connection. While this issue becomes less and less relevant, at least it must be considered. Some cloud-solutions already provide a good work-around, e.g. the offline mode of Google Mail.
A final word about the dream to be able to contribute to a project from anywhere on any device: While this sounds appealing for certain use cases, do we really want to be called by a client and subsequently feel obligated to fix a bug on our smart phone while we are sitting in a ski lift?
Performance is a very interesting requirement to consider. In contrast to installability and portability, there is no clear winner between desktop-based and cloud-based tooling. You will find valid arguments for both to be “more performant”, e.g. this article by Tom Radcliffe claims that desktop IDEs are the clear winner.
The major reason for this tie is again that we have to consider the specific use case when talking about performance. While writing and browsing code, we want fast navigation, key bindings and coding features such as auto-completion. While web IDEs have caught up a lot in recent years, you can still claim that a desktop tool is typically more performant for those “local” use cases (as also claimed by Tom Radcliffe in the article referenced above).
Things change, when looking at other use cases, e.g. compiling. A powerful cloud-instance can certainly compile a project faster than a typical laptop. Further, it is comparably cheaper and more scalable to gain more resources in a central way. However, when going for a cloud-based solution, scalability must be taken into account. Any advantage is obsolete, if developers have to wait 15 minutes for getting something compiled, because other build jobs are running on the central instance.
So for performance, it is important to consider which development use cases are crucial and will benefit performance-wise from either solution. A follow-up decision of a cloud-based solution would be to strip down the hardware for participating developers to save costs (Chromebook scenario). While this sounds like a rational thing to do, not everybody will like the idea of giving away his or her powerful device.
Usability also doesn’t have a clear winner in the comparison between desktop-based to web-based IDEs. While advocates of both platforms would claim a clear advantage, this is really a matter of personal taste. Web technologies have become incredibly powerful when it comes to styling, look, and feel. Therefore, you can achieve almost any visualization you would like.
Further, there is much more innovation going on in the web area in comparison to, e.g. SWT.
On the desktop, depending on the UI Toolkit you use, there might be more restrictions. JavaFX and Swing are powerful when it comes to styling, but Swing is kind of deprecated. SWT has limitations when it comes to styling. However, it probably provides most existing framework support when it comes to tooling (see also “cost vs. features”).
Besides styling, native desktop applications have still some advantages in usability, e.g. by supporting native features such as application menus, tray icons, key bindings and such. Although, it is expectable that these advantages will shrink over time as browsers keep on evolving very fast. In any case, usability is not equal to the ability of supporting a dark theme as some browser advocats may try to make us believe.
It is worth mentioning that there are platforms combining advantages of both worlds. Platforms such as Visual Studio Code, Atom or Eclipse Theia embed web technologies (HTML and Typescript) into a desktop application (using Electron).
At the end of the day, for many projects a very important constraint is cost, meaning the required effort to satisfy your list of functional requirements. A comparison of the required effort on either platform is driven by several parameters.
Second, cloud-based solutions usually add some complexity to the architecture due to the required encapsulation of client and server. Of course, you want to have encapsulation of components in a desktop-based tool, too. However, you typically do not have to deal with the fact that components are deployed in a distributed environment.
Third, a very central aspect for implementing tooling is the availability of existing frameworks, tools and platforms to reuse. Ecosystems like Eclipse have grown over 17 years now and already provide a tool, framework or plugin for almost everything. Many requirements can be covered with very little effort, just by extending existing tools or by using the right framework.
While there are frameworks for cloud-tools, too (such as Orion, Eclipse Che or Theia), they are arguably not as powerful as Eclipse/IntelliJ/NetBeans, yet. This might of course change over time.
One mentionable trend is to reuse existing “desktop” components in web-tooling. As an example, Eclipse JDT provides an API to be used using the language server protocol (LSP). This allows you to reuse features such as auto-completion and syntax highlighting from another UI, typically a web-based IDE. While LSP does not yet cover the full feature set of the Eclipse desktop IDE, it is a great way of reusing existing efforts.
Finally, powerful frameworks usually also carry the burden of complexity. The advantage of reusing existing stuff typically (or hopefully) justifies the effort of learning to use a framework. In turn, if you just use a tiny bit of a platform, you might be better off in using something slimmer, which covers your use cases just as well. As an example, if you need a plain code editor without any context, e.g. for a tutorial use case, a platform such as Eclipse might be overkill.
So it is useful to evaluate the desired feature set and how well it is supported by existing frameworks on the respective technology stack (web vs. desktop). It is also worth it to investigate whether existing features on one stack can be adapted to be reused on the other (e.g. using LSP). This applies in both directions. Not only can you call existing frameworks in the background from a cloud-based solution, it is also possible to embed web-based UI components into desktop applications (see also conclusion).
Finally, what makes the dimension of cost vs. features especially difficult is that you typically cannot know exactly what kind of features you need to provide with a tool in the mid-term future.
There are obviously many other parameters to consider when comparing the costs of cloud vs. desktop-based tools. This article would go beyond scope if we were to spend a section on all of these, but let us at least mention some more important topics.
One meta criterion in the decision for a platform, framework, or technology stack, is the long term availability as well as how actively it is maintained. Again, there is no clear winner, when comparing desktop and web stacks. While you can argue that there is more development going on in the web area, it is in turn extremely volatile. Platforms such as Eclipse have been successfully maintained for 17 years now. There are existing workflows for long-term support (LTS) and suppliers like us providing this as a service. Plus, the platform is very stable in terms of APIs.
In turn, web frameworks provide major version updates with improvements almost every year. While this brings in innovation, it also often requires refactoring of an adopting project. As an example, there is currently a lot of variety emerging when it comes to web-based IDEs (e.g. Visual Studio Code, Theia, Eclipse Che, Orion, etc.). We will cover strategies to deal with this risk in a follow-up article.
Another meta criterion is the availability of skilled resources. At the moment, you can probably find more Angular developers on the market than SWT experts. However, this may change very quickly – once Angular is not “hip” anymore.
Another frequently discussed topic when it comes to cloud-based solutions is of course the security as well as tracing aspect. While it is certainly worth considering, it is probably not the key decision factor for most professional environments, but rather requires special attention.
In this article, we have tried to cover the most important considerations when deciding between a cloud or web-based solution and a desktop tool. There are for sure many more things to consider.
However, what all dimensions have in common is that it is most important to think about the users, their use cases and the frequency of those. Based on these criteria, you can evaluate the benefits of supporting them in the web or on the desktop. This is especially true, if you already have an existing tool and are considering a migration. In this case, there must be clear advantages justifying the cost.
While this is already complex, it is even worth it to make this decision on a per use case basis. This is already happening naturally in our tool landscape, e.g. code reviews are very often conducted using web-interfaces. Identifying the use cases in your tool, which would benefit most from being available online, reduces the effort and risk to migrate everything at once. So it is often a good idea to pick the low hanging fruits first.
Ultimately, it will almost never be possible to make a perfect decision. This is especially true, as important criteria, use cases, and technologies change over time and no one can perfectly predict the future. Therefore, the most important thing is to keep some flexibility. That means, even if you decide for a desktop solution, or vice versa, it should be as easy as possible to switch to the other option later on.
Even mixtures of both technology stacks on a per use case basis often make sense. While this sounds ambiguous, there are some simple patterns to follow to make this true. We will highlight those strategies in a follow-up article. This strategy also allows an iterative migration, which is often the only viable way tackle the complexity and efforts of migrating existing tool projects. Some Frameworks even proactively support this strategy by supplying implementations based on web- and desktop technology at the same time, e.g. EMF Forms and JSON Forms.
Some projects directly aim at a pure web-based solution, typically, if they benefit a lot from the advantages, if they implement something from scratch and if they have a pretty self-contained feature set (e.g. training).
Few projects do not consider web-based tooling at all, mostly if they have a defined set of continuous users and a lot of existing investments in their desktop tools.
Most projects plan to maintain their desktop solutions in the near future, but will migrate certain use cases to web technology. Therefore, those projects implement certain design patterns allowing this partial migration. We will highlight those patterns in a follow-up article. Follow us on Twitter to get notified about our blog posts. Stay tuned!
Finally, if you are dealing with the designing decision in your project and want support, if you want an evaluation of a web-based version of your tools or if you want to make your current tools ready for the upcoming challenges and chances, please do not hesitate to contact us.
A great article to compare these different options!

lowercased:
it is clear that there is an ongoing excitement surrounding web-based ides and tools, e.g. eclipse che, eclipse theia, visual studio code, atom or eclipse orion. if you attended recent presentations or read current announcements, you may get the feeling that desktop ides have already been deprecated. but is this really true? if you ask developers for the tools they use in their daily work, you will rarely find someone already using web-based development tools in production.
do we go for a desktop tool, a web-based, or cloud-based solution?
therefore, we want to share our experience on this topic. this is the first of three articles. it describes the most important drivers behind any design decision: the requirements. in the second article, we will describe challenges, technical patterns, solutions, and frameworks on how to match the requirements and how to remain as flexible as possible. in the third article, we will provide an example scenario to substantiate those best practises.
so first things first: as for so many design decisions, the most important thing is to know the requirements. software engineers love to talk about implementation and we also like to use new, fancy, or just our favorite technology. but in the end, we need to solve a given problem as efficiently as possible. therefore, we should think about the problem definition first, even if that leads to a design decision that doesn’t bet on “what’s trendy right now”?
for the impatient reader, here is the possibly unsatisfying conclusion: whether to go for a desktop or a web-based solution is a complex decision. if you want to make an optimal choice, you will need to consider your custom requirements in several dimensions. for some projects, it will be a rather simple and straightforward choice, e.g. if you are required to integrate with a given existing tool chain. however, for most projects you will need to consider the overall picture and even try to predict the future as accurately as possible.
in our experience, it is worth the effort. in the end, you will hopefully develop a good strategy. this strategy does not have to be limited to strictly choosing one option. it is also a perfectly valid strategy to choose one primary option, but also to decide on being compatible with another option. this allows for a future migration path forward. further, it is possible to mix both worlds on a per use case basis. we will detail these particular strategies in a follow-up post.
so let’s look at the most common non-functional requirements, which play a role in the design choice between desktop and web. to be more precise, the following areas are typically treated as advantages of a web-based solution.
installability: (also referred to as deployment or “set-up effort”): how easy and fast can you set-up the required tooling and the runtime for executing a system. usually this is mainly referring to the developer tooling and its runtime(s) since it needs to be repeated for every developer. for simplicity, let us assume this also includes the effort to keep the system up-to-date.
portability: how difficult is it to port a tool to another platform/hardware. in the case of ides this requirement is also sometimes referred to as “accessibility”. the typical use case is to access all development resources from any platform, e.g. also on your mobile device.
performance and responsiveness: how responsive is the tool or how responsive does it feel. how long do crucial operations take to run, e.g. a full rebuild.
besides those non-functional requirements, tools also need to fulfill functional requirements. as those are specific to a certain tool, we will only consider the cost requirement since typical projects are aimed at fulfilling their functional requirements at the lowest possible cost.
as a first requirement, we will look at installability, because it is the most obvious distinction between a desktop-based and a cloud-based solution. for this requirement, we will also introduce some example scenarios and dimensions, that recur for other requirements later on, so the next section is the most comprehensive.
installability is probably the most prominent advantage that is advertised for web-based solutions. the vision is that you can simply log into a system via your browser and you can directly start to code without installing anything, neither the ide or tools, nor any runtime environment. further, you do not need to install any updates anymore, as they are applied in a central way.
so let us look at this obvious advantage more in detail. the first interesting dimension of this is how much time you can save with improving the installability. this is connected to the number of developers that you have on-board to use the tooling and the number of people who are occasionally using those tools. further, it plays a role on how long a developer would use the tool after installation, the shorter the usage the more significant the set-up time would be.
let’s look at three example scenarios.
first let’s consider a tutorial/training scenario, where participants should participate in completing exercises. a tutorial/training takes usually a couple of hours or days, so the set-up time is a crucial part here. further, trainings/tutorials are typically conducted for a bigger number of developers. anybody who ever had to deal with preparing a setup guide for a tutorial would agree that a browser-based solution would immediately pay off here. even the simplest and best prepared desktop-based setup will take some time to install. so this scenario is a win for a web-based solution if, and only if, you can rely on a robust high-speed internet connection. consequently, you can observe that a lot of online tutorials already embed web-based code editors and tooling.
the second scenario is an open source project. many os project have a mix of different developer roles. some developers (committers) are regularly contributing to a project. the second group of contributors typically uses a technology (“adopters”), but want to eventually contribute small enhancements and fixes. while for the regular committers, set-up is not that important compared to their time working on the project, occasional contributors are obviously often discouraged from contributing to a project by a complex set-up. therefore, in this scenario, there is a mismatch between the requirements of two user roles that you need to balance. so is it worth to switch existing committers to a cloud-based solution to ease the life for contributors?
ed merks has described this issue very well in his blog post in 2014. his conclusion was the creation of a tool called oomph, which automates the set-up of a desktop ide for projects. for the source code, oomph even goes partly a little further than most cloud-based solutions, as it even allows you to automatically check-out the sources. please see here for a tutorial regarding oomph. while oomph greatly improves the set-up process, it does not solve the issue completely. it will still take some time to materialize all project resources (i.e. download time). so for a very small contribution, it might still be too much of a burden. further, it does not fully automate the creation of an appropriate runtime. if a project requires a lot of external tools (e.g. databases, applications servers, etc.), those have to be installed separately. in turn, it does not touch the regular committer user, as they just continue using their existing and well-proven solutions. in scenarios with such different roles, it is always a good idea to let all developers use the same set-up and tooling. otherwise, there might be slight differences in their output and further, the committers will usually only maintain their solution well.
the third scenario is not differentiated by the type of project, but by the use case: code review. in a scenario where a developer works on implementation within a project every day, she might not care about installability so much, at least other requirements might be more important. in turn, if you only review a code change and you do not implement something regularly, installing/updating all the required tooling plays a significant role. as a consequence, most reviews are already probably done in web interfaces (e.g. gerrit or pull requests). also the use case is focussed on reading and understanding code, rather than on changing or creating new code. therefore, other requirements are not so important for a code review compared to a good installability.
like the three scenarios described here, you can categorize any arbitrary project and the according use cases based on the importance of a good installability. the result of this will be very specific to a custom project set-up. those considerations are naturally already reflected in today’s toolchains, where parts of the tool chain more focussed on reading or browsing code are often web-based.
there are some more considerations to make, which are related to installability. one is the updatability. while of course an update to the tooling is hopefully not the same as installing it from scratch, most considerations we had for the installability should be applied for the update case as well. this especially includes, how often updates to the tool are applied.
another obvious dimension is the complexity of the project set-up. the more difficult it is, the bigger the advantage of simplifying it via a cloud solution. for this, we need to differentiate of course between the ide tooling itself and the necessary runtime environment. the environment is often much more complicated, e.g. if you need to set-up several services, databases and so on. if only the runtime set-up is very complicated, a cloud-based ide might not be the only valuable solution. there are several ways to ease those setups, even without using a cloud- based ide, e.g. with docker containers or workspace servers like eclipse che.
installability is one of the major advantages of a web-based solution. however, it will only provide a significant advantage, if the use case fits. therefore, it is worth it to spend some time on defining the core users and use cases of your system and define the importance of installability for them. in a nutshell, installability pays off most in environments, where a lot of people need to and can be on-boarded very fast, and if they do not work continuously on a project. unfortunately, when onboarding developers it is usually much more time consuming to transfer the required knowledge than to setup the ide.
portability is the second very obvious advantage of a cloud and browser-based solution over a desktop-based tool. the ultimate goal is that you can access the tooling and runtime with any device which has a browser. as a consequence, you can ideally fulfil your development use case at any location, even from a mobile device. in some discussions, this is currently referred to as “accessibility”. while this strictly speaking means something different, we consider portability as the ability to access the tool from anywhere on any device.
a lot of the considerations we have described for installability can be shared when thinking about the advantage of portability. different project roles and different tooling use cases would benefit on a different level. doing a code review or browsing a diagram on a tablet makes more sense than writing a lot of code. so, again, the detailed roles and use cases will need to be evaluated. we will not repeat that in detail, but focus on new dimensions, which are specific for portability.
one additional scenario connected to portability is the ability to share a certain runtime set-up or project state. that means developers always have exactly the same environment. this obviously simplifies life as the typical phrase “i cannot reproduce this on my machine” would no longer occur. however, this only fully applies to the tooling. for the runtime, it plays a role if the runtime platform for a system is unified, too. if the system under development runs natively on different operating systems again, you still need to test different runtime environments. as a consequence, cloud-based tooling currently seems to get adapted in the area of cloud-based development, first.
and like mentioned for installability, there are other ways to achieve a uniform setup, although not as unified as a cloud solution.
a disadvantage of a pure cloud-based solution is that they often rely on constant internet connection. while this issue becomes less and less relevant, at least it must be considered. some cloud-solutions already provide a good work-around, e.g. the offline mode of google mail.
a final word about the dream to be able to contribute to a project from anywhere on any device: while this sounds appealing for certain use cases, do we really want to be called by a client and subsequently feel obligated to fix a bug on our smart phone while we are sitting in a ski lift?
performance is a very interesting requirement to consider. in contrast to installability and portability, there is no clear winner between desktop-based and cloud-based tooling. you will find valid arguments for both to be “more performant”, e.g. this article by tom radcliffe claims that desktop ides are the clear winner.
the major reason for this tie is again that we have to consider the specific use case when talking about performance. while writing and browsing code, we want fast navigation, key bindings and coding features such as auto-completion. while web ides have caught up a lot in recent years, you can still claim that a desktop tool is typically more performant for those “local” use cases (as also claimed by tom radcliffe in the article referenced above).
things change, when looking at other use cases, e.g. compiling. a powerful cloud-instance can certainly compile a project faster than a typical laptop. further, it is comparably cheaper and more scalable to gain more resources in a central way. however, when going for a cloud-based solution, scalability must be taken into account. any advantage is obsolete, if developers have to wait 15 minutes for getting something compiled, because other build jobs are running on the central instance.
so for performance, it is important to consider which development use cases are crucial and will benefit performance-wise from either solution. a follow-up decision of a cloud-based solution would be to strip down the hardware for participating developers to save costs (chromebook scenario). while this sounds like a rational thing to do, not everybody will like the idea of giving away his or her powerful device.
usability also doesn’t have a clear winner in the comparison between desktop-based to web-based ides. while advocates of both platforms would claim a clear advantage, this is really a matter of personal taste. web technologies have become incredibly powerful when it comes to styling, look, and feel. therefore, you can achieve almost any visualization you would like.
further, there is much more innovation going on in the web area in comparison to, e.g. swt.
on the desktop, depending on the ui toolkit you use, there might be more restrictions. javafx and swing are powerful when it comes to styling, but swing is kind of deprecated. swt has limitations when it comes to styling. however, it probably provides most existing framework support when it comes to tooling (see also “cost vs. features”).
besides styling, native desktop applications have still some advantages in usability, e.g. by supporting native features such as application menus, tray icons, key bindings and such. although, it is expectable that these advantages will shrink over time as browsers keep on evolving very fast. in any case, usability is not equal to the ability of supporting a dark theme as some browser advocats may try to make us believe.
it is worth mentioning that there are platforms combining advantages of both worlds. platforms such as visual studio code, atom or eclipse theia embed web technologies (html and typescript) into a desktop application (using electron).
at the end of the day, for many projects a very important constraint is cost, meaning the required effort to satisfy your list of functional requirements. a comparison of the required effort on either platform is driven by several parameters.
second, cloud-based solutions usually add some complexity to the architecture due to the required encapsulation of client and server. of course, you want to have encapsulation of components in a desktop-based tool, too. however, you typically do not have to deal with the fact that components are deployed in a distributed environment.
third, a very central aspect for implementing tooling is the availability of existing frameworks, tools and platforms to reuse. ecosystems like eclipse have grown over 17 years now and already provide a tool, framework or plugin for almost everything. many requirements can be covered with very little effort, just by extending existing tools or by using the right framework.
while there are frameworks for cloud-tools, too (such as orion, eclipse che or theia), they are arguably not as powerful as eclipse/intellij/netbeans, yet. this might of course change over time.
one mentionable trend is to reuse existing “desktop” components in web-tooling. as an example, eclipse jdt provides an api to be used using the language server protocol (lsp). this allows you to reuse features such as auto-completion and syntax highlighting from another ui, typically a web-based ide. while lsp does not yet cover the full feature set of the eclipse desktop ide, it is a great way of reusing existing efforts.
finally, powerful frameworks usually also carry the burden of complexity. the advantage of reusing existing stuff typically (or hopefully) justifies the effort of learning to use a framework. in turn, if you just use a tiny bit of a platform, you might be better off in using something slimmer, which covers your use cases just as well. as an example, if you need a plain code editor without any context, e.g. for a tutorial use case, a platform such as eclipse might be overkill.
so it is useful to evaluate the desired feature set and how well it is supported by existing frameworks on the respective technology stack (web vs. desktop). it is also worth it to investigate whether existing features on one stack can be adapted to be reused on the other (e.g. using lsp). this applies in both directions. not only can you call existing frameworks in the background from a cloud-based solution, it is also possible to embed web-based ui components into desktop applications (see also conclusion).
finally, what makes the dimension of cost vs. features especially difficult is that you typically cannot know exactly what kind of features you need to provide with a tool in the mid-term future.
there are obviously many other parameters to consider when comparing the costs of cloud vs. desktop-based tools. this article would go beyond scope if we were to spend a section on all of these, but let us at least mention some more important topics.
one meta criterion in the decision for a platform, framework, or technology stack, is the long term availability as well as how actively it is maintained. again, there is no clear winner, when comparing desktop and web stacks. while you can argue that there is more development going on in the web area, it is in turn extremely volatile. platforms such as eclipse have been successfully maintained for 17 years now. there are existing workflows for long-term support (lts) and suppliers like us providing this as a service. plus, the platform is very stable in terms of apis.
in turn, web frameworks provide major version updates with improvements almost every year. while this brings in innovation, it also often requires refactoring of an adopting project. as an example, there is currently a lot of variety emerging when it comes to web-based ides (e.g. visual studio code, theia, eclipse che, orion, etc.). we will cover strategies to deal with this risk in a follow-up article.
another meta criterion is the availability of skilled resources. at the moment, you can probably find more angular developers on the market than swt experts. however, this may change very quickly – once angular is not “hip” anymore.
another frequently discussed topic when it comes to cloud-based solutions is of course the security as well as tracing aspect. while it is certainly worth considering, it is probably not the key decision factor for most professional environments, but rather requires special attention.
in this article, we have tried to cover the most important considerations when deciding between a cloud or web-based solution and a desktop tool. there are for sure many more things to consider.
however, what all dimensions have in common is that it is most important to think about the users, their use cases and the frequency of those. based on these criteria, you can evaluate the benefits of supporting them in the web or on the desktop. this is especially true, if you already have an existing tool and are considering a migration. in this case, there must be clear advantages justifying the cost.
while this is already complex, it is even worth it to make this decision on a per use case basis. this is already happening naturally in our tool landscape, e.g. code reviews are very often conducted using web-interfaces. identifying the use cases in your tool, which would benefit most from being available online, reduces the effort and risk to migrate everything at once. so it is often a good idea to pick the low hanging fruits first.
ultimately, it will almost never be possible to make a perfect decision. this is especially true, as important criteria, use cases, and technologies change over time and no one can perfectly predict the future. therefore, the most important thing is to keep some flexibility. that means, even if you decide for a desktop solution, or vice versa, it should be as easy as possible to switch to the other option later on.
even mixtures of both technology stacks on a per use case basis often make sense. while this sounds ambiguous, there are some simple patterns to follow to make this true. we will highlight those strategies in a follow-up article. this strategy also allows an iterative migration, which is often the only viable way tackle the complexity and efforts of migrating existing tool projects. some frameworks even proactively support this strategy by supplying implementations based on web- and desktop technology at the same time, e.g. emf forms and json forms.
some projects directly aim at a pure web-based solution, typically, if they benefit a lot from the advantages, if they implement something from scratch and if they have a pretty self-contained feature set (e.g. training).
few projects do not consider web-based tooling at all, mostly if they have a defined set of continuous users and a lot of existing investments in their desktop tools.
most projects plan to maintain their desktop solutions in the near future, but will migrate certain use cases to web technology. therefore, those projects implement certain design patterns allowing this partial migration. we will highlight those patterns in a follow-up article. follow us on twitter to get notified about our blog posts. stay tuned!
finally, if you are dealing with the designing decision in your project and want support, if you want an evaluation of a web-based version of your tools or if you want to make your current tools ready for the upcoming challenges and chances, please do not hesitate to contact us.
a great article to compare these different options!


text:
Lexus Case Study “The Other Side of Lexus” connected ads put consumers in the driver seat.
To engage 25–34 year old men and promote its F Series performance vehicles, Lexus partnered with Team One and Microsoft to launch an innovative multi-screen campaign called “The Other Side of Lexus”. In this Creative Sequencing, Seth a car and sport enthusiast, begins the first part of Lexus’s extreme sport series “Ride with the Other Me” on one screen, then is able to follow a progressive story of adrenaline-pumping adventures, including sky diving, cliff jumping, and stunt driving, across different devices throughout the day, each time picking up where the series left off. The campaign culminates in a full-screen experience where Seth can watch more videos and explore the high-performance Lexus F Series. Take a look!
Lexus used this innovative multi-screen campaign to build relationships with millennial men and succeeded by increasing awareness for their sport vehicles, reaching their target on a broader scale. The most effective content are based around a story that gets the attention of others to engage with your brand longer. All the high impact content led to an above benchmark click-through rate of 1.3% and 2.1% user interaction rate. The online video ad played a crucial role for Lexus to reach their audience wherever they are and extend the impact of their integrated campaign.
With consumers constantly switching between desktop and laptop computers, tablets, mobile phones, wearable devices, and connected TVs, it’s difficult to target users with relevant ads. However, a multi-screen strategy is the future for marketers. According to an October report from eMarketer, U.S. adults are expected to spend 22.9% of their time in 2014 on mobile devices (non-voice), compared to desktops/laptops at 17.7%. The average time spent on mobile per day has jumped from 3.7% in 2010 to 13.4% in 2012 and now to 22.9% for 2014 (per the chart below).
This increase signals that consumers are quickly taking hold of more screens, and marketers should follow. Marketers should understand the role of each device in order to know how to evaluate the performance of the campaign and the performance by platform. Streaming media is appealing to marketers because it represents a seamless way to integrate audio and video into a website and it allows companies to speak directly to current and prospective customers and to promote their products in a visual, interactive manner.
“Technology is putting consumers in control of what, where, when and how they consume content, so it’s incumbent upon marketers to go find their audience and aggregate meaningful impressions across multiple video screens,” said Andrew Ward, group VP of national advertising sales for Comcast Media 360.
Ever since I noticed the buzz around ABC network primetime show Scandal via social media I have been hooked. ABC and the writers are selling an experience and engaging millions of people with weekly do not move from your seat episodes. ABC aired their fall finale of Scandal Season 4 on November 20th, 2014 with a return date of January 29th!
Scandal, a phenomenally popular television show on ABC, has much to teach the social media marketer. Scandal stars Kerry Washington as the fearsome and formidable Olivia Pope, a former White House staffer and professional “fixer” who spends her time managing the crises of Washington’s elite, dodging attempts on her life, and thwarting the advances of her former lover (the President of the United States, no less). There are plenty of conspiracies to unravel and backs to stab, so it’s no wonder that critics and viewers were slow to take to the show when it first aired. Yet by the conclusion of its second season (2013), the show was a bona fide hit, regularly drawing almost 9 million viewers. It’s up even more in the key demographic Adults 18-49 +43% compared with last season, according to Nielsen.
So how is emerging media affecting today’s marketing efforts?
Scandal has become a live event where the DVR is not an option. People are spending time in front of the TV with digital and mobile devices and from my experience Twitter is the main way people are interacting with the program followed by Facebook.
With over 500,000 Twitter followers and 4.3 million tweets last season ABC succeeded in growing “Scandal” brand following.
Use specific hashtags and existing fans or (#gladiators the label devotees have adopted for themselves) to drive new fans to the show via Twitter. The network, ABC, actively drives viewers to the live-tweeting using both on-air hashtags and promos tagged with voice-overs such as “to tweet with Kerry Washington, use #AskScandal.” After the star Kerry Washington finished live tweeting she gained more than 16,000 followers in one night.
By using Twitter and Facebook in just a few creative ways mentioned above, the network has enhanced their traditional ways of advertising in attracting viewers to the show. The combined social network and ratings growth from season one (2012) to season three (2013-14) is truly an overnight success.
Tweet with @kerrywashington and @KatieQLowes tonight at 7PM ET and ask all of your questions using #AskScandal!

lowercased:
lexus case study “the other side of lexus” connected ads put consumers in the driver seat.
to engage 25–34 year old men and promote its f series performance vehicles, lexus partnered with team one and microsoft to launch an innovative multi-screen campaign called “the other side of lexus”. in this creative sequencing, seth a car and sport enthusiast, begins the first part of lexus’s extreme sport series “ride with the other me” on one screen, then is able to follow a progressive story of adrenaline-pumping adventures, including sky diving, cliff jumping, and stunt driving, across different devices throughout the day, each time picking up where the series left off. the campaign culminates in a full-screen experience where seth can watch more videos and explore the high-performance lexus f series. take a look!
lexus used this innovative multi-screen campaign to build relationships with millennial men and succeeded by increasing awareness for their sport vehicles, reaching their target on a broader scale. the most effective content are based around a story that gets the attention of others to engage with your brand longer. all the high impact content led to an above benchmark click-through rate of 1.3% and 2.1% user interaction rate. the online video ad played a crucial role for lexus to reach their audience wherever they are and extend the impact of their integrated campaign.
with consumers constantly switching between desktop and laptop computers, tablets, mobile phones, wearable devices, and connected tvs, it’s difficult to target users with relevant ads. however, a multi-screen strategy is the future for marketers. according to an october report from emarketer, u.s. adults are expected to spend 22.9% of their time in 2014 on mobile devices (non-voice), compared to desktops/laptops at 17.7%. the average time spent on mobile per day has jumped from 3.7% in 2010 to 13.4% in 2012 and now to 22.9% for 2014 (per the chart below).
this increase signals that consumers are quickly taking hold of more screens, and marketers should follow. marketers should understand the role of each device in order to know how to evaluate the performance of the campaign and the performance by platform. streaming media is appealing to marketers because it represents a seamless way to integrate audio and video into a website and it allows companies to speak directly to current and prospective customers and to promote their products in a visual, interactive manner.
“technology is putting consumers in control of what, where, when and how they consume content, so it’s incumbent upon marketers to go find their audience and aggregate meaningful impressions across multiple video screens,” said andrew ward, group vp of national advertising sales for comcast media 360.
ever since i noticed the buzz around abc network primetime show scandal via social media i have been hooked. abc and the writers are selling an experience and engaging millions of people with weekly do not move from your seat episodes. abc aired their fall finale of scandal season 4 on november 20th, 2014 with a return date of january 29th!
scandal, a phenomenally popular television show on abc, has much to teach the social media marketer. scandal stars kerry washington as the fearsome and formidable olivia pope, a former white house staffer and professional “fixer” who spends her time managing the crises of washington’s elite, dodging attempts on her life, and thwarting the advances of her former lover (the president of the united states, no less). there are plenty of conspiracies to unravel and backs to stab, so it’s no wonder that critics and viewers were slow to take to the show when it first aired. yet by the conclusion of its second season (2013), the show was a bona fide hit, regularly drawing almost 9 million viewers. it’s up even more in the key demographic adults 18-49 +43% compared with last season, according to nielsen.
so how is emerging media affecting today’s marketing efforts?
scandal has become a live event where the dvr is not an option. people are spending time in front of the tv with digital and mobile devices and from my experience twitter is the main way people are interacting with the program followed by facebook.
with over 500,000 twitter followers and 4.3 million tweets last season abc succeeded in growing “scandal” brand following.
use specific hashtags and existing fans or (#gladiators the label devotees have adopted for themselves) to drive new fans to the show via twitter. the network, abc, actively drives viewers to the live-tweeting using both on-air hashtags and promos tagged with voice-overs such as “to tweet with kerry washington, use #askscandal.” after the star kerry washington finished live tweeting she gained more than 16,000 followers in one night.
by using twitter and facebook in just a few creative ways mentioned above, the network has enhanced their traditional ways of advertising in attracting viewers to the show. the combined social network and ratings growth from season one (2012) to season three (2013-14) is truly an overnight success.
tweet with @kerrywashington and @katieqlowes tonight at 7pm et and ask all of your questions using #askscandal!


text: It’s the things we do on a whim that create the best memories. A few months ago it was warm enough to walk around in shorts, swim and rent a canoe. This canoe trip was not planned but ended up being one of my best memories of the trip I took with my boys.

lowercased: it’s the things we do on a whim that create the best memories. a few months ago it was warm enough to walk around in shorts, swim and rent a canoe. this canoe trip was not planned but ended up being one of my best memories of the trip i took with my boys.