If you are designing a web site, and you are considering overriding the browser’s shortcut to the find on page function, please reconsider. Control + F launches a familiar function in most browsers, users that use it expect to find a text string on the current page, not something else.

I hadn’t seen this done until it caught me by surprise on the community section of the letsencrypt.org site. Here’s what happens when one presses CTRL + F:

CTRL-F Override

The first press launches the site’s search form, the second press closes the site’s search form and open’s the browser’s search form. In my case, Google search had already done the heavy lifting by sending me to a text-dense page. Now I wanted to find my search term on that page, but I was thwarted by the site’s override of a browser function.

Enough people have wanted to do this that there are a few questions about how to override the browser’s find function with javascript on Stackoverflow. Like I said at the top, if you are thinking about implementing this sort of thing on your site, please reconsider.

This is a continuation from a tweet that needs more than 140 characters.

Dave doesn’t think that Trump’s supporters know that his cabinet nominees are bankers and billionaires. He goes on to suggest that we should be running ads on Fox news so those supporters can have a better understanding of who these nominees are.

I think this is a great idea, and I don’t think we should stop there. Why not run ads in other places likely to be seen by Trump supporters, like Facebook. Targeted ads aren’t an original idea, political campaigns have used them to reach their supporters, and attempt to chip away at their opponent’s supporters. This, however, could be different. It wouldn’t be part of a particular campaign and it could be used to put forth well cited facts. Something that attempts to counter the sensational headlines that spread alternative facts.

NY Times Mystery Album

The photo above is from the article Love and Black Lives, in Pictures Found on a Brooklyn Street in The Times. The photos are wonderful, but they only tell part of the story. Annie Correal did the detective work to uncover the rest of it. Spend the five or ten minutes it takes to read and enjoy these pictures.

These pictures are from a time long before most of us started carrying cameras everywhere. Photographing something meant you not only had to get the camera out, but you also had to get the film developed and printed. Many of these photos just show everyday life, but one has to wonder, what made these moments special enough to record? Was some far-away family visiting? Was it a special occasion? Sometimes, we’ll never know because the moment has been long forgotten, or the people who would know are gone. I’m glad they took these photographs, and I’m glad they fell into the hands of someone who was curious enough to follow the story.

It’s a bit sad to think that our digital past won’t be so easy for someone to stumble across. When we go, the electronic record fades quickly. If we’re not alive to click on the ads, our everyday images are of little use to the companies that currently keep and display them. Perhaps it’s worthwhile to print a few of the pictures that depict our everyday moments once in a while.

Here’s an interesting bit from some research on how often people check their email, reported in The New York Times:

Although the only thing we changed about the participants’ lives was how often they checked their email, we observed a significant reduction in stress when they checked email less frequently.

The article is worth a read, they delve into why this might be the case.

My advice is, at minimum, turn off all of your email alerts. This isn’t an option for everyone, but I think most of us will do just fine by dealing with email only a few times throughout the day.