There are so many arguments happening now about this technology and that development language. The battle for supremacy has led to some fairly bad blood between some amazing companies. Listening to the recent debates between Adobe and Apple about flash on the iPad and iPhone has got me thinking. It seems like no matter what, there will be a problem and a battle until we as designers and developers get our heads in the right place.

This is because the debate is centered around technologies and programming languages. This strife is very prevalent in all areas of the web design industry. Should you use Flash or Javascript for that slideshow? Should we connect to this MySQL database, or this SQL server over here? .NET or PHP? There are some very opinionated groups, which is too bad because all of these technologies are amazing in their own right.

At the core of every project is an idea, and that is by far the most important thing to consider. Once the creative idea has been set, realizing that idea can happen any number of unique and innovative ways.

When figuring out how to produce the project, it’s all about what technology is best suited for the design. How much interactivity will it have? Of course you’re not going to utilize Flash for a site that is just plain, static text, and you’re not going to link up to a database when your site consists of two pages.

After these things have been sorted out, then pick the technology that you are most comfortable and efficient with. For example, I work really well in Flash and Actionscript. I am very comfortable with the language, and it comes naturally to me. That doesn’t mean that Flash should be used for everything, but in at the end of the day it’s all about the idea being produced, —not what technology was used to make it. If you need a slideshow, it can be written in Javascript, Flash, or hell even Lingo, as long as you end up with a killer slideshow.

It’s also not about the newest technology; it’s it’s about the best technology. My old college instructor is a professional type designer for a 1st-class graphic design agency. She stands by Freehand as the best tool out there for type and letterform design. It’s not a new program by any measure, but it works for her, and she produces some incredible work.

So we need to relax about the technology debates, and focus on making kick- ass designs, and have fun doing it.

I tried out some of the newly announced Facebook features today, specifically the Open Graph markup and the Like social plugin.  They were both technically simple to deploy, as promised.  You have less control over the appearance of the Like button than I’d like.  For instance, they don’t have an option to ONLY display the like button without a list of total likes.  You can work around this by reducing the width of the iframe, but it was an unexpected restriction.  For us, the goal was to provide a handy way to Like us on Facebook; we don’t care to give screen real estate to showing your friends who have also Liked us (for the majority of visitors, I expect there would be none).

I initially went about including the Like button the wrong way.  In the demos they showed at the F8, it appeared that they would expect each deep linked article page in a blog to have a unique Like button, like how CNN is implemented.  So I did this:

However, when you click Like, it adds a link in your profile section on Facebook for that specific deep link.  For example, check out the article link added here from CNN:

You could imagine that very quickly this area would be cluttered with all the articles a person had liked on news sites and blogs.  Then I noticed this suggestion from the Open Graph Best Practices:

Make only real-life things into objects. Users don’t want news articles and other transient content as objects on their profile.

This advice makes sense, though it’s inconsistent that Facebook would tout their partner (CNN) whose implementation contradicts this.  Thus, I moved the Like button into the footer, making it site wide, and added a Digg link in it’s place.

Ideally, users clicking the Like button would be added to the BKWLD Facebook page (we previously had a group, which we’re deprecating).  So far, I’m not seeing this happen; users who Like our Facebook page and users who Like us on the BKWLD site appear to be dropped into separate buckets.  The Social Graph markup doesn’t have a field to specifically relate the object (our site) with a Facebook Page.  I assume that Facebook uses some black magic to join the references to BKWLD in the Social Graph metas with the BKWLD references in our Facebook Page.  Possibly this isn’t working because our Facebook page is so new.  Or possibly something got confused during my initial implementation that was per blog article.  It also doesn’t appear that the “fb:admins” meta tag is having any effect.  I’m curious to see if this generated page will be automatically merged into the official BKWLD Facebook Page in the next few days.  Or if a person Likes a site on the Facebook site and that site has Open Graph markup on the home page, does Facebook read it and pull that info in?

In sum, I think the social plugin and Open Graph standard are pretty great in terms of functionality for users that can be added with minimal effort by developers.  I hope some clarification comes from Facebook about how (or if) merging works between different pages.