#6. Breaking Development 2012 Dallas: Day One Recap
This week, Jeff and Tim provide a quick recap of some of the discussion that took place on the first day of Breaking Development 2012 in Dallas. We discuss the future of mobile, separate sites vs responsive sites and dissecting frogs.
- Breaking Development 2012: Dallas
- The Revolution Will Not be Televised
- Episode 4: The Best Interface is No Interface
- Mobile Design Fragmentation: Fact or Fiction
- Responsive Design vs. Separate Sites: Presidential Smackdown Edition
- Building Modern Mobile Web Apps
- GitHub repo for Modern Mobile Web Apps
- Why Mobile Apps Must Die presented by Scott Jenson
- Breakout JS
Jeff: Welcome to Episode Six of the Breaking Development Podcast. I’m here with Tim Kadlec, and we’re going to go over day one of the Breaking Development Conference we recently held down in Dallas, Texas September 24th through the 26th. Fantastic lineup we had down there on day on, Tim.
Tim: Pretty good, yeah. I can’t…I think it was, as far as the lineup goes, it was super solid all the way through. I think every talk had something you could take away from it.
Jeff: Super cool. We kicked off the conference with Jonathan Stark who talked about The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Managing Content in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Long title.
Tim: You did a good job with that though.
Jeff: Thank you.
Tim: The pronunciation was right on.
Jeff: Long title, relatively short talk, but it was pretty cool because it left a lot of time for Q&A.
Jeff: But he was talking about the future of mobile devices and what impact they might have on web content.
Tim: Yeah, and there was a lot of interesting things that he got into, you know, talking about, like, some of the limitations of mobile as the current technology. Like, you know, right now it requires, you know, your hands. It requires, you know, the eyeballs and stuff like that, so it’s just not something that’s very easy to interact with when you think about it.
Jeff: He threw up an interesting slide, I think it was. It might’ve been a video. I think it was a slide with a bunch of people sitting on a train, and then there was one woman standing, and he asked the audience, “Can anyone tell me, in this picture, what’s different than it might’ve been awhile ago?” And it was the one woman standing, using her phone, meaning we can now stand and compute and that we can do things…
Tim: Right, which is one of the cool things about…
Jeff: Right. Exactly.
Tim: Yeah, is it frees you up so you don’t have to be at that stationary position every time anymore.
Jeff: He got into some kind of cool things too on, I guess I would call it interface, where he had a couple of videos about the, like, implanted contact lenses that would kind of do virtual reality of what was in your refrigerator, things about the date that were sitting across the table from you. I thought that was kind of cool.
Tim: Yeah there was a lot of cool technologies he was showing off. Like Google glasses and stuff like that, and yeah. There was a lot of cool stuff being discussed. He also kind of, building off of that, he got into a lot about, like, where…kind of the next step is, what does this all mean if there’s not a screen, right? So how do you design? How do you develop for no screen?
Jeff: No screen, right. Things like Google glasses or even just…I can’t remember if it was his talk or someone else’s was…I think that was his too where the guy was on the floor, you know, wearing those contact lenses and was playing that game, or even just using hand gestures and things like that. I think I’m mixing a couple of talks.
Tim: You might be. I mean, a couple people touched on that, but, yeah, which, actually, and it kind of goes back to…you did an episode of a podcast with Golden Krishna, right? Where the best interface is no interface.
Jeff: No interface. Yup.
Tim: And so a lot of the same kinds of things come out there, because, I mean, that’s what we’re going to have to start building for very soon in the very near future, is basically, like, they’re taking away this visual screen, this visual interface we’ve had right in front of us the whole time. And now it’s becoming more of, how do you intreat with these things?
Jeff: More like augmented reality.
Jeff: Realtime, where you’re at, what’s happening right now.
Jeff: One last point that I thought was pretty neat about Jonathan’s talk was that he had said, “It’s easier to build up than down,” so to consider your smallest environment first, which, I mean, is essentially kind of the same as mobile first I guess.
Jeff: But, you know, he was also saying that, you know, our smallest device may not always be just something like the telephone. He had actually picked out of the Apple keynote address about the iPhone 5, he had said, there was all this talk about the headphones. Who cares? And he had kind of picked up that, since they called them iBuds, or I forget what they actually call them…
Tim: Something like that.
Jeff: He thought maybe the new iPod would be built into the headphones.
Tim: That’s right. Yeah, I forgot he had said that. Yeah, which would be kind of a cool idea.
Jeff: Well, I think he’s saying designing for the smallest interface first. I mean, that essentially would have to have some type of interface now.
Tim: Sure, and what’s, I mean, that…there’s all sorts of reasons why, like, the mobile first or, like, he seems to be taking even a step beyond, but, like, that simple, smallest layout first makes a lot of sense to build for, for many reasons, you know. From a building perspective it tends to make things perform better. It also causes you to focus really on what’s core and, theoretically, your simplest experience that you create should be something that can be accessible by any device really.
Tim: And you can kind of build up and expand on that.
Jeff: Build up from that, right. Well, yeah, again, Jonathan did a fantastic job and it was really nice because we had some great audience interaction right off the bat after the first talk.
Tim: Yeah, that kind of set the stage for the rest of the conference really.
Jeff: It did. After Jonathan, Belen Barros Pena got up on stage, and she hasn’t done a lot of talking outside of Europe, and not even probably that much in Europe. She was born in Spain. I actually had a chance to have dinner with her and it was great. She talked about Fragmentation in Mobile Design: Fact or Fiction? And when she sent in that topic, I think we all looked at it and thought, “Oh, well, whatever. We all know what the outcome is going to be, but this should be interesting.”
Tim: Yeah, it was…you think you know what’s coming but, actually, the conclusion ended up being a lot different. And she really, I mean, she dissected that thing like a frog in a biology class. It was pretty intense.
Jeff: It was really cool. You know and she had, again, now that the premise was in mobile design, and she had broken it down into two parts: hardware and software. And she showed that, you know, there may be fragmentation in hardware…
Jeff: …screen sizes, the way devices work, and things like that, but when she got into the operating system of it, and she said, “Hey, there’s basically a dozen or maybe more operating systems,” and then, like you said, she started to dissect it like a frog.
Jeff: And show…
Tim: Right, I mean, she boiled it down to, like, every…there’s content and there’s actions, right? So the content was ordered in like grids and tabs and stuff, and that was pretty consistent around all the operating systems, and then the actions, so, like, you know, the back button and stuff like that and all of these different patterns with how you move around and interact with the content, and that stuff was all strikingly similar across all the operating systems, with only, like, small little variances.
Jeff: But she had great examples. She’d like click through her slides and say, “In iOS, in Android, in Blackberry,” and she’d point to that same button in the exact same location every time with the same basic shape, the same basic function. You know, and you sat–at least I did anyway–sat and stared at the screen, and was like, “My gosh. She’s right. There’s not fragmentation here really. Very little fragmentation.”
Tim: Yeah. I mean, when you get down to it, yeah, there really wasn’t that much, at the operating system level, which was surprising. It was the conclusion I would’ve expected. I don’t know think it’s a conclusion anybody really expected coming into it, given the horror stories that everybody tells about fragmentation on mobile.
Jeff: Right, it was a great talk. I really enjoyed that one, you know. And then right before launch we had the dirty hippy.
Tim: That’s so going to stick. We’re going to make that stick.
Jeff: I think we can do it.
Tim: Yeah. Brad Frost, in case you haven’t caught on to the dirty hippy nickname yet, and if you know Brad I encourage you to use that.
Jeff: In fact, if he could get @dirtyhippy, if it’s available, we wouldn’t have to use that stupid underscore on Twitter anymore.
Tim: We should get it for him. You know how many times I’ve yelled at him about the underscore thing? He has the other one. I thought he had the other one, and then he made the decision early on to use the underscore. I don’t get it.
Jeff: If @dirtyhippy is available, I’m on it, and then I’ll sell it to him.
Jeff: We’re capitalists.
Tim: Done. And until he does we’ll make it like a spoof account.
Jeff: Yeah. We could act like we’re Brad Frost.
Tim: Yeah. Oh, yeah.
Jeff: I like that idea.
Tim: Yup, he’s going to hate us.
Jeff: Responsive Design Versus Separate Mobile Site. He took the two presidential sites, Obama and…
Tim: That other guy.
Jeff: And Romney, and he dissected them. Romney had an mdot site and Obama had a responsive site.
Tim: Right. And I was nervous about this one. Like, so he was really excited about his topic so that’s why we went through it, but I was a little nervous because responsive design in separate sites tend to be a very religious discussion. And politics, well, you know, that’s like navigating a minefield. Let’s see if he can pull it off.
Jeff: And now you’re mixing mdot and politics and responsive…
Tim: Yeah, it’s messy, but he navigated it like a pro. He went through it very well with…
Jeff: I think what made it easy for him is both of those sites definitely had some issues.
Tim: True. Yeah, which was part of the thing that awesome, right? Is that, like, he came into this and he did not take…he really didn’t take a side as far as the responsive service site. He was equally pointing out faults with both approaches.
Tim: And I think that…it was nice. It was very pragmatic and…
Jeff: Some huge performance issues on the Obama site. I think, if I remember right, there were some navigation issues on the Romney side.
Jeff: I know that he poked fun at either one, or both of them, a couple of time because the donate button was front and center on both of them.
Tim: Yeah, yeah.
Jeff: You know, but he basically said, give people what they want and make sure they have access to your content, and get this stuff right before you, you know, get way deep into all these other things that some of those guys were doing on their sites, like video and…
Tim: Yeah, and he’s talked a lot about content parity in the past, and, I mean, that is one of the key things, not really with just a responsive approach but any approach, is keeping that, like you said, what they need has to be there regardless of what device they’re using to access it. And going back to the Obama, you were saying it was a big, bloated site, I mean, I enjoyed the…it was too big. It was like three megabytes, or something like that, so it crashed on Blackberry devices.
Jeff: Over three megs, yeah.
Tim: Yeah, and Obama has a Blackberry device.
Jeff: Blackberry. He had a picture of Obama using a Blackberry. We don’t know what he uses right now.
Tim: It’s incriminating evidence.
Jeff: It was. He definitely used one at one time. You know, it comes down to over three megs. A lot of it has to do with performance, you know? It’s something you can’t see but it’s super important and…
Tim: Yeah, I liked his line about, you can’t mock it up in Photoshop. You can’t mock up performance in Photoshop.
Jeff: Was that Brad that said that?
Tim: Yeah, it was Brad.
Jeff: I was thinking that was Chris Coyier, but, yeah. Whoever said that, it’s right.
Jeff: You can’t figure out performance in Photoshop.
Jeff: But he gave out a stat that 86 percent of the responsive sites, the small screen view weighs as much, or more, than the fullscreen view. And I thought that that was kind of an interesting stat. What’s the point of responsive if you’re getting a heavier site on a mobile version?
Tim: And it’s really…so this is actually a really timely topic that he brought that up because, you know, in just the couple past days we’ve seen, even over the last few weeks actually, before the conference, there’s been a lot of, you know, responsive sites that are getting a lot of attention because they’re nice-looking sites and they’re big-name companies. But they all suffer from that same thing, which has caused some people to claim that, you know, the responsive design is bad for performance, and that’s not the case. The one thing that I’ve been trying to say is that you blame the implementation not the technique..
Tim: And I think that that’s what he was driving home in his talk, too. It’s not- responsive design isn’t on performance, it’s the way these people are actually building these sites.
Jeff: It’s the implementation more than- well not even the implementation, it’s actually the whole package I guess. Internally we were looking at that disney site the other day, and we’re ooh-ing and aww-ing on the content on the desktop, and even on mobile it’s great, but, when you start to get into it, like, we tried to load it up on a phone, and it was… it was a little iffy, it ended up being…
Tim: Four megs.
Jeff: Yeah, fou-
Tim: Four megs and just shy of a hundred requests…
Jeff: You know, and it took 90 seconds to load over 3G I think, is kinda what we…
Jeff: So, I mean again, Kudos for building a site that’s mobile friendly, but is it truely mobile friend if it takes them 90 seconds to load? I know that I’m not waiting that long.
Tim: No, I’m.. Nobody’s waiting that long. It’s like.. what is it, two seconds, five seconds?
Jeff: Yeah and I-
Tim: I think he even said-
Jeff: One speaker even said ten seconds, which-
Tim: I think was a little low.
Jeff: BBC said Tom had said ten seconds, I thought that was a little heavy. Maybe if you’re waiting for a news site? You may anticipate that it’s gonna be full of content and might be willing to wait a little bit longer, but I am more at three to five second range personally.
Tim: Certainly, not 90 seconds.
Jeff: Certainly not 90, and seldolmly the nine..
Jeff: So anyway Brad did a really, really great job about dissecting those two and a real fair way, without causing any problems among politicians or M-Dot vs R-W-D.
Tim: There was even some applaus when he came to the ultimate conclusion which is that your users don’t give a… crap, we’ll censor for our younger preteens audience.
Jeff: Right.. They just want a good experience.
Tim: Right. Yeah.
Jeff: Yeah, was a great talk. we then went into lunch and after lunch we had a speaker from Microsoft, Chris Benaj, his talk magic ponies and the mobile web what we learned, and the joinrey, they got to set up a .. I guess a test isn’t the right word, but a trial site to learn some things at Microsoft and he kind of talked about how they put all that together.
Tim: Yeah, so he’s on the patterns and practices team, and I think that one of the things that prompted this was they went out to developers and they asked “Well what are your real pain points?” because they were gonna try to like work on this stuff.. And it was quite the all star team that worked on this project, like I know Stephanie and Brie Reigor(??) were involved-
Jeff: Yeah he quoted them a lot.
Tim: Luca Pisani(?) was involved, who was one of the attendees, the guy who… behind wereflu(??) and stuff like that, it was quite the team that they had working on this project. But one of the things that they had found out was like these legacy apps were really tough, and trying to build, like that’s one of the common complaints for developers as well as like “How do you build for all of these different platforms” and, so they were experimenting with a lot of that kind of stuff.
Jeff: He had talked about, you know, making sure you determine who you’re building something for even before you start building it. It was just a lot of kinda the.. I don’t wanna say “its things that we all think of” because we clearly don’t, but it’s things he just kinda went through the process of you know, getting your content organized and make sure you know what you’re building before you jump into it.
Jeff: Even right through to the testing, saying “Hey” you know “We tested on some of these little” uh “IFrame type things, they’re not the same as testing on a real device.”
Tim: Alright, like, I mean, and they’re cool for like a quick visual spot-strike. Like those little IFrame things that you were saying, where like you go to the page, enter your URL, it loads it up in like four different sized IFrames, or even emulators, I mean it’s not the same as having the device in-hand, because there’s different inssues as far- I mean the feel is gonna be different in hand vs on a screen.
Jeff: He wasn’t even talking devices, I think he was talking browsers.
Tim: Oh right, but I mean…
Tim: Well either one, right? So browsers-
Tim: I mean at the-
Jeff: I guess when you have a different-
Tim: Yeah, he was talking browsers. Yeah.
Tim: Well, but, even like with the browsers and stuff- I mean the browsers… Uh which Chris talked a little bit about that which we can get to… Tomorrow’s podcast. but yeah I mean like you have to test in the browsers, you have to test on the devices, you can’t just you the emulators and stuff, they get you part way there, but it’s not the same, and they hide a lot of the potential issues, too.
Jeff: And I think they had actually shared almost all of that entire project on github, and we can put that in the shownotes.
Tim: Yeah! That is all there and they’ve got there… the site, they have a lot of detailed information, a write up, and stuff.
Jeff: I’ll make sure we include that in the show notes.
Tim: A lot of good stuff there.
Jeff: Uhm, after Chris we had Scott Jensen, who was a repeat speaker, and breaking development. He came in and talked to us about uh. Beyond mobile, beyond the web, uhm a little bit of a it was crossover from his original talk with us, and some of it was his new thoughts that he’s blogposted about in the past. But always enlightening to hear Scott talk about the future of not nessescarily “Mobile” but devices maybe is a better way to put it? Or just things we interact with? I mean, he used the example of a bus stop, and a toaster and all these different things, and his lingo is just in time interaction on that.
Tim: Right. Yeah I mean so you’re right, it was based on- If anybody had seen his mobile apps presentation from Nashville, last September, if you haven’t seen it go check it out. But he was really kind of…he had to start…you had to lay down that foundation in case anybody hadn’t already kind of been caught up through his articles or through that talk. But then he was kind of building on top of that over the last year, the different, you know, thinking and stuff that he’s gone through. What I liked…
Jeff: The birds, and the bees, and the bears, and the…
Tim: Yeah, yeah. The birds, and the bees, and bears, and the, you know, I think that the Triumph of the Mundane was one of the posts that he had up there where he was, you know, making the point that, you know, people talk a lot like, “Why would I want my fridge to be internet capable? Or my toaster?” Toaster was the one he emphasized, but, like, you don’t know what’s going to be useful. Like, it’s tough.
Jeff: Well, and not everyone would, you know?
Tim: No, right. It’s not…no, sure.
Jeff: Another thing we talked about is the interaction at the end, and a few people specifically, I don’t want to say called him out, but questioned, like, what about security? Why would I want to interact with my toaster? Not everyone would, and then I think somebody retaliated with, “Well, maybe I do always want my toast to be to this specific color everyday at 8:00 AM, and it would be nice. It would save some time in my life.”
Tim: Yeah. There was actually Pete in the panel right after that.
Tim: But, yeah, I mean, you know, and it’s tough because, you know, and he talks about this, you know, the default thinking, right? So the idea that we take what we already know, which Marshall McLuhan, as he said, put it very well, which is the rear-view mirror effect. Like, we march backwards into the future. So we apply the things that we’ve learned from other places and we try to make that work on what we’re currently doing. So, like, we’re taking all of these desktop practices and paradigms and trying to apply into mobile.
Jeff: And jamming them into a mobile phone. Exactly.
Tim: And now we’re in danger of potentially doing that going forward, beyond, like you said, beyond just the mobile device and being able to interact with these different spaces in context.
Jeff: I agree. You know, he talked about so many things. Again, he’s such an enlightening guy. You know, he’s basically in there just saying, “Hey, the technology is here and why are we not acting on it?”
Tim: Yup, and it’s a similar conclusion to what Belen came to with the mobile design fragmentation talk, where at the end she came to this conclusion–right–that we had…the fragmentation wasn’t as bad as everybody thinks. There’s these underlying patterns, but that’s potentially a problem because this hasn’t been going on that long. How do we already know that these practices, which we’ve ported from desktop, these tabs, these grids, all this stuff, is really the best way to handle this, exactly.
Jeff: Are the best way to do it, despite there being no fragmentation jumping back to, or not as much fragmentation as somebody might perceive on the outside. She ended that with saying, “But just because there’s no fragmentation, is this the best way to do it?”
Tim: Right, it doesn’t mean…I mean, the experimentation shouldn’t be done, and as she pointed out, if you want to innovate on that level, if we’re going to…it’s a similar rally cry to what Scott was saying. If you’re going to innovate at this level and we’re going to push this stuff forward, it has to come from the people, like the people who were attending the conference or listening to this podcast. It’s not going to come from the major OSes, right? Because they control the system.
Tim: They’re very happy with the system, and it’s a risky play for them too.
Jeff: I agree.
Tim: I mean, the innovation and disruption has to come from that third party.
Jeff: I guess you could argue that, from time to time, a hardware manufacturer will cause a little bit of disruption. I’ll go back again to another speaker. Jonathan Stark started out the conference with a short two-minute video clip of Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone, and one part of the clip was showing you…it was essentially like a Blackberry look-a-like phone. It might’ve even been a Blackberry and said, “We aren’t putting buttons on phones anymore.”
Jeff: Then he showed an iPod with the dial from an old school dial phone on it, and he said, “We came up with this.” And I think the audience…you can almost sense, like, well they would’ve cheered for it either way because it was an Apple product, but then he showed just the blank screen.
Jeff: You know, when I think back then…now we’re so used to that, but you think back to that, that was kind of changing the came with an interface.
Tim: Oh, that was part of what he was showing, was that all of these things that now are kind of like, “Well, duh,” you know, everybody was, like, the audience was, like, crazy.
Jeff: But what I’m saying is that was one time when a hardware manufacturer changed the way we thought.
Jeff: We didn’t go backward in time. We changed…
Tim: Sure. But what Belen pointed out, because somebody brought that up in the Q&A to her too, is they said, “Well, Apple kind of revolutionized the phone thing, so doesn’t that…” But her point to that, he response was that…
Jeff: Was the OS is similar.
Tim: Well, no. It was that Apple, they may have revolutionized the phone, but they weren’t in the phone game before that. It was still an outside party, if you think about it from that perspective. It was somebody who hadn’t been doing the phone thing before so they had this new perspective that they were applying.
Jeff: Fair enough, but I think we could also adapt that, Apple didn’t necessarily change…they changed the interface because you’re using your finger, but they didn’t change the operating system. It probably wasn’t that much different than what we were using on a desktop at that time. Back then we were probably using the first version of, like, OSX maybe something like 9.6. You were still using common interfaces in the OS. Just like Belen pointed out in the fragmentation and hardware, the nonexistence fragmentation in hardware, back buttons, location of buttons, things like that.
Tim: Oh, sure. I see what you’re saying. Yeah, they still ported a lot of that stuff from the desktop. What made it cool…
Jeff: The phone was new. The hardware was new, but I don’t that I would argue to a small extent, not a large extent, that the operating system was still a carryover.
Tim: Sure, but what made it cool is that nobody had even tried to push the form that far.
Jeff: Right, especially with your finger as a pointing device.
Tim: Right. Nobody had said, “This phone could actually be, like, a computer,” instead of…you know what I mean? Which is basically what the iPhone is, right? Like, it’s a handheld computer that also makes phone calls.
Jeff: I agree.
Tim: And nobody had pushed it to that level yet.
Jeff: Well, actually in…another thing…I keep bringing up that video. He showed a lot the features of the phone at that point, the ability to conference call…
Tim: Oh yeah, almost again, simple.
Jeff: And, and now I would argue its not a phone in our pocket anymore its a computer in our pocket that can make calls.
Tim: Well, yeah and I think the, Luke even mentioned at the end of his uh…
Jeff: His Day 2 Talk.
Tim: Day 2 Talk, was that um, I can’t remember the exact stat, Luke’s kind of the king of stats, but the number of people making calls on these devices is increasing rapidly. They’re being used less and less for phone calls, these phones are.
Jeff: You said that the number of phone calls is increasing and it’s decreasing.
Tim: I said, oh, did I say increasing?
Jeff: You did say it’s increasing.
Tim: That’s horrible…
Jeff: I fixed it for ya.
Tim: Thank you, I really appreciate it man.
Jeff: I made it decreasing so it makes more sense.
Tim: Yeah ‘cause increasing, that was not right, no, epic fail. No, so, yeah the amount of people making calls from these devices actually, decreasing.
Jeff: Absolutely, when mine rings, I get scared. Startling, it startles me.
Tim: Do you hide under the table?
Jeff: I look around to see what that thing is!
Tim: I think its ya know its just um…I don’t get that many calls. Not anymore.
Jeff: That’s the point.
Tim: Yeah, my wife that’s it.
Jeff: Anyway, ah, its so Scott talked and then Scott moved into, he had organized a mobile browser panel. He had…what was there four people on there?
Tim: That’s correct.
Jeff: Yeah, um…
Tim: Good math.
Jeff: Well Scott and four people.
Tim: Yeah Scott and four, so you had Luke Wroblewski, who also presented in Day 2, you had Michael Hansen, formally of the Firefox OS team, Boot 2 Gecko I think at the time he was there, Pete LePage from Google…Google Chrome I believe team?
Tim: And then, Jeff, oh boy I’m going to mess up his name…
Jeff: I think its Jeff Hoeffs?
Tim: Hoeffs? I think its Hoeffs…
Jeff: He’s our Wisconsin homie.
Tim: He is! And thats, I know.
Jeff: So shout-out to Jeff, we apologize.
Tim: Through the Arduino stuff, if anybody is familiar with that.
Jeff: So the browser panel was interesting. It was nice, we had a little bit of controversy, Luke liked to stir the pot a little bit, which I though kept it interesting.
Tim: A little bit, yeah, yeah.
Jeff: Ya know, we’ll have the video of that up…actually did we, yeah, we did record that. So we’ll have a video of all of our BDConf talks up here in the next week or so, uh and hopefully we can get a few of these speakers to come on and do a guest podcast with us.
Tim: I already got a couple of ‘em I’m talking to so yeah, for sure.
Jeff: Well, that was Day 1 Breaking Dev, is there anything else you want to recap from Day 1, Breaking Dev, Day 1?
Tim: You know, I don’t think so I think we kind of touched on a lot of the themes that kind of connected, and probably at the end of the day too we’ll kind of look at how that kind of emerged throughout the entire conference a lot more, so…
Tim: So it was kind of a whirlwind tour but…
Jeff: Well, next week I think we can maybe get together and talk about Day 2 we’ll recap Day 2 uh in next week’s podcast. Until then I’d like to thank our sponsors that we had down in Dallas.
Tim: You remember them all?
Jeff: I can remember them all, of course!
Jeff: Enyo.js, Mobify…
Tim: Yep, yeah.
Tim: You were doing so good there.
Jeff: You put me on the spot!
Tim: I’m sorry.
Jeff: But anyway, I’d like to thank our sponsors we appreciate that and of course all of the attendees and we hope to see all of you guys in Orlando in April. Until then we’ll talk to you next week. I’m Jeff Bruss with Tim Kadlec signin’ out!