I originally wrote this yesterday for the Brazilian audience but I think the theme is universal enough to publish it in English as well. Let me know what do you think.

Every once in a while, the subject around “Where are Women in Technology?” pops up.

This conversation usually takes place when I am attending some conference, so the logical argument ends up falling around this:

And case closed! The problem is that women feel embarrassed because of the booth babes and that is why they reject this area. I sincerely think that this couldn’t be far from the truth.

Booth Babes

Before diving in the main discussion, I’d like to add a few comments about this side subject: booth babes, the girls hired to stay in the booths in conferences. There are much talk around this. By the way, this is even more provocative if we go out of the usual IT conferences and go to gaming, entertainment, automobiles and others. We recently had E3 and Comic Con in the United States, here are some of them:

In those other areas, matters were escalating far beyond what our poor small conferences could ever imagine having: semi-nude girls in bikinis or even less. And consider that gaming is not only for adults! Nintendo itself, considered by many as the most “family” sided company, released it brand new Nintendo 3DS at the E3 Press Conference wraping up with dozens of booth babes in line to demonstrate it to the public! Very “family”.

Controversy was so elevated that in 2006 the E3 organization decided to ban the lack of clothing from booth babes. They added a heavy and restrictive policy where they could charge a fee from the booth owner and ask the girls to leave. In time, the policies were toned down and it is almost as before, specially since E3 almost died last year – for other reasons.

Now, I cannot speak in behalf of the women – not being one – but I will speculate a bit based on the feedback I had from other women. If the conference had so many semi-nude booth babes, there would certainly be embarrassment. Some could get offended, some could just laugh out and move on. The fact remains that this is something that we, men, don’t have to deal with because we don’t have semi-nude booth boys in the same events.

In the kinds of conferences that we are used to, the girls don’t dress nearly as their counterparts in the gaming industry, actually they dress more. They also don’t insinuate themselves or make gratuitous sensual stuff. What I did hear many times is that most women don’t mind them and basically either ignore or play along.

My own wife don’t mind at all and even think it is fun and amusing.

Another thing that the critics don’t take into consideration is that those girls are not there being “abused”, they are there on their own will. It is a proper job like any other. Many rely on these jobs to pay their bills, go to college and more.

At Rails Summit, in Brazil, we had the now famous Open Source Brunette for instance, who does Law school. Some people unconsciously assume that because they are booth babes, they are stupid and therefore being abused, the poor ones. That couldn’t be less true. There are many kinds of people, same way as in our area.

Talent is something that is different for every person. Some were born prettier than others. The market values pretty people. If those people decided to earn some money based on that feature, that is fair enough! Supply and demand. If there are people willing to pay, why not collect?

Many already discussed Why do booth babes exist?. Many question if this is really a valid thing, if a company shouldn’t just show their products and win the costumer based on quality and not eye candy, and so on. It is a valid discussion as well.

My conclusion to this portion of the article couldn’t be simpler: we have booth babes because the majority of the professionals in the technology fields are men! This is the most obvious thing to realize and many fail to understand that booth babes are not the cause of this, they are the symptom and consequence of other reasons. Discussing booth babes as “causes” is what I call “smoke screen”.

Smoke Screen

The main discussion will follow still, but before that, many of you may know that I love to discuss on the matter of Fallacies. Many state that: “one of the causes for we having so few women in the technology field is because we have booth babes in conferences!”

This is pure Smoke Screen also known as the Red Herring Fallacy. It means to present an irrelevant topic, taking away the attention from the main problem. From the linked article: The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

• Topic A is under discussion.
• Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
• Topic A is abandoned.

Beware! While we keep on discussing stuff such as “should booth babes exist?”, “should they use more clothing?” and stuff like that, the real question “why we have fewer women in IT?” will keep on being ignored and unanswered.

My conclusion up until here: the IT area if full of men. Men like attractive women, this is a fact. Companies know that, empirically, which is why they hire booth babes. This leads to a Cognitive bias making the company’s brand unconsciously more attractive. As I always like to discuss: we like to think of ourselves as rational beings, but most of the time we are Predictably Irrational. Now, the main fact remains: why are there so many men in this area?

If our field was mostly comprised of women, or at least having equal shares of men and women, decisions being made down the chain could be different. If, for example, half of the CEOs were women there would be less babes, because it would be embarrassing for the company to welcome so many women executives like that. In this case maybe we would have equal shares of booth babes and booth boys. Who knows?

Cognitive Bias

Now let me expand this argument: “why are there less men than women in areas such as nursing and fashion?” I remembered the Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers movies where the main character played by Ben Stiller is a nurse and the author decided to name him “Gaylord Focker”! And everybody makes jokes about both: the profession and the name.

In a recent talk in Brazil called Understand Software the Correct Way I go through work being done in brain research, from Antonio Damasio and others, and I explain that our brain is an exceptional pattern matching machine. As such it also has its pitfalls in a world where most things are purely random. Stereotypes work that way. Our brain automatically recognizes that “men that work in fashion are, obviously, homosexuals”, although this couldn’t be far from the truth as well.

We also have the stereotype that “men are better than women in math, and women are better in arts and social skills.”

This is repeated hundreds of times since our youth. Why is this relevant? Going back to the subject of booth babes so we can close this fallacy once and for all: women are not stupid, so stop treating them like so! When we assume that they leave technology because of that, we are saying that they are so shallow that even something as small as booth babes is enough to make them leave! Of course not, and there is more: those conferences are attended by people who already are in this area, meaning that it says nothing about the reason on why girls are not choosing technology in college or even before, at high school. Therefore, we can bury this argument as being totally irrelevant.

Many of us started playing with technology since we were children, in the 70’s and 80’s. Today the barrier is even lower. But while we keep gifting girls with Barbie dolls and boys with videogames, while we keep saying the children that boys are better in math than girls, we will continue destroying the self-esteem of girls.

This is, of course, only one of the many reasons. But I think it is very relevant because it leads exactly to Cognitive Bias, as I mentioned above. According to Wikipedia: A cognitive bias is the human tendency to make systematic errors in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. Such biases can result from information-processing shortcuts called heuristics. They include errors in statistical judgment, social attribution, and memory. Cognitive biases are a common outcome of human thought, and often drastically skew the reliability of anecdotal and legal evidence. It is a phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology.

I am also reading an excellent report called Why so Few? published in February of this year by AAUW (American Association of University Women). I recommend reading it. They dissect dozens of issues. Take this excerpt from the report:

The issue of self-assessment, or how we view our own abilities, is another area where cultural factors have been found to limit girls’ interest in mathematics and mathematically challeng- ing careers. Research profiled in the report finds that girls assess their mathematical abilities lower than do boys with similar mathematical achievements. At the same time, girls hold themselves to a higher standard than boys do in subjects like math, believing that they have to be exceptional to succeed in “male” fields. One result of girls’ lower self-assessment of their math ability—even in the face of good grades and test scores—and their higher standards for performance is that fewer girls than boys aspire to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) careers. By emphasizing that girls and boys achieve equally well in math and science, parents and teachers can encourage girls to assess their skills more accurately.

Joshua Aronson, an associate professor of developmental, social, and educational psychology at New York University states:

Girls do every bit as well in their graded work [as] boys [do], but girls lose confidence as they advance through the grades and will start to do more poorly than boys on the timed tests, despite getting good grades. One reason for this loss of confidence is the stereotyping that kids are exposed to — in school and the media and even in the home—that portrays boys as more innately gifted [in math]. Without denying the fact that boys may have some biological advantage, I think that psychology plays a big role here.

Shelley Correll, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University, says:

Boys do not pursue mathematical activities at a higher rate than girls do because they are better at mathematics. They do so, at least partially, because they think they are better.

We have worse: the stereotype says that men are good in math and engineer but lack social skills, but women are much better in social skills, they know how to deal with other people. This is “common sense”. And this is also fatal in the workplace when women pursue a career in STEM or other male dominated area because the demand will be: “she has to be technically and socially competent!” Meaning that most will demand double the competency from women than from men. I’ve seen this happen. And to make the worst even worse, there are still companies that pay less for women in the same job position than men.

I am also tired of hearing stuff like: “this guy is technically awesome, but …” We have all met those professionals who are kind of “geniuses”, they know every technical detail, but they are completely unable to have a social life. We, men, tolerate that. If it was a woman we would say “don’t worry, just P.M.S.” or any stupid joke like that. But some men consider this kind of anti-social behavior as a virtue: “my man!” If any company think like that, it deserves to collapse soon. My recommendation: every time you are faced with an employee where people say “he is technically good, but … lack social skills” let him go, for once, it is not worth the headache.

But I digress. Let’s now see what Madeline Heilman, professor of psychology at New York University, has to say:

Doing what men do, as well as they do it, does not seem to be enough; women must additionally be able to manage the delicate balance of being both competent and communal.

Also recently, The New York Times discussed if maybe investors are not biased to dismiss entrepreneurial women. There are statements such as these:

But when she was raising money for Crimson Hexagon, a start-up company she co-founded in 2007, she recalls one venture capitalist telling her that it didn’t matter that she didn’t have business cards, because all they would say was “Mom.”

The NYTimes is not saying that all investors are like that, the majority are probably not, but this is a behavior that we still see around, in sufficient quantities to make it difficult for some women who want to take risks. Following in the article:

Women own 40 percent of the private businesses in the United States, according to the Center for Women’s Business Research. But they create only 8 percent of the venture-backed tech start-ups, according to Astia, a nonprofit group that advises female entrepreneurs.

That disparity reaches beyond entrepreneurs. Women account for just 6 percent of the chief executives of the top 100 tech companies, and 22 percent of the software engineers at tech companies over all, according to the National Center for Women and Information Technology. And among venture capitalists, the population of financiers who control the purse strings for a majority of tech start-ups, just 14 percent are women, the National Venture Capital Association says.

Patronizing

The word Patronizing means “treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.” And this word, in my opinion, represents the biggest problem when we discuss this subject with men: there is this false notion that “we have to do something to make it easier for women to come to our area.”

This is utterly wrong. We don’t have to facilitate, in the sense of “cutting some slack” or something similar. We must not make it more difficult either, such as demanding more from women than from men and paying considerably less, for instance.

There is this article from Eileen Burbidge at TechCrunch that I like. She is an early-stage tech angel/investor and advisor. Which means she knows what she is talking about. Take a look at the following excerpt from the article that I think summarizes it all:

There have been recent calls to give more women a chance within tech; there are calls [presumably to men] to take women more seriously and to work harder at recruiting and attracting women into tech in order to overcome systemic bias in the “system”. I take issue with these approaches and perspectives firstly because I find them patronizing and secondly because I think the call to action is directed at the wrong place.

Don’t patronize me

On the first point, I don’t want someone to cut me some slack or “give me a chance” just because I’m a woman. I don’t want a hand-out, I don’t want to be patronized. I want to be recognized and respected because of what I’m capable of doing and achieving. If someone wants me on their team strictly because I’m a woman, then there’s probably something amiss in that intention. So don’t patronize me, please.

It works both ways — It’s not pleasant (or wise) if someone shuts a door on me strictly because I’m a woman, but I also don’t want the door opened only because I am.

Women need to get rid of the crutch and step it up

On the second point, I don’t think we should just ask men for more opportunities. I think instead we need to get more women to step it up and if they are seeking opportunities in tech (and not getting them), I think they should speak up or look harder. I have a computer science degree and have worked in technology companies my whole career, so I’ve worked mostly with men. I currently work in the @whitebearyard office space with a lot of men over 2 floors. I’m quite certain that each one of them (or at least most of them) are acutely aware whenever there is a woman in the office. Full stop. They know if a woman enters the office, steps into the floor or is here for a meeting. In this setting, women get a lot more attention than “just another guy”. And if a woman in this setting cannot make a positive impression or assert her value as a prospective vendor, partner, employee/consultant, then maybe she’s actually not qualified or capable enough – or not wanting it. All of these guys (and others that I know and work with) would love to work with more women. Most of them talk about the value and advantage to their team which would come from added diversity for product design, team dynamics, communication and emotional intelligence. They’re not opposed to hiring women and some would prefer evenly-qualified female candidates to male ones, but they (and I) don’t often see enough to choose from.

I think this says it all. I am against any kind of hand out to any kind of people, specially if it is because of skin collor, social condition or gender. It is prejudice to mistreat someone because of “X” and it is also equally prejudice to treat someone better because of “X”. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter for good or evil.

The result of cutting a slack is the feeling of low self-esteem and “victimization” where people treated that way feel like they are fragile and need someone to take care of them.

No one is a victim. Women certainly are not. They are smart, they have skills, so it is not for us – men – to think of ourselves of being superior and therefore conclude that we should do something for the “poor little things”. This is wrong and only aggravates the issue.

Conclusion

I don’t expect to come up with a straight answer for such a complex matter. As every real problem, there is no simple answer. But there is much to learn if we have perspective and stop discussing irrelevant matters, such as booth babes. If we stop discussing smoke screens and focus on the evidence.

I recommend following the linked article and reports above. We have to make changes on the way we take care of our children. We need to stop assuming that girls like dolls and videogames are for boys, for instance. Teachers and parents need to remove this very old stereotype from their heads. There is a lot to change in the Computer Science courses – I think they are very bad, and I am even amazed that there are still people applying there – but this is a subject for another article.

What we, IT professionals, should do is not discriminate against women in any form: neither mistreat them by paying less and demanding much more, nor patronizing them because they are fragile or inferior. Women are as capable as men, therefore they should have the same conditions and achieve things by their own efforts.

As personal experience, I can say that of the few women I met in this market, one thing that was almost constant is that none of them were “weak”, on the opposite they had attitude and confidence on themselves. Most didn’t act like the “poor ones”. This is very positive. And from the point of view of someone who have recruited in the past, in 10 years maybe I interviewed 1 or 2 girls, at most. As Eileen said: girls need to speak up and look harder. Only very old fashioned companies still hold restrictions on hiring women, and you wouldn’t want to work there anyway, neither would I.

I am not perfect and I also did my share of patronizing women, but no more. At the end, it is women themselves who need to do something about women in technology. We, men, can help by not getting in their way.

Gostou deste artigo? Considere fazer uma doação a este site.

Este é um pequeno truque para a seguinte situação: estou abrindo um dialog box via Ajax (e para isso existem vários plugins como os de jQuery, de YUI e assim por diante). O formulário que se abre serve para fazer upload de imagens ou arquivos. A primeira vontade é usar algo como um remote_form_for e enviar um POST via Ajax. Mas isso não é possível para situações de upload – Javascript não deveria mesmo ter privilégios para acessar arquivos na sua máquina local, a menos que você use Firefox e use esta configuração. O que fazer?

O truque é bem conhecido e simples: basta ter um iframe escondido na página e mudar o target do form para mandar o POST para lá. Algo assim:

1
2
3
4

<% form_for(user, :html => { :target => "hiddenForm", :multipart => true }) do |f| %>
...
<% end %>
<iframe id="hiddenForm" name="hiddenForm" style="display:none" />

Isso vai funcionar bem, o POST vai para o controller e a action adequada e ele pode retornar Javascript para atualizar o que for necessário na página, como fechar o dialog box. Mas há um problema: o Javascript vai rodar dentro do iframe e não fará o que precisa.

A solução é simples: basta que o Javascript rode no contexto do window.parent no iframe e aí tudo vai funcionar. Existe um plugin que facilita isso, se chama respond_to_parent e no controller basta fazer algo assim:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

  def create
    @user = User.create(params[:user])

    respond_to_parent do 
      respond_to do |format|
        format.js
      end
    end
 end

Para instalar, tendo o Git já pré-instalado, claro, basta fazer isto no seu projeto:

1

ruby script/plugin install git://github.com/markcatley/responds_to_parent.git

Ou seja, basta passar coisas como o respond_to ou render como um bloco ao método respond_to_parent. Daí ele vai retornar algo assim:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

var loc = document.location;
with(window.parent) { 
  setTimeout(function() { 
    window.eval('Element.insert(\"users\", ... );\nModalbox.hide();\n'); 
    window.loc && loc.replace('about:blank'); 
  }, 1) 
}

Para facilitar o entendimento eu coloquei no Github um micro-app só para demonstrar essa funcionalidade. Você pode baixar assim:

1
2
3
4

git clone git://github.com/akitaonrails/demo_responds_to_parent.git
cd demo_responds_to_parent
rake db:migrate
ruby script/server

Garantindo que você tem ImageMagick, RMagick e Paperclip instalado para o exemplo funcionar. Para não sair muito do padrão do Rails 2.3 (que usa Prototype e Scriptaculous) também estou usando o ModalBox que é um dialog box razoável se você não usa jQuery ou YUI.

Uma pequena dica, talvez seja útil.

Gostou deste artigo? Considere fazer uma doação a este site.

Porto Alegre estava com o clima frio, bem frio, mesmo assim nossos grandes amigos cariocas do #HoraExtra não deixaram de esquentar o show no #FISL. Coisas que só acontecem quando você está se divertindo: eles tiveram a idéia de, em vez de ficar assistindo palestras, por que não codificar? Codificar qualquer coisa sempre é exercício, e exercitar é essencial para não definhar.

Eu não participei da codificação mas a idéia foi inspiradora porque me bateu uma grande nostalgia. Quando começamos a programar, começamos porque gostamos. Programar sempre foi algo divertido, descompromissado, desafiador, não importa se é útil, não importa se é bonito, não importa se é completo. Mas com o passar do tempo nós nos “profissionalizamos” e de repente programar passou a trazer várias preocupações: “mas tem utilidade?”, “mas pra fazer completo dá trabalho”, “mas tem que planejar antes”, “mas vai custar caro, ou demorar muito”. Vários “mas”, “mas”. E aí programar já não é mais divertido.

Por isso essa idéia trouxe de volta um pouco desse espírito. Por que não escrever e publicar aplicativos pequenos, só pela diversão de fazer algum código? Foi assim que durante os 4 dias do #FISL eles publicaram nada menos do que 6 aplicativos, uma média de 1.5 aplicativos por dia! E para isso não foi preciso muita coisa: bastou juntar 3 ou 4 pessoas numa mesa, criar um repositório no Github e depois fazer deployment no Heroku, tudo hiper simples.

A premissa é que as aplicações eram simples, faziam apenas uma coisa da forma mais simples possível. Na média não se levava muito mais do que 4 horas para fazer cada aplicação. Graças ao Heroku com literalmente um simples “git push heroku master” a aplicação ia pro ar, sem gastar horas de configuração e administração de um servidor. Ou seja, graças às ferramentas criadas pela comunidade Ruby on Rails, existe praticamente atrito zero para colocar uma aplicação no ar. Foi um grande showcase dessas ferramentas também.

Eu não vou descrever o que cada aplicativo faz porque como eles são bem simples a própria descoberta faz parte da experiência, então apenas cliquem nas imagens para abrí-las:

Os repositórios de cada projeto no Github são:

• Desoroscopo
• Banheiro
• DeRessaca (este é em Python!)
• Dojomap
• Bullshitômetro
• Descertificador

Tanto no Github quanto no Heroku, se o projeto é open source e aberto, você não paga nada. Então, vejam o código desses projetos para começar e colaborem! Basta fazer um Fork, corrigir um erro de português aqui, acertar um CSS ali. Não existe contribuição pequena.

Boa diversão!

Gostou deste artigo? Considere fazer uma doação a este site.

Pessoal, por demora minha acabou não saindo a descrição das minhas palestras na programação impressa do FISL. As duas serão no sábado, dia 24 (amanhã!), a partir das 11hrs da manhã. Me ajudem a divulgar!

A primeira será no auditório do Prédio 5 das 11h até as 13h. Lembrando que é um pouco afastado do prédio 41 principal então comecem a chegar cedo.

• Ecossistema Ruby on Rails – Ruby on Rails é muito mais do que apenas um mero framework web MVC. Esse é apenas a ponta do iceberg. A parte mais importante é o ecossistema que se formou à sua volta, trazendo soluções completas em diversas áreas como deployment, e filosofias de empreendedorismo e desenvolvimento ágil. Para ser Ruby on Rails não basta ser apenas um mero framework, isso é muito trivial, a realidade é conseguir criar um ecossistema dinâmico e inovador. É sobre isso que vamos discutir nessa introdução ao Ecossistema Ruby on Rails.

A segunda será no auditório 41-C, no prédio principal, das 13h às 14h. Esta é no prédio principal e será logo em seguida da anterior, vou deixar um tempo para o pessoal poder se mover para o outro prédio. Outra coisa, logo em seguida da minha, na mesma sala 41-C será o mini-curso de Rails do Daniel V. Lopes, às 15h. Entre as duas haverá um slot vago e a organização permitiu que eu esticasse minha palestra para usar parte desse slot, dessa forma o pessoal já pode emendar as duas. Ou seja, será um hiper-combo de Ruby e Rails desde as 11h da manhã até as 17h!

• Dicas de Desenvolvimento Web com Ruby – Muitas vezes as aplicações Web são lentas, pesadas. Se o desenvolvedor não tem experiência, uma das primeiras coisas que lhe vêm à cabeça é: “simples, o problema é a linguagem, vamos reescrever em outra mais rápida que tudo se resolve”. E isso nunca é verdade. O maior problema da lentidão de sites e aplicações é o entendimento pobre da arquitetura Web e suas alternativas. Esta apresentação tem como objetivo dar uma pequena introdução a esse problema e algumas soluções muito simples usando Ruby e Rails. As técnicas e conceitos demonstrados não são exclusivas de Ruby e podem ser aproveitadas em qualquer outra plataforma Web.

A minha primeira palestra é mais dedicada a quem está começando a tentar entender Ruby e Rails, mas mais do que código o importante é entender o contexto, a comunidade, as opções. Já a segunda é para quem é desenvolvedor. Esta é boa para quem ainda não começou para ver soluções práticas mas também para quem já está desenvolvendo e quer aprender novas técnicas. Ou seja, a primeira será mais conceitual, apresentando os conceitos importantes para começar bem com Ruby e Rails e a segunda será mais prática e técnica. Espero ver todos nas duas e também no mini-curso do Daniel em seguida :-)

E mais uma vez, como a programação impressa está desatualizada, por favor ajudem a divulgar! Valeu!

Gostou deste artigo? Considere fazer uma doação a este site.

Atualização 12/07: Otimizei os vídeos e os tamanhos caíram de 1GB para 214MB. A versão iPhone ficou com 156MB. Quem já comprou pode baixar novamente usando os mesmos links que receberam por e-mail. A vantagem é que a qualidade é praticamente a mesma, mas com peso muito menor.

Esta é a gravação em forma de screencast da palestra que ministrei esta semana na USP sobre o tema “Entenda Software da Maneira Correta”, no evento Wire 2010.

O mundo de TI está cheio de processos, metodologias, consultorias, certificações, MBAs, mestrados, etc e ainda assim é comum ver projetos de software sofrendo para saírem com qualidade. Por outro lado, temos milhares de programadores, muitos hobistas, voluntariando para criar software sem coordenação central, saindo com código de alta qualidade que muitos dependem no dia a dia, desde Linux até Firefox.

R$4.99

Dentro dessa premissa, assista este screencast para saber o que Open Source, Darwin, Galvão Bueno e até Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson tem a ver com o modelo correto de desenvolvimento de software.

Parte deste tema eu discuti no meu outro blog, no artigo Processos, Metodologias e o Cérebro Humano e me inspirei também no paper de Ko Kuwabara, Linux: A Bazaar at the Edge of Chaos.

Quando o pagamento for confirmado você receberá um e-mail com o link para o download. O vídeo tem 214MB de tamanho em formato de 800×600 com 1h e 10min de duração. Acompanha versão em iPhone com 156MB em formato 480×360. Veja um Preview abaixo:

E se quiserem saber mais sobre este assunto e também ver como é o formato de uma palestra minha gravada como screencast, assistam a minha palestra “Desmembrando Pessoas”, que apresentei pelo Encontro Locaweb no começo do ano e coloquei gratuitamente aqui:

Primeiro Screencast Comercial do AkitaOnRails.com

Desde 2006 mantenho este blog para continuar sempre informando e criando material para a comunidade Ruby on Rails, e pretendo continuar fazendo isso.

Porém, muito desse conteúdo realmente me consome uma quantidade grande de tempo, em especial screencasts. Esta palestra, por exemplo, foi o trabalho de 3 dias ininterruptos, isso sem contar, claro, o tempo anterior de pesquisa.

Todo o conteúdo deste blog continuará gratuito como sempre foi, mas pretendo começar a criar mais screencasts, com mais qualidade de acabamento e com mais variância de temas, tanto para iniciantes que estão começando com Rails quanto técnicas avançadas para quem já é Railer. O modelo não é diferente do que o Peepcode ou o Envycasts fazem.

Este primeiro screencast é um experimento para saber qual a aceitação desta comunidade para este tipo de serviço. Inclusive gostaria de saber a opinião de vocês, sugestões, críticas e tudo mais que possa agregar para continuar melhorando meus serviços.

Espero que todos gostem.

Gostou deste artigo? Considere fazer uma doação a este site.