Huffduffer. It's a creation of web developer Jeremy Keith, who says he originally invented this tool for himself to fill a simple need.

Like many online tools with staying power, 'filling a simple need' is often the first litmus test for success. The second is filling a simple need well. And this site does the job very well. Huffduffer is an easy-to-use, elegant, friendly way to create your own personal podcast stream from found audio on the web. The part that makes Huffduffer so useful is RSS feed creation. It's easy to bookmark audio, but not so easy to create an iTunes-compatible RSS feed. I think of it this way: Huffduffer is to audio what Instapaper is to text.

I must admit, though, that I have only just started using this tool as intended. So far, I've primarily been using it as a discovery tool to find audio content I otherwise would not have known existed by subscribing to Huffduffer's 'Popular' feed. As you may surmise, this feed delivers a steady stream of what other people are 'Huffduffing.' The downside to this stream is that there are often many duplicate posts, so you'll find yourself often deleting entries that you've seen before. The upside is that the content is usually interesting and there's plenty of new content every day. For my long daily train commute, this feed is most welcome.

You'll find that much of the 'popular content' tends to be in the vein of tech, design, web design/development, science fiction, speculative science, and hard science. This surely says a lot about the core users of the site. And this makes sense given who created it: I surmise that site usage has spread mainly by word-of-mouth and via conferences. I, for instance, discovered it a web design conference where Jeremy Keith was speaking. So if you are particularly interested in this type of content, you'll get a lot out of this feed. As a secondary benefit, the popular feed has helped me find many a new podcast to subscribe to via iTunes. Now I need to start huffduffing some of my own 'found audio.' 

Here are a few recent items from the 'popular' feed that I really enjoyed:

Conversation with William Gibson — A discussion with William Gibson about where we are headed in the post-internet age.

Arthur C. Clarke, Alvin Toffler, Margaret Mead —  A talk recorded in 1970 about the future. From the show notes on Huffduffer: "At the time of this recording Arthur C. Clarke had recently collaborated on the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey with Stanley Kubrick. Alvin Toffler’s mega-influential book, Future Shock, is about to be published. And Margaret Mead is the world’s foremost cultural anthropologist."

Kevin Kelly interview — An interview with Kelly about his new book, "What Technology Wants." Fascinating stuff.

The Value of Ruins — James Bridle from dConstruct 2010 (a design & creativity conference) asks "as we design our future, should we be concerned with the value of our ruins?" 

If you'd like some more background, check out this interview with Jeremy Keith on Huffduffer. And if you're curious about the meaning behind the word 'Huffduffer,' here's an explanation.

Over the past few months, a slew of interesting little tools made the rounds in various tech blogs. I thought I’d compile some of the more interesting ones here (and add a few of my personal favorites):

f.lux

This free tool auto-adjusts the color temperature of your display(s) to match the time of day and your lighting source. The night mode is much easier on the eyes. Very pleasant. It can be temporarily disabled for those times when you’re engaged in a design project and need full color.

Alternative: Nocturne (from the developer of QuickSilver) offers ‘night vision mode for your Mac.’ It’s not nearly as subtle and elegant as f.lux, but you can adjust the settings to your liking. It’s especially great if you like it really dark when you’re computing at night…or if you like funky, inverted color schemes.

Cinch

The answer to Windows 7 ‘Snap’ feature, this $7 tool allows you to instantly resize any open window by dragging it to an edge of your screen. It’s particularly great for managing multiple Finder windows on a small laptop screen. I use PathFinder (which offers dual pane and tabbed browsing to the Finder) and don’t really feel that I have a need for this, but it’s a great tool nonetheless.

Readability

This is the only way to read articles on the Web. It removes all the extra formatting, ads, buttons, colors, and other clutter that surrounds a typical Web-based article, leaving only the text you want to read.

I use Readability for articles I want to read now, and Instapaper for articles I want to read later on my iPhone (using the Instapaper Pro iPhone app).

Choosy

If you’re like me and have many installed browsers, this $12 tool is a necessity. It allows you to choose which browser to use when opening an external link or when opening up an HTML file. You can also add other apps to the list. I have Choosy set to prompt me with a pop-up list of all browsers (prioritized with my favorites appearing first in the list), regardless of whether or not the browsers are running. I’ve also added MacRabbit’s Espresso as a ‘browser’ to send HTML files direct to this web development tool.

Alternative: I haven’t tried this one, but you may also want to check out Highbrow.

OmmWriter

A unique tool that’s still in Beta (so it’s free to try), Ommwriter delivers a full-screen, clutter-free writing environment. This app focuses on setting the mood to foster a creative spirit, offering several nice fonts, a choice of ethereal background sounds, and a variety of subtle keyboard clicking noises that I find annoying (the sounds can be turned off).

I still prefer the retro simplicity of WriteRoom from Hog Bay Software when I need to focus on writing. I use it in combination with Hog Bay’s QuickCursor, a wonderful little tool that allows me to edit text from other applications with WriteRoom.

Rapportive

Rapportive replaces the ads you normally see in the right-hand sidebar of Gmail with useful information: a profile of the person you’re emailing. It only works in Firefox and Chrome right now, but I use it via Mailplane (available in the latest preview).

As an aside, if you use Mailplane, you may like the beautifully minimalist Helvetimail style sheet.

SecondBar

This tool places an Apple menu bar on your second monitor. I use it. It works well enough, providing basic menu bar functionality on the extra monitor. It’s quite nice to have the bar on both screens, although it doesn’t work with all apps (that’s because it’s still in early Beta). It’s currently free.

Quix

Quix is an extensible bookmarklet, billed as ‘command line for your browser.’ While it takes some time to learn the commands to use with this tool, it’s worth the effort. I love it.

Skitch

This tool is certainly not new, but it stands apart as the easiest way to capture and mark up screen shots. I use it all the time and will gladly purchase it if and when it ever comes out of Beta.

Feedly

I use Google Reader to manage my feeds, but don’t really like to read feeds with it. Instead, I use Feedly. The more I use this free online service, the more I like it. On my iPhone, I use Byline. Since both tools use the same Google Reader account, my feeds are always synced no matter where I choose to peruse them.

Notational Velocity

In case you haven’t heard, the venerable Notational Velocity is back. This free tool is a simple, minimalist note taking app that is lightning fast. It syncs with Simplenote on the iPhone. It’s still in Beta, but it’s performed flawlessly for me so far.

Before I started using NV again (I had used it many years ago), I was using another great tool called Justnotes (which is currently free and also syncs with Simplenote). It feels a bit heavier and is a touch slower than NV, but it’s still in early Beta. It’s certainly worth checking out. Which one you prefer may come down to your personal design tastes. There is one important difference, though, that may help you make a choice: Justnotes installs in the menu bar, while NV resides in the Dock.

Last week, the tech world was abuzz with the launch of Google's new public Domain Name System (DNS) resolution service.

Since I posted a while back about OpenDNS, I thought I'd share my thoughts on this subject. The main question I set out to answer is whether or not I should switch from OpenDNS to Google's Public DNS?

As I began this experiment, my most important criteria was speed. Which service offers the fastest browsing experience? To answer that, I searched around and discovered this helpful post on TechSutra — Google DNS vs OpenDNS: Google Rocks for International Users.

One of the readers over at TechSutra (Stevan Bajić) wrote the following bash script to test out the speed of four popular alternative DNS services. To use this script, run this in terminal (you can enter any domains you want here):

#!/bin/sh
isp=$(dig +noall +stats 2>&1 | awk '$2~/^SERVER:$/{split($3,dnsip,"#");print dnsip[1]}');
m="-------------------------------------------------------------------------------";
s="                                                                               ";
h="+${m:0:25}+${m:0:12}+${m:0:12}+${m:0:12}+${m:0:12}+${m:0:12}+";
header=("Domain${s:0:23}" "Your ISP${s:0:10}" "Google${s:0:10}" "4.2.2.2${s:0:10}" "OpenDNS${s:0:10}" "DNS Adv.${s:0:10}");
echo "${h}";
echo "| ${header[0]:0:23} | ${header[1]:0:10} | ${header[2]:0:10} | ${header[3]:0:10} | ${header[4]:0:10} | ${header[5]:0:10} |";
echo "${h}";
for i in "lifehacker.com" "facebook.com" "viewfromthedock.com"  "reddit.com" "tb4.fr" "bbc.co.uk";
do
  ii="${i}${s:23}";
  echo -ne "| ${ii:0:23} |";
  for j in "${isp}"  "8.8.8.8"  "4.2.2.2" "208.67.222.222" "156.154.70.1";
  do
    r="${s:10}$(dig +noall +stats +time=9 @${j} ${i} 2>&1 | awk '$2~/^Query$/{print $4" "$5}')";
    echo -ne " ${r:${#r}-10} |";
  done
  echo -ne "n${h}n";
done

I ran tests at different times of the day, and on different days. For me, OpenDNS and Google were consistently fast. Results for Level3, DNS Advantage, and my ISP varied widely (sometimes I'd get decent results, sometimes response times were abysmal).

While the results I received from Google and OpenDNS were best, the difference in speed between the two was negligible. We're talking milliseconds here, after all. I don't think I'm really going to notice the difference between a response time of, say, 11 ms and 13ms (although research indicates that milliseconds do makes a difference).

 

One think to keep in mind is that the initial test you perform may return slower results than subsequent tests for some obscure sites. The first time you search for www.threetastes.com, for example, (my wife's blog) the DNS service will likely have to go out and get this IP address from an authoritative server. After that first lookup, the IP will be cached with the DNS server, so the response time will be quicker for subsequent tests. In short, run multiple tests.

My results jibe with those coming in from readers at TechSutra: that OpenDNS may have a slight edge for many U.S. locations, while Google DNS may have the edge for users outside of the U.S. Best to test it out the alternatives for yourself.

So, I've established that Google DNS and OpenDNS offer comparably faster DNS lookups compared to my ISP. Both services also offer security features to make browsing safer (my ISP may have these features, but I have no way of knowing what's going as these details aren't published. I have greater confidence that Google and OpenDNS DNS servers are not and will not be compromised).

Now, which to choose?

1. Do I want to use yet another Google service?

I'm not too worried about this. Google privacy policy is very clear. I've experienced no cause for concern with my Google services.

2. Do I have a problem with the way OpenDNS operates?

When I began this comparison, the answer was 'not really.' After pondering this for a while, I have to say I do have a problem. With OpenDNS, if you type in a domain that does not exist, you are redirected to an OpenDNS ad-based search page. This is bad behavior. I knew this already, but I didn't worry about. I turned off NX Domain redirection in my OpenDNS user settings. Here's the part that annoys me: OpenDNS describes this feature as 'typo correction,' but say nothing about how this is tied to redirection to their own ad page if the domain can't be resolved. They should take a cue from Google and explain this more clearly. Sure, this service corrects typos (changes .cmo to .com, for example), but this is only a minor feature of a service that's really about generating revenue from the mistakes people make in entering URLs. In addition, when you perform a Google Search using OpenDNS, your request is redirected to an OpenDNS server before going to Google by default. This may also be turned off (by unchecking 'Enable OpenDNS Proxy') but it's not really clear how to do it. And let's face it, most users aren't going to mess with OpenDNS advanced settings. Lastly, you must have BOTH 'Enable OpenDNS Proxy' and 'Typo Correction' turned on to enjoy the benefits of OpenDNS' content filtering features (one of the big reasons people like OpenDNS).

Here's the bottom line: OpenDNS offers a fast DNS service that includes many extra free or pay features. It's a good option if you need those extra features and aren't worried about the way the service handles your requests. The main gripe I have with OpenDNS is that they are not transparent about how they're doing business. Google, on the other hand, offers a fast DNS service and reliable security features. It's a good option if you don't need extra bells and whistles.

Think I'll switch over to Google DNS.