Jason Unger

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

There are thousands of tools you can use to successfully run your Web site, but believe it or not, you only need three.

They don't cost a lot of money, and you don't need a deep technical understanding to use them.

Here are three Web publishing tools I can't live without.

A Simple Text Editor

If you're a blogger, writer or any kind of content creator, a basic text editor like Notepad should be your best friend.

It's the simplest, cleanest and most intuitive word-processing program available — and it's free.

When you're using programs like Microsoft Word to write, you often get loads of junk content that comes along: fonts, sizes, and sometimes even HTML.

You don't need that. You're focusing simply on the words. Don't get overloaded with extra features and settings. You don't need them.

A Good Content Management System

It used to be that Web publishing involved creating pages in Dreamweaver or FrontPage; perhaps you used server-side includes or some kind of template for a consistent design.

Today, it's all about using the right content management system (CMS). A good CMS organizes your content and keeps it completely separate from your design and code.

For jasonunger.com and my other sites, I use Wordpress — easily the best blogging software available (and totally free). Over at cepro.com, we use Expression Engine, a more fully-featured content management system designed for bigger sites.

I've also worked with Movable Type and Blogger in the past. They're not really my cup of tea, but they may work great for you.

Image Editing Software

When you want to add some photos to your site, you'll need to do some image editing. If you're not a designer, your needs will mostly be cropping, re-sizing, and small image creation.

Adobe Photoshop is the standard for image editing and manipulation, but it's also pretty expensive. Photoshop does a lot more than the simple tasks you'll need, but it's the best way to do them.

If you don't want to drop the coin for a copy of Photoshop, check out GIMP — a free alternative that does everything you need.

What Web publishing tools can YOU not live without?

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of watching video podcasts on my computer. It just doesn't make sense.

Even though I've got two screens running — one of which I use for "passive" applications (like IM, Twitter and podcasts) — having a video running while I'm working is awfully distracting (DUH).

This content needs to be on my TV. I didn't spend $2,500 on my Pioneer plasma to neglect it.

Of course, this is what Internet TV really is — using the Internet pipes to deliver video to your TV. It's NOT watching video on your computer.

We're starting to get there. Now that Netflix is coming via the Xbox 360 and LG's new Blu-ray player (called here first), the pipes are starting to get used to deliver content to the living room.

When any of those devices gets access to Hulu content, that'll be another big step forward.

In order to make the move into the living room, I've been thinking a lot about getting an Apple TV. I'm already locked into the iTunes universe. It's just one more step to my Apple-fication.

TV content is meant to be enjoyed in a passive setting, not when you're leaning over the keyboard.

I hate when people say the Internet is going to completely replace deadtree media. It's completely ridiculous.

Printed media is not going to die, it's just going through a major shift in content. Obviously, newspapers are not real-time. Magazines are not real-time. The Internet is.

So what should a print publication do to survive? Embrace that it isn't real-time.

The latest conversation on this comes with the launch of Dispatches, a quarterly magazine based on analysis of events, not news. (Yes, they do have a Web site.)

Why this is newsworthy I don't know. But for some reason, it gets people asking: is print dead?

Mashable, for example, gets it completely wrong.

The printed magazine, content-wise, is just like a web page taken offline: nothing more, nothing less. Is there any hope for the print, then?

First off, people do not read online. Jakob Nielsen has been saying this for 11 years.

People do read offline. When you have paper in your hand, it's a lot easier to focus on one thing. Reading offline is a different experience. You're sitting on the sofa, feet up, relaxed and a drink in hand. You don't sit at your computer desk like that, do you?

Content presentation matters. Big time. Because of that, certain content fares better online while other is better in print. So why bother comparing the two? It's like putting a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work.

The commenters in TechDirt's coverage of the story mostly seem to be missing the point. It's not about competing with the Internet; it's about offering content in-tune with the delivery and format of the publication.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of noise in this discussion: blogs, balance and bias all get thrown into the mix. Forget about that — it's a different topic.

It's not about the competition; it's about maximizing the user experience. And everytime you think of your users first, you win.

If the Internet is all about conversations, why aren't you asking more questions?

Discuss.

The case of these cheerleaders who recorded their beating of a fellow teenager, 16-year-old Victoria Lindsay, and then posted the video online, has received a lot of attention in the media.

And it should. There's obviously something wrong when a bunch of kids attack another and then promote it as some sort of badge to be proud of. (I'm not going to post the video, but it's easy to find on YouTube.)

The coverage, however, seems to be only focusing on YouTube and MySpace and whether they should block these kinds of videos. The father is even "blaming the Internet" for the beating, which is about as moronic as blaming the telephone for prank phone calls.

But the fundamental question lacking in this entire storyline is an easy one: why?

Why did these teens beat up the other girl? Was it completely unprovoked? Did they do it in order to post a video and get their "15 megabytes of fame"?

(On a side note, that's the dumbest phrase ever. Seriously, stop trying to be punny, people.)

I don't know the answer — the only thing I can find is that "[the] suspected teen attackers claim the victim had been threatening them through postings on her MySpace page," according to WESH, the local NBC affiliate. The cops say they filmed it so they could put it online, but how did it come to that in the first place?

Look, obviously I'm not advocating beating up people and posting videos of it online. It's stupid, and you're going to get arrested. Cyber-bullying is a serious thing, as the family of Megan Meier tragically found out.

But the media isn't doing their duty here. Following the Internet storyline is one segment of the coverage, but every one is making the assumption that that's why they beat her up — to post a video online.

Can we get the real facts here, please?