Here's to another year of worrying about design ethics with you, our friends and readers.
Also, apparently, here's to the International Year of Biodiversity.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is not a legitimate form of marketing. It should not be undertaken by people with brains or souls. If someone charges you for SEO, you have been conned.
That's the start of this blog post from Derek Powazek which is currently causing all manner of controversy in SEO circles. He says some things I believe many web professionals have been thinking and I can't help but agree with his conclusion: If you want people to find you make something great. Tell people about it. Do it again..
Danny Sullivan, an SEO professional, has crafted this defense of SEO, which I also like. He shares some of Powazek's concerns, but is careful to draw the important distinction between bad or spammy SEO and good/legitimate SEO.
Both posts may be worth a read if you are new to SEO or just want to brush up on best (and worst) practices before your next job or client meeting.
In an interview about the renovation, Glaser discusses his past architectural designs, the inspiration for his work with the SVA, and the challenges of working with space. It's worth a read to hear him talk about architecture with the same thoughtfulness he displays towards graphic and identity design.
Big news this week from iStockphoto: the site plans to offer logos for sale in the near future. Commenters on their forum seem to favor the deal, while designers are (not surprisingly) much less enthused.
To their credit, iStockphoto is trying something different with the logos they plan to sell. Logos will be unique items, only sold once apiece. In addition, they will cost much more than stock photos. Whereas a decent sized image might run $7-$10, a logo could run $100-$750.
But tell me, who is going to buy these things and who is going to supply them? Is there really such a thing as a stock logo? I think we know the answer...
Should professional designers be worried about crowdsourced spec design sites? Jim Walls spent $50 to find out.
His verdict: professionals have nothing to fear.
The "designers" he hired a.) failed to take into account his obvious pun (or perhaps did not speak English), and b.) never finished the job. You get what you pay for, I guess.
If for some reason you have not caught wind of this article on the possible demise of Wired magazine, you might want to check it out. The irony is thick: how could a magazine about the future fail to predict or respond to the impact of the Internet on its business?
The comments are the real meat of the piece. Past and present Wired editors, bloggers, print writers, ad buyers, and lookers-on debate what went wrong and what might save the day. Highly recommended if you're interested in the future of journalism and hearing the many, many sides of the story from informed parties.
Garrett Murray believes that Apple's long and opaque approval process for iPhone application support hurts both users and developers. The ratings interface makes it difficult for developers to respond directly to complaints through the Apps Store. Furthermore, they have no idea when or if fixes will be approved. Murray says angry users are more likely to rate software than satisfied ones, resulting in lower overall ratings which can hurt sales.
As a user, I have found it hard to shop the Apps Store for this very reason. It's interesting to consider whether Apple's attempts to control quality may have in fact broken the user experience on another level.
Chas Edwards, chief revenue officer at Digg, offers this analysis of recent marketing data:
What's happening? "Total traffic going to websites via paid search ads is decreasing relative to traffic via unpaid, organic search listings."
The explanation? As users have gained experience searching, queries are getting longer, thus undermining the effectiveness of most ad buys which use only a few words.
What to do? “As we claw our way up from the bottom, expect that the recovery in online advertising will be driven by faster growth in brand-building activities over cost-per-click and other direct-response programs.”
I chose a few that I thought were clever, but you owe it to yourself to check out the whole site. Taylor has some very nice (and more recognizable) pieces over there.
