Blogless

I was on campus today taking care of some business and I had occasion to indulge myself with a Red Bull. While I stood there drinking, I started to think about which direction the label was facing. I could say I did this because I’m a designer and I’m always thinking of such things, but the truth is that I was concerned with how I looked holding that can in my hand—I’m narcissistic like that. I mean, this is an expensive soft drink; movie stars drink Red Bull. So can people tell that I’m drinking it? Do I look cool?

In this case, the answer was no. The label was facing me, so people were getting an eyeful of Nutrition Facts. I thought to myself, “what a wasted opportunity”. But as I began to think about it, the problem was more complex than I’d first thought. It’s a narrow can. There’s only enough room for a label on one side. So which is more important? Having the label face the customer so it builds association from the shelf to the first drink? Or facing the label outward, to advertise to others that someone is drinking the brand? I think it’s a tough choice. Fish or cut bait, right?

As I quaffed my caffeinated corn syrup, I turned this problem over in my head, but I couldn’t come up with a solution that would satisfy both goals. Everything I thought of was too complicated. When I came back to the refrigerated case for more “research”, I stumbled upon a profound solution, Zen-like in its perfection.

Do nothing.

What I noticed, as I looked over the cans, is that the placement of the mouth is completely random. I assume this is just a quirk of the manufacturing process. On average, the label will face out half of the time and face the drinker half of the time. Pretty elegant, I must say.

All things considered, this is significantly less inflammatory than it might be perceived, for at least three reasons (not including the fact that it has been asserted by GM himself before):

1. The computer-industry-vs-the-speed-of-sound principle: the plain fact is that we’re still talking about 10 to 15 years - “an eternity in technology time” - of exponential increase in the transistor budget for an integrated circuit. (All good curves must come to an end. Ars Technica, September 19, 2007.)
2. The oh-yeah-we’re-still-dealing-with-the-physical-world-here principle: “Something like this can’t continue for ever. If you extrapolate too far you always end in disaster, and we are approaching the size of atoms, and that’s a pretty clear limitation.” (Moore’s Law: at least 10 to 20 years before the limit is reached. Electronics Engineer Magazine, September 20, 2007)
3. The brute-force-isn’t-the-only-strategy-we’ve-got principle: Or, the fact that we’re a creative species, and maybe we’ll continue to dream up clever ways to use all this brute power: “even then that’s not the end of the progress as by then engineers will have a budget of literally millions of transistors on a chip for their designs.” (Ibid.)

This is also interesting for those of us on the software side of things. When we reach a point where either a) we can’t just get more power to fuel inefficient code, operating systems or frameworks or b) chip design ceases to be a math problem and starts to look more like architecture, and thus has to start thinking software earlier and earlier, it’s going to be a game-changing moment.

EEE: With computing performance growing so fast, does the software hold us back?

GM: People can’t develop and debug software properly until they have the hardware so software does tend to lag the hardware. I certainly want a simple interface although I don’t know what it looks like. I think we are losing ground a bit in general purpose computing — its not through a lack of effort but they want to add so many new features its hard to simplify it, but it works pretty well.

Here are some nice trading cards from Intel about Moore’s Law:

Since they were acquired by Yahoo, Flickr has implemented a censorship scheme that is so poorly thought out, it’s offensive.

If you use Flickr, you are obligated to tag anything in your photostream which might be offensive. Later (at night, while you are sleeping, no doubt– like the tooth fairy, but with uncompromising moral fiber), someone at Flickr will look at your account and verify that you have correctly tagged your offensive images. If you do not do this, or Flickr disagrees with your self-policing, your account is labeled as ‘unsafe’. Oh, and anyone else can decide to come along later and tag your images as offensive, too. Presumably, this could render you ‘unsafe’, as well.

I give them credit for making the whole scheme usable on their site, but the underlying logic is flawed. I would need a chart to graph the *numerous* ways this could potentially get under people’s skin. Indeed, this is a no-win for Flickr.

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = …

In short, the ‘unsafe’ label is digital McCarthyism. You are expected to tell on yourself; the company is watching to make sure you do; if your neighbor tells on you, you tell on your neighbor. As a result of their new policy, Flickr not only has to expend a lot of time and energy policing images, but they also have to settle disputes about abuse and mislabeling.

Folksonomies are like markets: built from self-interest and choice. Flickr doesn’t seem to understand this. Now, you are compelled to tag your images, not to help yourself, but because Flickr has made it your job. Congratulations, you’re at work!

Moreover, everyone’s standard of decency is different—how could this arrangement possibly work? It’s just inviting acrimony into the community. If you own a website and you must censor, I recommend doing so monolithically. Blame China. Never trust your community standards to an anonymous social network. Flickr needs to read some John Gabriel.

Worst of all is that this arrangement isn’t even necessary. I will get to that in a bit.

My Yahoo Profile Says I’m 129 Years Old

The ‘unsafe’ label itself is a bad idea for so many reasons. First of all, Flickr is rendering a negative judgment upon the user. Never a good idea. Why is there a need to get personal? They’re just asking for trouble. Tag the photos, not the user.

Why is the label a big deal? When you share your graduation photos with your grandma, try explaining to her why your account is ‘unsafe’. To get rid of the label, how many photos do you have to fix? What did people find offensive? How are you ever going to remove the taint? Unclean!

In practice, it isn’t even good censorship, just Yahoo covering their backsides. So people have to show proof of age to see your photos, like that’s going to stop anybody. Everybody knows the information on profiles is garbage. They’ve protected no one. All they’ve done with the censor-tag is show kids where the good stuff is kept.

As far as I’m concerned, the only self-censorship a user should have to perform is deciding whether or not to upload something. It’s the only thing that works. It’s the only thing that is fair to everyone. Once something is on the web – even if it’s filtered, tagged, locked away, or whatever—nobody can claim to have control over it. Flickr should know better than to promise as much.

I’m sorry, but if you haven’t figured this out yet, let me lay it down for you: If you surf the internet, you must resign yourself to the fact that you are going to see some f*@!ed up s#!!. Daily.

Tag it. Tag it Good.

Worse, Flickr already has a working solution, they just don’t know it (or they really want me to make my chart). They should ask for more descriptions in tags, not judgments. Properly implemented, this is a better way to filter questionable content. Flickr doesn’t need a ‘censor this’ tag. They should use the ones they’ve already got. Do you find [body part n] offensive? Okay, no [body part n] pics for you. What about “kittens”? Okay, let’s look at some kittens.

Flickr does not need to take it upon themselves (or ask their users) to be the moral authority. What they need to do is allow users to filter what they see based on neutral content tags, while encouraging the community to add descriptive tags and ensure their accuracy. The quality of the database (and thus, filtering) would improve and it would prevent things from getting personal. It’s not a perfect solution, certainly. But if Flickr wants to keep things transparent with its community, it’s as close to a win-win as it gets in this touchy area.

For my inaugural post, I’d like to talk about the significance of something which I feel was overlooked in last week’s announcement of the new iPods– the completion of the switch from Apple’s signature double-shot plastic to aluminum cases.

Why do I blog this?

At Design Less Better, I specialize in the parts of our projects that people are most likely to see: graphics, product housing, packaging, etc. As a designer, at a minimum, I can be expected to fulfill the functional requirements of a product and make it look good, but I submit that a well-designed surface can deliver much more.

To illustrate this, I’d like to talk you through what Apple has done with their new product housing, to illustrate how a change in material addresses not only how their product looks, but a range of other design issues, as well.

Recapping Apple’s new rollout: aside from the iPhone/iTouch form factors, the latest updated models included a newly-squarish nano and the original iPod rebranded as ‘Classic’. What’s missing from all of these models? Plastic bodies. In fact, aside from the MacBooks (which are next up for a redesign– mark my words), there is very little plastic to be found on any of Apple’s products these days. Even their website has gone aluminum:

Image Credit: FFFFound! via: swissmiss.

It’s hard not to catch the switch; Gizmondo certainly did. But no one is asking “why?”.

The most obvious thought is that this is part of a new branding strategy, and that is certainly true. Apple has made a conscious choice to move away from the once-innovative uses of plastic that previously defined their products. And why shouldn’t they? Look who is using a double-shot process these days: Nintendo (the DS), Sony (the new PSP slim), and Microsoft (the Zune). There are plenty of other examples out there, but these are big companies with big design budgets and all they can think to do is copy the iPod. Apple had to distance itself not only from direct competitors but from competing aesthetics that chip away at its brand.

Welcome to the Metal Age

So aside from changing their looks, what does the switch to aluminum accomplish for Apple? A few things:

A greener Apple. Apple has been taken to task recently for its less-than-green practices, so I’m surprised that they didn’t tout the reduced environmental impact of aluminum. As a metal, it is much easier to recycle and less toxic than polycarbonate/ABS (i.e. it’s not made out of oil and chemicals). Stretching a bit further, it uses less material overall and weighs less, so it may take less energy to ship (if nothing else, it cuts Apple’s costs). I’d estimate that it takes about the same amount of energy to produce, however. Of course iPods are still filled with toxic components, but on the outside (you know, the side people care about), they’re a little more earth friendly.

Thinner is More. Apple likes to tout how thin each new version of the iPod is compared to its predecessor, and it’s a good tactic. Even when you’re getting the same technology as before, a thinner form factor can make you feel like you’re somehow getting more. Nowadays people expect each version to be a little lighter and thinner. Apple may have been up against a wall, because plastic can only get so thin before it gets brittle. Moreover, Apple’s signature look uses two layers, so the best they can do is double the minimum. Hence, I believe, the switch. Metal can deliver the same performance at thinner gauges than plastic. Anodizing raises the surface somewhat, but it’s negligible. In the end, for at least one generation, Apple can keep up its shrink streak. I’m going to assume that they can’t shave off much more material and are going to count on smaller components to slim down the iPod into the foreseeable future. That, or release new form factors that can’t be compared as easily.

Metal = Quality. iPods have a reputation for accumulating scratches. Of course, the stainless steel back essentially accentuates them, but people don’t want to see them all over the front of the case. Anodized aluminum is more resistant to wear and scratches than plastic, so it may cut down on visible signs of iPod aging. It dents, but doesn’t shatter. It’s got to feel more solid, too. It doesn’t stain as easily or discolor over time like plastic can. Finally, metal makes them look tougher, and that’s just badass.

Cracking the Surface

I haven’t seen anyone else out there scrutinizing the aluminum cases; mostly because Apple didn’t break anything by making the switch. This is critical. While the outside appearance of Apple’s products has changed, the performance of the new aluminum designs compromises nothing and, in fact, keeps the brand moving forward in more subtle ways.

So you see, surfaces can be deep. The best design is never superficial. Customers can often see right through it, and, more importantly, it’s a missed opportunity to do more.

The New York Times posted a downright thought-provoking technology-related article yesterday. John Schwartz’s Who needs hackers? touches a topic succinctly encapsulated by ex-Bell Labs network-head Peter G. Neumann, now principal scientist at SRI International: “We don’t need hackers to break the systems because they’re falling apart by themselves.”

This thing is full of memorable insights, including this post’s titular sentiment (from the mouth of Andreas M. Antonopoulos), who also notes that, “on the scale we [attempt to anticipate failure in increasingly complex computer systems], it’s more like forecasting weather.”

Former NASA software engineer, John B. Garman notes, in reference to the famous 1981 NASA shuttle-launch bug, “it is complexity of design and process that got us (and Murphy’s Law!). Complexity in the sense that we, the ‘software industry,’ are still naïve and forge into large systems such as this with too little computer, budget, schedule and definition of the software code.”

The best answer, Dr. Neumann says, is to build computers that are secure and stable from the start. A system with fewer flaws also deters hackers, he said. “If you design the thing right in the first place, you can make it reliable, secure, fault tolerant and human safe,” he said. “The technology is there to do this right if anybody wanted to take the effort.”

My personal belief is that this sentiment - in a perfect world - applies not only to, say, global telephony and ICBM guidance systems, but also to your next web application or five-Class desktop app. If nothing else, this article is full of “nine out of ten dentists agree” expert ammunition for the next time you get into a scheduling fight with your management or your client.

Copyblogger Brian Clark proved once again that he is truly the master of click-inducing post titles with his Sunday post, How to Write Remarkably Creative Content.

How to Write Remarkably Creative Content: I don’t know about you, but I have been waiting a long time for a prescription in this area. Here’s the nut of his:

Look in unlikely places for connections and angles that can enhance your content. If only one aspect of another subject area meets your needs, roll like Michelangelo and get rid of the parts that don’t belong.

Okay, so as it turns out we’re not exactly in advice territory here, but the point is well-made: People with a robust conceptual matrix tend to produce some of the most interesting and astonishing content, whether they be copywriters, physicists, or philosophers.

But, for most of us, “[looking] in unlikely places for connections and angles that can enhance [our] content,” is about as strategically helpful as a friendly reminder that a genius decision can solve any problem.

We all have knowledge outside of the domain of our current problem - but how do we “roll like Michelangelo”?

One of my favorite strategies comes from musician Brian Eno and painter Peter Schmidt, who kept a set of basic working principles which guided them through those moments of “creative” pressure to which we’re all so accustomed. They’re called the Oblique Strategies.

A more pointed, if not acute, set of strategies are the IDEO Method Cards, which were created to help aspiring designers practice their lateral thinking skills under pressure.

If consulting the deck doesn’t work for you, Brian also suggests Tony Clark’s post on Creative Adaptation.

And for those times when our best laid plans go awry, as they are wont to do, the genius decision, any famous American inventor will tell you, might just come during some of that 99% perspiration.

The HCI Bibliography site has posted - on a shareware license - a full copy of Task-Centered User Interface Design: A Practical Introduction by Clayton Lewis and John Rieman.

Obviously, I haven’t read this yet, but in my “should-I-bookmark-this?” skim, I stopped to read the provocatively-titled The Worst Interface Ever and How It Came About in the Management Appendix. (Look at that title - I know you want to read that.)

This subheading details one of the classic mistakes of UI design and offers a genuinely funny case of design-by-programmer. Check this out:

After some discussion the developer explained the problem. This system ran on a type of terminal in which most keys produced input that was buffered in the terminal, but some special keys, including the function keys, communicated immediately with the host computer. The ENTER key was one of these special keys, and the developers had the bright idea of using it as an extra function key. They arranged the system so that when you hit ENTER you got whatever function was associated with the last function key you had pressed. Clayton and his partner were getting baffling results because in fooling around between attempts at their task they hit different function keys and hence set up different bindings for ENTER. The developer was surprised they hadn’t figured that out.

Your public introduction to the world seems, on one hand, earth-shatteringly important, and on the other, totally throwaway. It’s probably a little bit of both (perhaps more the latter). Still, you can’t write a blog without writing a first post. It’s impossible.

Jumping Right In

The experts will tell you (or at least we will) there’s nothing like “jumping right in.” Two of our all-around favorite first posts adopt this strategy, and do it well.

Creating Passionate Users begins with Getting past the brain’s crap filter, an explanation of the brain-focused approach that makes their Head First books so popular.

Copyblogger Brian Clark opens with Sold, where, as one might expect, he soft-sells you on the concept of blogging as the ultimate form of low pressure advertising in language everyone can understand.

What’s smart about both these first posts is they introduce the blog’s reason for being, couched in engaging content. If you liked this one, you’re probably going to like the blog. No reason to wait until the next post to see how it’s really going to unfold.

So, What’s this About Again?

If you aren’t up to “jumping right in”, there’s the staid, but informative “what this blog’s about” style. This strategy was adopted by many popular bloggers, including Joel “on Software” Spolsky, who made good on his 1999 promise to “write several articles about software development in this weblog,” and Russ Olsen, who made the slightly less strict promise to write about “whatever is on my mind at the moment, but what is frequently on my mind is how we in the software business are just trying to solve problems.”

The Public Resume

Many of our favorites also employed the “Hi, I’m me, this is my CV” post. This genre usually includes some spillover from the “what this blog’s about” genre, but is distinguished by the fact that the person is probably relying on his or her experience or credentials to get you interested in the things that are coming.

Some notable examples include, surprisingly, Scott Berkun’s (admittedly sort of charming) CV first post, Microsoft no more. (And yes, we recognize that Berkun’s first post is almost the exact same post as Joel’s [above], and yet, we put it in a different category. The science of first posts is an inexact science.) Additionally, Jeff’s “About me” post at Coding Horror, hits all the high-notes: Who I am, why I blog, and what I’m going to blog about; overall, a fairly inauspicious start to a good blog.

I’ve Got a New Blog!

And speaking of inauspicious beginnings, take a look at BLDGBLOG’s first post, BLDGBLOG 1, which literally starts with “Testing, testing… Is this on…” BLDGBLOG is on all of our RSS readers, and this post is absolutely proof positive that you don’t have to have a strategy on the first day to turn into an amazing blog - you just have to write a lot of posts.

Another good example of the “strategy degree-zero/I’ve got a new blog!”-genre lives at You’ve been Haacked!, the positively goofy The new digs.

Conclusion

Finally, we end our journey through first posts with a stopover at Core77, who began by sharing a link prefaced by this simple missive, a sentiment we hope our readers might one day express to their friends and associates about t-minus: “(We) love this site. You should, too.”

Amusing Footnotes

[1] Jeff Zeldman wins the “I’ve been doing this for too long award” with his first “posts” - which, technically, are probably not posts in the traditional sense, since he was blogging before anyone had really conceived of the term “blog”.

[2] Signal vs. Noise wins the “It’s simpler to organize less information award” for making us use the way-back machine to find its first post and also the “John Cage award for best first blog post title” for its first site-hosted blog post, Warm Idea.

[3] Just to convolute matters further, this post was actually written for another blog (the now defunct t-minus) with our partner Jon. Chew on that.