WTVN Radio • Columbus, Ohio • Sunday morning from 8 until 9

Sunday, April 13, 2003

Random thought:

How much is your time worth?

Those who provide services often need to track the hours they've spent by project and by client and then summarize that time monthly for billing. Attorneys, consultants, researchers, and editors are just a few of the people who need to be able to track billable hours.

Timeslips has always been the application I recommend for these people because it's a complete, versatile solution that fits just about any company that bills for time. The only problem with Timeslips has been that it's rather expensive for small offices. The full application ($400) can handle 5,000 timekeepers (people who bill for their time), 25,000 clients, 25,000 timed activities, 25,000 expense items, and 20 rates each per user, client, or task. Timekeepers can have rates ($500 per hour for a senior partner or $100 per hour for a research assistant). Tasks can have rates ($150 per hour for proposal writing or $50 per hour for document copying). Clients can have rates ($120 per hour for the Consolidated Mammoth Corporation or $225 per hour for Joe's Pawn Shop). The upshot of all this versatility is that a company can negotiate any number of rates with a client and then have Timeslips calculate the correct fee -- there is no need to constantly override the program's calculation, although even this is possible.

Even if you run a 1-person or 2-person shop, you probably understand how a program this versatile could help, but you may be put off by the $400 price tag.

New lower price for small shops

The good news is that Timeslips (now owned by Peachtree Software) has just released a new product -- Timeslips for Sole Practitioners ($200) that can handle 2 timekeepers (people who bill for their time), 25,000 clients, 25,000 timed activities, 25,000 expense items, and 20 rates each per user, client, or task. The Sole Practitioner version cannot be run on a network and has 86 pre-defined reports, compared to the full version's 120 reports.

The full version also includes firm-wide budgeting, connected databases for other offices, full audit trails, "assistants" (like "wizards"), time sheet slip entry, alerts when billed time approaches specified limits, procedures (macros), practice management reporting, timekeeper histories and summary tables, "Mini Timeslips", and the ability to track overhead cost.   Timeslips Pro also has the ability to use add-on products such as TAL Pro, the Timeslips Accounting Link designed for use with QuickBooks Pro; Timeslips Remote to track time and expenses while out of the office or in a non-networked environment; the ability to synchronize with Palm and Pocket PC devices; a legal dictionary for enhanced spelling checking; the ability to submit invoices to clients electronically; and a link to Crystal Reports.

The application has been around for 17+ years and each new version has offered improvements over the previous version. Timeslips Pro version 11 adds several new features: The ability to enter time in a form that looks like a spreadsheet in addition to the usual "slips" entry, a stopwatch that records the exact start and end time for a task, the Mini Slip view that allows tracking of time while the user is in another application, and abbreviations that are automatically expanded to provide consistent and accurate descriptions.

Timeslips Pro tracks expenses, too. Those who must purchase products or services for clients can enter the appropriate information so that the correct amount (passed through or marked up) will appear on the client's bill.

Customize, customize

Even the bills are customizable. A firm may have a standard bill that shows the amount of time per project with the cost per task shown, subtotaled by task classification for most clients. But if one client wants to see the initials of the person whose time is being billed and the hourly rate, that's exactly what will be on that client's invoice. Should another client want nothing more than a statement for "Professional Services" and a grand total, that's what the client will see.

All of these features come at a price. There is a 300+ page manual that new users must read and those who are upgrading from previous versions of the program should read. For large firms, the price will be significantly more than $400, too. Each workstation that connects to the Timeslips database needs a network station license ($100 each or $450 for 5). You'll also pay $100 per device to put Timeslips applications on a Palm or Palm PC. If accurate time billing is your goal, the expense is easily justified.

Time billing is a specialized operation. Those who sell items from inventory cannot use time-billing software, but some people who bill for their time think that they can convert their billing practices and use an inexpensive "widget" billing system. If you're billing for your time, you need a time-billing system; if you need a time-billing system, you won't find a better one than Timeslips.

For more information, see the Timeslips website.

Browser craziness

I was trying to help friend and occasional cohort Rick Altman develop a menu system for his website. We found that the beautiful menu in Microsoft's Internet Explorer looked somewhat ugly (although it worked) in Netscape Navigator 6. In Netscape Navigator 4, it was downright ugly and we created a warning that told NN4 users that they were in for an "experience".

I looked at the site with several browsers running on the Mac and the results ranged from perfect to acceptable.

We hadn't counted on Opera, though. With Opera, the menu simply disappeared. The Opera user who arrived a Rick's front door wasn't able to go any further.

The problem, as I wrote to Rick, is that one browser is like a car with rubber tires designed for a concrete road, another browser is like a car with concrete tires designed for a rubber road. But the route we're on is a cow path paved with cow-chips.

Version 3 browsers were incompatible. A site could be designed for Netscape (the market leader at the time) or for Microsoft (still an upstart then). The W3C (WWW Consortium) was promoting "standards" and a lot of us had hopes that version 4 browsers would comply.

Microsoft gave it a good shot. Explorer 4 wasn't exactly in full compliance, but it was a lot closer than Navigator 4. In some ways, Netscape widened the gap with version 4. Meanwhile, Microsoft designed its version 5 to be more compliant with the W3C standards. Netscape didn't release a version 5 so website designers continued to deal with multiple standards.

With Explorer 6, Microsoft has a browser that closely complies with W3C standards. Nestcape's version 6 was also largely compliant and version 7 is even better, but both 6 and 7 break some Javascript that worked in version 4. My theory is that the problem is how the browser identifies itself and how the Javascript responds to that information, but that's no more than a guess.

Opera, the browser from Norway, has been largely standards compliant from the outset, but it's so totally committed to standards that it sometimes fails where MSIE or NN succeed. So when Opera should be receiving applause, it is cursed. Even Opera's latest version works well with pages developed by careful designers.

And that's only the Windows side of the issue.

Most computers in general use (80 to 90 percent) are PCs running some version of Windows. Most of the remaining 10 percent are Macs running System 9 or OS X (which is really Unix). Microsoft, Netscape, and Opera all have browsers for the Mac but their compatibility and capabilities vary widely. Apple's own browser (Safari) is quite promising.

Add to this the small number of users who are running Unix or Linux browsers (some from companies you've never heard of) and to the vision-impaired users who would prefer that browsers all run in a text-based mode and you'll understand why one size does not fit all.

Unless you have unlimited funds, there simply is no way to make a website that fills everyone's needs -- that looks good in every browser.

The pragmatic view

Pragmatists are politically unpopular. So are website designers who design for a single browser, and that's doubly so if the browser happens to be one made by Microsoft.

Well, tough.

I'm not independently wealthy and neither are most of my clients. If we were, I might not be pragmatic. But wishes aren't horses and beggars don't ride on the Internet.

When I examine website statistics and see that 90% of the visitors are using Microsoft's Internet Explorer (version 5 or 6), it's clear where development efforts should go. That's not to say that I go out of my way to make a site that doesn't work for Netscape or Opera or LYNX, but it is to say that if a design decision comes down to something that looks great on MSIE and not so great Netscape, I'll probably do it.

Cascading style sheets (CCS) are one example of this. Netscape 6 and 7 understand CSS, but version 4 is clueless -- particularly when it comes to vertical spacing. CSS is the future. It's been blessed by W3C. Microsoft has supported CSS acceptably since version 5 (and partially in version 4). CSS-based sites look "OK" in Netscape 4, except for vertical spacing. Netscape 4 can't handle a few esoteric functions that I can do without, bit I make extensive use of vertical spacing in most of my sites.

The result? Those who view the site with MSIE think it looks great, but those who use Netscape (including some of my clients) think the site's vertical spacing is ugly. They're right, but it's ugly only for Netscape 4 users -- at most 10% of the visitors to the site. Those who have upgraded to Netscape 6 or 7, to Opera 6 or 7, or to Mozilla will see exactly what they're supposed to see.

Making a site accessible to visually impaired people is even more of a problem. Ideally, every site should be accessible but the problem once again is cost. I can tell you that I create an "ALT" tag for every image and call my site "accessible", but that isn't quite the case.

If a page uses tables to position elements it is, by definition, not accessible. Unfortunately, absent full CSS support by existing browsers, tables are the best solution for most designers. I sincerely regret being unable to make a page that is at once suitable to the client and accessible, but it's the client who pays. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to deal with this kind of trade-off.

So I'll do what I can to make any website I work on as accessible as I can make it within the constraints set by the client and by good design.

The good news

The Web of the future will run on XHTML or maybe on XML. Both of these languages are far more strict than anything we've seen to date. Better still, they offer the ability to specify one kind of formatting for the screen and another for print.

It won't happen this year or next, but websites will become more standardized and more accessible. When designers find that 90% of the users are viewing sites with browsers that provide for both compatibility and accessibility, sites will be designed for compatibility and accessibility.

Until then, all I can say is, "The trouble is NOT in your set."

More signs that digital photography is the new standard

At my older daughter's wedding about a week ago, there were a lot of cameras. I wasn't watching closely, but most of the cameras seemed to be digital. It might be that the only film camera there was the one the professional photographer was using -- and even he expects to go digital in the not-too-distant future.

Popular Photography changed its name some time ago to Popular Photography and Imaging. There's a new photo magazine on the block -- PC Photo. Pop Photo's cover on the issue that arrived this week says "HOT NEWS!! KODAK DIGITAL SLR BEATS FILM!" PC Photo says digital SLRs are "finally affordable".

Some people already have owned two or three digital cameras and many of those who tried digital a few years ago have all but stopped using film.

One problem has been digital media, but even those limitations are falling away. Some of the professional digital cameras use IBM Micro Drives to provide 1GB of storage, but these drives have moving parts and that introduces two problems: drive failures and short battery life.

Lexar has now announced a 4GB solid-state memory card. It's a CompactFlash card that will hold more than 1200 high-quality images (minimal compression shots from a 6Mpxl camera). But you'll pay $1500 for it when it hits stores later this year. And if you don't have a professional model camera that accepts Type II media, it won't fit. On the other hand, if you have a camera that accepts standard CompactFlash cards and $900, you can pick up a 2GB card right now.

Nerdly News

Rebounding sales?

The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and the United Microelectronics Corporation, two of the world's largest suppliers of made-to-order chips, this week reported first-quarter sales rose on demand for their advanced technology. Taiwan Semiconductor said its first-quarter sales rose 9.9% from a year ago, to $1.1 billion. United Microelectronics said its sales in the same period rose 47.2%.

Or not?

The Borland Software Corporation has reported a first-quarter net loss of as much as 27 cents a share, a contrast to net income of 6 cents a share last year. Sales rose less than forecast and the company blamed a weak global economy as customers canceled purchases in the quarter's final weeks.

Human virus affects computers?

The SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) virus is having an effect on the computer industry. SARS is a mysterious virus that is fatal in about 4% of cases. Believed to have originated in China, it has hit Hong Kong hard. Toronto, Ontario, has been another hot spot for the disease.

A lot of computer components from from Asia and widespread disease there could have an adverse effect on the electronics industry. But the electronics and communications industries may benefit from fears about the disease. There's been a sharp rise in teleconferencing and people telecommuting.

Some companies have ordered workers not to travel to Hong Kong or other cities in Guangdong Province, which is where nearly 90% of all reported cases of SARS are located. A few companies have imposed a broader travel ban that includes all of China along with Vietnam, Singapore, and Canada.

Let us know what you think about this program! Write to:
Bill Blinn --
(wtvn@blinn.com still works)
Joe Bradley --

Joe
(Photo by Sally)

Bill
(Photo by Scampi)

Privacy Guarantee:

I HATE SPAM and will not sell, rent, loan, auction, trade, or do anything else with your e-mail address. Period.

As if you didn't already get enough weather on the radio!

If you do not see a Weather Underground banner above and you use ad-blocking software, please set your application to allow images from "www.wunderground.com" to appear.

Annoying legal disclaimer
My attorney says I really need to say this: The Technology Corner website is for informational purposes only. Neither Joe nor I assume any responsibility for its accuracy, although we do our best. The information is subject to change without notice. Any actions you take based on information from the radio program or from this website are entirely at your own risk. Products and services are mentioned for informational purposes only and their various trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. Technology Corner cannot provide technical support for products or services mentioned on the air or on the website.