Podcast #15: Phones & Online Bullies

In our 15th podcast we couldn’t decide whether to talk phones or bullies. Luckily, Gossip Girl solved all our problems and we talked about them both!

Listen Online


First off all, we’re sorry it took us so long to actually write (or talk) about the Palm Pre & the Palm Pixi, but as women of our word we finally got around to it. Overall we’re both married to our iPhones, but at the end of the day there were some things (like real keys, tethering, and the ability to run multiple apps) that really got us excited about these phones. They’re definitely worth a look if you’re in the market for a new phone and want to avoid the horror known as AT&T.

Also, when we recorded this last week we joked that because we now have the 3GS, it’s certain that a 4G will be coming soon. Well, guess what was announced yesterday? AUUUUGGH!

Moving onward, let’s crush cyber bullies! There is much gnashing of teeth about the problem of kids using technology to bully each other. It’s a serious problem, and one that we have a few thoughts around. But, how about this: has anyone noticed how poorly many adults behave online? There are some comments even on this blog that display some pretty poor manners. So, how about we all clean up our act and remember that on the other side of the screen there’s a person with feelings.

Okay. Now, let’s hug.

Hit us up with questions in the comments, or over on our Facebook page.

Storytelling in the Facebook Era

For several weeks the tech world, and much of the mainstream population,  has been buzzing with discussion around Facebook and privacy.  It turns out that Mark Zuckerburg (Facebook’s founder and CEO) and his crew think sharing, and not privacy, should be the new default and they had set out to make that a reality.  The anxiety really hit full throttle during the Facebook developer conference when Zuckerburg announced some significant changes around who has access to the data that Facebook collects and how it might be used.  People are angry and confused.  Some senators have even authored a letter to Zuckerburg asking him to rethink the default privacy settings they were rolling out. Then last week Zuckerberg announced that Facebook has decided to readdress the default settings and make it easier for people to keep their information under wraps. Still, people are continuing to react to and push back on the issue of privacy and protections around information they share online. There are boycotts of Facebook in the works.  This is serious business – not a day has passed without some significant, front page media coverage of the controversy.

I strongly believe this discussion, as loud and emotional as it feels, is necessary because it is shaping the bigger issue of evolution – ours and how we communicate. But, believe it or not, this blog post isn’t really about the privacy settings themselves.  Instead, this post is about something I’ve been considering for quite some time and it has only become more obvious to me since the volume of this privacy discussion has gotten so loud.  In some ways I think Zuckerburg forcing our hands on the issue of privacy is also forcing something we should have instinctively been better about.  Because we’re suddenly so concerned about who has access to all of our personal information I think we’re also suddenly being much more thoughtful about what we choose to share.  The bite in the butt is — we should have seen this as a critical issue and been this thoughtful all along. But, as the saying goes, better late than never.  We are all curators of content, archivers, historians and storytellers.  This is a much bigger responsibility than we imagined when we started posting pictures of ourselves in our underwear standing next to the keg (present company excluded, of course).  Wherever Facebook ends up in this privacy debate, whether or not they actually address the concerns of the public, really doesn’t matter.  All of us are starting to realize a new responsibility – to ourselves and to our current and future audiences.

It used to be that only certain stories – the more polished or politically appropriate stories – were published for the world to see.  Publishers decided what was worthy of mass consumption.  The rest of the world were consumers of print and, eventually, consumers of all media.  All media worked like this and people got rich off of it.  Big newspaper publishers decided what was news and got rich.  Big motion picture studios decided what was entertainment and got rich.  Big television networks decided what was worthy of our living rooms.  The media in the last few years has become fragmented by social media and consumer generated content.  But the term consumer ‘generated’ doesn’t really tell the whole story, does it?  We aren’t just ‘generating’ or ‘creating’ content, we’re publishing it – to a global audience.  And because of the immediacy and the ease-of-use of the technology we’ve significantly underestimated the reach, or potential reach of our content.  When the big rich media tycoons owned everything we didn’t think twice about distribution and reach.  Now that we are contributing to this global archive and telling our stories – we still aren’t thinking twice about distribution and reach.  What’s more, because of the immediacy of the experience of publishing, we aren’t really thinking about the importance of the content.  See, because we are all (suddenly) historians, archivists, story-tellers.  We are all recording history — our own, our family history, brand stories.  It seems to me if we start thinking of it as something that carries a little more weight, something that has more cultural importance,  then suddenly the issue of Facebook privacy pales in comparison to our responsibility as content creators.  I guess I am just suggesting that instead of demonizing Facebook (which is really so easy to do) it’s time to think bigger picture.  It’s time to recognize that communication and the documentation of history and the sharing of stories looks much different than in past generations and it’s just going to continue to change.  Instead of worrying whether or not Facebook is going to let the world, or future employers see pictures of you with your pants on your head, I would suggest you simply be more thoughtful when you consider publishing those (granted, sometimes you have no choice because someone else does it for you).  I just can’t help but feel that we are having the wrong conversations.  Instead of pushing for privacy, which is clearly changing and certainly isn’t the default, perhaps we should push for thoughtfulness and responsibility in the telling of our stories.

This privacy thing – it’s a losing battle.  We are everywhere.  We’re dropping little breadcrumbs of our lives everywhere we go online and when you add to that all of the intentional or inadvertent content we create or contribute to then you must know there are whole and detailed profiles about you just under the hood of the internet.  Yes, some things are sacred — like social security numbers and how much you weigh.  But think about it – they are sacred because WE (that’s the collective we – which means everybody) treat them that way.  It’s a culturally accepted fact that social security numbers are sacred.  It used to be a cultural reality that stories were sacred.  Passed down from generation to generation and shared during special occasions.  Maybe they were embellished with detail for dramatic flair, but that was done with reverence and out of pride.  Now stories are just immediate –  someone shoves a beer bong up their nose, someone else takes video of it, and we don’t think twice about sharing that with the world.  I’m not suggesting that a beer bong in the nose is not share-worthy.  I am suggesting though, that if all you share is beer bong stunts than you become the beer bong guy and is that really who you want to be?  You get my drift.  There is a need for maybe a little more reverence in how we communicate. No – this doesn’t mean we are not humorous or ironic or even inappropriate.  I think we really need to start thinking about telling the stories that are worthy of our time and energy and attention.  What picture are you painting?  What legacy are you leaving? When it’s all compiled – someday, by someone else, looking to discover who we were in this bygone era – well, who will we be?  A generation fighting against an inevitable evolution?  Or a generation that embraced change and recognized our responsibility within it?  I, for one, would like to be among the latter.  I am blessed by the brilliant people in my world, a career I am passionate about, a fantastic family, a good life.  There’s a story there.  I’m going to tell it.

Geek of the Week: Sarah Evans

The Geek Girls are excited to bring you the first Geek of the Week, which will be a new series in which we feature someone who’s well, a geek. These people can be self proclaimed geeks, people using technology to further their career, or seriously geeky geeks who make rockets and other geeky things.

It’s important to know that while the we can validate that the people we feature are in fact geeks (because they say so or someone else says so or their geekiness cannot be denied), it doesn’t mean we’re endorsing them over the other geeks out there. We love all geeks, but there are only so many weeks in a year.

Now, to start us off, for this week’s geek I interviewed Sarah Evans (@PRSarahEvans). Sarah is a PR Geek with cred to back her up like, over 40,000 followers on Twitter, a Vanity Fair article (America’s Tweethearts) and numerous of her own articles featured on the social media giant Mashable.

Sarah tells us about how she got to where she is today, including some work with myself back before the 40,000 followers, and where she thinks she’s going in the future. She also tells us about her personal motto, and gives some advice for other geeks out there that want to kick up their geek skills.

Listen Online

Are you a geek? Do you know a geek? Is there someone you’d like to hear from? Drop us a line at [email protected] or leave us a comment on our Facebook page and we’ll see what we can do.

Flashbelt Announces 2010 Scholarship Winners

Last year, this blog hosted a heated debate over a presenter at Flashbelt 2009. While a stressful experience for everyone involved, many positive things came out of that very public discussion — one of which was getting to know Flashbelt founder and organizer Dave Schroeder.

For the past three years, Flashbelt has awarded scholarships to attend the four-day conference. This year, the Geek Girls Guide sponsored these scholarships and it’s our pleasure to announce the 2010 winners:

  • Kymberly Wyant, Student – Web & Digital Media Development, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point
  • Arlene Birt, Artist & Teacher, Minneapolis
  • Priscilla Mok, Designer/Developer, Chicago

Each winner was awarded a full scholarship which includes a pre-conference workshop ($259) and registration for the conference ($399).

Dave Schroeder, Flashbelt founder, told us, “It was another tricky year to choose the scholarship recipients. All of the applicants were worthy, but these three people really made great cases for both why they wanted to attend and couldn’t, and what they intend to do with the things they learn at Flashbelt.”

All the applicants this year had very impressive applications. In fact, the applications were so impressive that Dave worked out a special deal for all the them: in addition to the 3 “full rides” he gave a 50% discount to all of the scholarship applicants. “That makes me feel great, because the speaker/session line up this year is the best it’s ever been and I don’t want anyone to miss it,” added Schroeder.

Thanks, Dave. We’re proud to be a part of Flashbelt 2010.

Podcast #13: Facebook Privacy

Lucky number 13! In our 13th podcast we take a look at a topic that never seems to go out of style: Facebook privacy. What do the changes mean to you? What are Facebook’s goals? Can you trust Facebook?

Listen Online


Seriously, by the time we post this there will probably be a new set of Facebook designs and rules — at least that’s what it feels like. In this podcast, we take a look at some of the changes Facebook has made recently, what they mean to you, what they mean to Facebook, and ask the question, “Can Facebook be trusted?”

If we could stress one take-away from this podcast it would be — every time Facebook makes an update, you should revisit your privacy settings. Read them. Ask questions if you don’t understand. Don’t end up in an uncomfortable situation simply because you didn’t take the time to inform yourself.

Other Resources

Meghan referenced a Clay Shirky video, which you can watch here. It’s about 45 minutes, but worth it: Clay Shirky: It’s Not Information Overload. It’s Filter Failure.

A couple of interesting articles on this same topic were circulating on Twitter last week as well:

What do you think? Are we on the money, or full of crap? Was this podcast interesting? We felt like we were being boring, but we sure hope we weren’t!

Hit us up with questions in the comments, or over on our Facebook page (if you dare!).

The Problem With Pink

This weekend, I posted on Facebook and Twitter that my daughter and I “had a discussion about ‘boy colors’ and ‘girl colors’ today. I tried to explain that there are just ‘colors’. She wouldn’t hear of it! While she also admits to liking ‘boy colors’, it still rubs me the wrong way. Our first ideological disagreement!”

The reactions got me thinking. I’m posting it here because, if you stay with me ’til the end, you’ll see how it relates to technology.

Bear with me. I’m a wordy lady.

Boy Colors and Girl Colors

What I wanted to write back to everyone that responded to me on Facebook and Twitter (but instead turned into this blog post), was this: what bothered me about what my daughter said was not that she liked the color pink, but that at four years old she had learned that ALL the other colors (aside from pink and purple) “belonged” to boys. This attitude — that certain things are “for” boys and “for” girls isn’t as innocent or funny as it might seem. It’s a mindset that builds on itself and leads us to treat boys and girls differently, to have different expectations for them, leads them to believe that certain choices are better (read: more appropriate) for them than others and leads us, in adulthood to believe things about women and men that simply aren’t true.

While mulling that over this week, I’ve also been looking for inspiration for decorating the kids’ bedroom. Yep, my son and daughter are going to share a room, at least until they’re old enough to complain about it. (Then, one of them will move to the spare bedroom in the basement.)

In looking for decorating ideas, I was struck by how everything — everything — is divided into stuff for boys, and stuff for girls. Girls’ stuff is pink pink pink pink pink (OMG with the pink!), and maybe some purple or yellow. Theme-wise, it’s animals, flowers, princesses and the like. Overall, it’s all very soft.

Boys’ stuff is every color that isn’t pink or purple. Boys also = robots, trains, cars. Boy stuff is  — in color and subject matter — BOLD.

Boy Toys & Girl Toys

Shopping for kids’ birthday parties over the past year, I’ve noticed that the toy aisles are divided, too. There are boy toys and girl toys. Boy toys are robots, trains, and cars. In other words, things to do. Girl toys are dolls, pets, cooking and cleaning stuff. In other words, things to take care of. (By the way, this really pissed me off when I tried to buy a pack of play food for a boy we know loves cooking in a toy kitchen. The only available containers were pink and purple. What?!)

Now, hey. I’m not begrudging anyone their pink. In fact, I’ve been known to enjoy the color myself. I just don’t want that to be the only option.

My daughter has princess stuff, dolls, and a play kitchen. But, she also has a toolbox and a train set. Last Saturday, she wore a pink dress and glittery shoes to a rocket class at the local science museum.

My son has trucks and loses his mind with glee when he sees a motorcycle drive by, but one of his favorite things to do is to give a bottle to his baby doll and put her to bed. The little kisses he gives that doll make my heart explode.

I’m not saying that like, “Oh, look at me — I’ve figured out how to break gender stereotypes.” But, I have made a conscious effort to create balance in our house. My daughter has a toolbox because I intentionally bought it for her. My son plays with a doll because I offered it as a choice that was equal to anything else he could choose. If all we offer our kids are toys that are prescribed for their gender, that’s all they’ll ever choose. And who could blame them? Their job as children is to learn about the world around them; what are we teaching them with all of this?

Further proof of my point? While working on this blog post, this story about the new Iron Man 2 toys at Burger King came through my Twitter feed. They’re offering “four lifestyle accessories for girls and four action-packed toys for boys.” Awesome.

Where I Get to the Technology Part

A friend gave me some gentle teasing about my Facebook comment above because my current profile photo on Facebook is computer engineer Barbie (hello pink and stereotypes!). But, I LOVE that there is a computer engineer Barbie and that she wears pink. It’s cool because the stereotype that computer engineers can’t be feminine is just as lame as anything else. Get it? You can be both. Nobody “owns” it either way. (Pamela Fox nailed this idea at Ignite Sydney this year.)

Honestly, despite my hand-wringing over my daughter’s color comment, there are lots of positive things going on for girls these days. Adventurous, popular characters like Dora the Explorer give me some hope. But, what about the boys? How long will my son play with a doll before other boys accuse him of acting like a girl? (And — gasp! — is there a bigger insult than to be called a girl?!)

I guess I’m having a moment where I find it striking and bothersome that we divide our boys and girls so early on and then wonder why those stereotypes persist into adulthood — why there aren’t more female computer programmers or male nurses or why women make .77 for every dollar a man earns, even in advanced-degree careers. 

Or how about why companies who appoint women to corporate directorships have unchanged or slightly worse stock peformance, despite the fact that evidence shows that “companies with high numbers of female directors, metrics such as return on equity, return on sales, and return on invested capital are substantially higher than at companies with very few or no female directors.” (quote from the Harvard Business Review) Translation: investors don’t believe women can lead.

My point is that those ideas start somewhere. They start small, and they start early. We soothe ourselves by saying “Oh, boys and girls are just different,” as a way to justify these strange little boxes we are putting them in at such a young age.

Who knows, maybe boys and girls aren’t as different as we think they are. There’s probably no way to definitively know what is the result of nature and what is the result of nurture. But I believe it’s a mistake for us, as a culture, to teach our children that girls aren’t bold and boys aren’t caregivers by only offering them choices that reflect those ideas. As silly as it may sound, it starts with something as simple as “boy colors” and “girl colors.”

I’d like to see us give our kids more credit than that. We’ll all be better for it in the future.

In the meantime, I still don’t know what to do with my kids’ bedroom.

Podcast #12: Social Graces

In our 12th podcast we answer a question from our Men’s Auxiliary about social media etiquette. Namely, how to approach people in real life when you really only know them through Twitter.

*Note: The audio on this podcast is a little wonky. Meghan tried a new setting on the mic, it’s not a good setting, it won’t happen again. Thanks for sticking it out!

Listen Online


We received a question from a Men’s Auxiliary member about social etiquette and how to cross the line from a digital connection to a face-to-face connection.

I am a college student and an emerging graphic designer. On Twitter I follow several members of the Twin Cities design community and for a number of reasons:  I’ve either met them, found out they are employed at a firm I admire, or just because I want to get to know better the community I am starting to join. Through Twitter I see their faces everyday, know what they’re thinking, doing, what they like, hate etc. The other night at Artcrank I saw and approached one of these members of the design community to talk, and I did so casually using their first name. I guess I struck the person off guard as I instantly knew they had no idea who I was or why I was so friendly. I had initiated a conversation with someone I knew a lot about, but who knew nothing about me, and in that awkward moment it dawned on me that we had never actually met face to face and this person wasn’t one of my twitter followers. So I guess I was a stranger, but only I. 

My question is, have either of you heard of, or experienced yourself, the false sense of camaraderie that Twitter provokes? As a student, not yet employed, I had a jolting awakening that following people on twitter doesn’t mean they see what I am up to, and in regards to potential employers and bosses (people that can throw some weight around) that “first impression experience” has still yet to happen.

Your thoughts?

From the men’s auxiliary,

What do you think? Does that explain it? Hit us up with questions in the comments, or over on our Facebook page.

Social Media After a Layoff, by Laura Wadzinski

A few months ago, I had a conversation with Laura, whom I’ve worked with in the past, about her recent job search experience. She had been part of a layoff, and her description of how social media had played into her job search struck me as something the Geek Girls Guide audience might be interested in. Sure, there’s the requisite “using LinkedIn to network” kind of angle, but what was truly unique to me was how social media (namely the Group feature on both Facebook and LinkedIn) had allowed this group of people to remain connected with each other long after the layoff was over.

In my own past, I’ve worked at a couple of advertising agencies where layoffs are a part of life. Lose a big client, and everyone braces themselves for the axe to fall. After a day of layoffs, both those who were let go and those who weren’t would generally meet at a bar somewhere and commisserate. And that’s about where it would end.

But that was before social media gave us the ability to organize ourselves on the fly. And Laura’s story illustrates how a group of people — like the ones let go from her company — can self-organize to continue to provide support to each other long after the layoff.

One of the books I highly recommend to anyone interested in learning more about what social media from a sociological (vs. tactical) perspective is Clay Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody.” (Nancy likes to make fun of my for my Shirky fangirl tendencies, but what can I say?! Dude is brilliant.) The subtitle of his book is “The Power of Organizing Without Organizations” and Laura’s story below illustrates that point perfectly.


This fall I suddenly and unexpectedly lost my job when my position as an interactive marketing planner was eliminated as part of a massive layoff.  As you would imagine (or maybe you know) the days immediately following were extremely confusing and humbling.  I know how to maximize every minute of a 50-hour week job and manage a household, but I felt paralyzed and unsure how to prioritize what to do first, next, or not at all after the layoff.

I began telling myself that I was well-equipped to attack the impending job search.  After all, a job search is the equivalent of developing a marketing plan, of which I’ve spent the bulk of my career in practice. Furthermore, in my most recent position, I was responsible for developing online media strategy (including the use of social networks) for executive recruitment at my company.  So I kept telling myself “I know how to work this thing”.  Then I’d freeze up again.

Within a few days I had my resume updated and was ready to start connecting with my network of friends and former colleagues to help me identify job leads.  The support, information and leads I have received from my established networks on Facebook and LinkedIn have been, and continue to be, incredibly beneficial.

As tactically-focused as I tried to be, there were moments when I couldn’t get through checking my pages without being brought to tears.  Somebody I knew well, or even casually would tell me how sorry they were, tell me I was talented, offer up where they had connections, or ask for my resume so they could pass it along.  The thoughts, the kindness, the offers affected me profoundly. The support and validation from my professional and social networks was as important as the job leads themselves.  I expected some of the kind words and support.  My networks are full of my friends.

What I did not expect was the creation and appearance of a unique group on both Facebook and LinkedIn.  The groups were created by, and for, those individuals that were part of the layoff.  I joined the groups, and would describe them as part job lead swap, and part support group.  When a member comes across a job lead that isn’t a fit for them, they post it.  Usually with an accompanying offer of an introduction to their connection and/or a recommendation.

Recruiters and curious outsiders began requesting entrance to the group and it was put to vote. Some people felt that the more accessible and visible our job search content was, the better (really great point).  However, a majority voted for the Facebook group to stay closed so that we had a confidential and mutually understood place to go, so regardless of whether that day we needed a job lead, a place to vent, or a discussion thread about how to best navigate our severance benefits, it was a safe place to be.  If an unrecognized request to join came through, the group administrator sent it out to the group so someone could vouch.  There actually was a recruiter that got in on the first couple of days before the vote and she graciously announced that she would leave and connect with us on Linked In. We did vote to open the Linked In group to anyone who wanted to help with leads and connections.

The most important thing I learned about using social media in my job search is how powerful it is in delivering qualified job leads.  It helped me avoid the atrophy of sifting through hundreds of openings that were not interesting, or that weren’t a good fit or that I didn’t have a connection to help me get in.  When I did pursue leads, I was going in for my interviews with a recommendation from the connection who had posted the lead.

I also was reminded why I love working in the interactive media space.  It is filled with so many smart, supportive, generous, creative people.  Thank you.

Laura Wadzinski is a Client Services Manager at The Lacek Group.  She has led strategic planning and project management both on the agency side and on the corporate side.

Podcast #11: Don’t Talk Me Out of Hiring You

In our 11th podcast we expand on some thoughts Nancy shared on Future Tense about how women interview for jobs.

Listen Online


ZOMG, we’re dismayed at how differently we’ve seen men and women present themselves in the interviews we’ve been conducting at Clockwork recently. Buck up, ladies! Straighten those shoulders, look us in the eye, and tell us why we SHOULD hire you, not why we shouldn’t.

What do you think? Does that explain it? Hit us up with questions in the comments, or over on our Facebook page.

Gleek Girls Guide

Are you in or around Minneapolis? We’re hosting a Glee premiere party on April 13. You should come (especially if you want to see Nancy sing karaoke)! Get more details and RSVP at gleepremiere.eventbrite.com.

Ada Lovelace Day, Part II: An Ode to Nancy Lyons

Ada Lovelace Day is an international day of blogging to celebrate women in technology and science. Learn more at FindingAda.com and check out a list and a map of all the other blog posts around the world!

Last year, Nancy wrote an embarassingly glowing post about me for Ada Lovelace Day. And she doesnt know I’m doing this, but I owe her back. Big time.

Here’s the deal: I literally would not be where I am today without Nancy Lyons. Forgive me in advance, but this is a long story.

When we met, Nancy was President of Bitstream Underground, an ISP and web development shop in Minneapolis. I was working in account services at a marketing agency, finishing my Bachelor’s Degree at night at the University of Minnesota. I majored in Advertising (copywriting was my focus) because it’s essentially the “family business” and I didn’t know what else to do. In all honesty, I was a little lost (like most people in their 20s, I guess).

The company I worked for had invested in Bitstream and Nancy came to talk to the account services team about how we could best work with her team. She told us about the company, what they did, their culture, their philosophy, how they worked. I was awestruck. The only thought I remember having when I left that room was, “I have got to work for that woman.” I immediately sent her an email that said something like, “I am in love with Bitstream and I want to marry it.” She replied that it was important to her that Bitstream stay single. A correspondence ensued over the next few months in which I relentlessly pursued her for a job and she relentlessly tried to blow me off. At one point she said, “You have got to stop spamming me.” So I couriered a can of SPAM to her office. And that’s how I got my first real interview.

What she gave me when she eventually gave me a job was a chance. Nancy didn’t look at me and see all the things I hadn’t done yet — she looked at me and saw my potential more than anyone else in my life (including me) ever had.

When I started working for her, I had a lot to learn. Like, a lot. But, I did it. I figured it all out and in doing so, I found my calling.

Over the last ten years, Nancy and I have developed a remarkable friendship. If you’ve ever met us, or seen us speak, you know we’re pretty different. Not entirely opposites, but different in many ways. The difference in our approach to things has taught me more than I can probably write here. (Plus, I’m Irish. We’re not an emotive bunch, this is hard for me.)

Nancy believes in leadership through service and I see her live that value every day. Her job is often thankless, and she handles it with grace. She has a generous heart and is truly concerned with the well-being of those who work with and for her. She turns the spotlight on those around her far more often than she shines it on herself. She’s passionate (if you’ve seen us speak, you know what I’m talking about). She’s taught me that you don’t always need to say everything you know. You can have confidence in your own abilities without having to prove yourself to anyone else. You can write your own rules for how to run a company, how to work, how to live. I admire her passion, her intelligence, her unwavering concern for other people. As a business owner, she puts people before profit. Doing the right thing is more important to her than doing the easy thing. She’s incredibly smart about business and technology but posesses sharp emotional intelligence and an ability to read a room and adjust her delivery to the needs of her audience. She speaks her mind fearlessly even when she knows that what she’s saying might piss people off. She doesn’t apologize for being who she is. Also, for a girl, she’s pretty good with computer stuff.

Ada Lovelace Day is about acknowledging the women in technology who have literally shaped our lives. And if you ask me how I got where I am today I can point directly to the moment that Nancy offered me that job at Bitstream and say, “There. See that? Right there, and because of that person, is how I got here.”

I don’t know that I tell her thank you enough. So, hey Nancy: thank you.