I really wanted to make this site work (I love tumblr) but my focus has changed and G+ forces me to be simple and brief. Tumblr allowed too much creativity which is why I have 20 posts in draft form and why live posts are so infrequent. It’s for the better.
Dealing with the Old Guard
This isn’t a prove-to-your-boss-why-you-need-a-Twitter-post. It’s a how-do-you-know-if-you-are-the-old-guard post. You may be, if…
1. You have folders with nothing but a folder in it.
2. You love the folder hierarchy.
If you have folders that are 20 deep or folders with only one folder in it and only one file within that one subfolder you have a folder fetish.
Do you have over 10 folders in Outlook to categorize your email? Why aren’t you just using search?
2. You prefer folder digging to search.
This goes along with #1 and #2. If you are constantly asking where a file is and someone has to explain that it’s in O:\Marcom\VisualCom\Advertising&Marketing\AdvertisingPrint\ChamberofCommerceAds\PrintAdFiles\PSDdocs\ChamberAd2011v5.2.psd)?you need to start using search. Not just because your hierarchy is too deep, but because that’s what search is for. It will take longer to remember and hunt than it will to search. You are the hunter-gatherer of the digital world.
3. You copy & paste the content of webpages into the body of an email vs emailing the link.
You need to stop doing that. Beside the fact that I don’t need a banner ad or site navigation in the middle of my content I may actually want to visit the site you suggested. But how will I get there if there’s no link? I’ll have to scour the email for a way back.
4. You learn to email links but they’re at the bottom of 20 other messages.
You forward a great link that a colleague sent a colleague sent a colleague ad infinitum; however, instead of pasting the link at the top of your email you make the recipient hunt through 20 forwarded emails to find where the link is buried.
“FYI” or “See below…” is not helpful.
5. Your first step in creating content is setting permissions.
Most likely you’re creating wikis and then locking them to make sure no one vandalizes them. If you’re afraid of this then don’t create a wiki. Beside, who in your office actually wants to sabotage a wiki? And if they do, now you’ll know who the vandals are because their name is in the version history.
6. You use the change tracker in Word.
You may also create multiple versions (i.e., Document2011v6.docx) of the same document and keep them around. The Track Changes option in Word is no good. It ruins the layout and buries good copy in a sea of red and strikeouts. Not to mention you have to approve all the words which were accidentally deleted and then added back. You should consider using a wiki instead. This way you can compare the different versions.
7. You collaborate using email.
Email is for communication; it is not project management software.
8. You use “fun fonts” instead of the recommended black, Arial email font.
If you use weird colors, Papyrus, Hobo, etc. please stop. Just because Arial is boring doesn’t mean adding fruity pebble fonts will make it more desirable to read. In fact, it makes it impossible to read.
Web Design Effects Credibility
I was planning on a really nice, somewhat-official study and report on this topic when two reports came out eliminating the need for my study. Below is the post I started writing informally over six months ago. I quite writing it to pursue a real study and then I read these two reports:
- Sanford University & Consumer Web Watch: “How do People Evaluate a Web Site’s Credibility? Results from a Large Study.”
- Wisdump: Design is Identity (A post about the WordPress phenomenon).
I believe what Wisdump wrote about is the current, growing problem and will eliminate the stuck-in-the-90s design.
So even though you don’t need to read any further (even though a real study on the WordPress Phenomenon is needed) here is my original post:
This may sound obvious, but I firmly believe website design can have serious consequences to time spent on a site. I’m not talking about information architecture or usability or anything like that. Just it’s appearance — how nice it looks.
Personally, when I visit a site that has terrible graphics, clip art, poor stock photos, all center-justified text, overly-compressed jpgs, yadda, yadda, yadda, it makes me want to leave immediately. It doesn’t mean the site has nothing good to offer. In fact, great, free software comes from really, really ugly sites. But a lot of times the websites that have terrible design also look like they don’t know what they’re doing. They look like dinosaurs offering outdated “business solutions”. But over time I began to notice other people leaving the site quickly after seeing how ugly it is.
These “other people” are the same people that don’t really use search queries very well. These “other people” are usually the average web user.
It’s easy to create a nice looking site. In fact it’s so easy, eventually these mediocre sites will undergo their own bounce problems. For example doesn’t this design look like a content farm? After people get duped enough times by content farms real sites will suffer from using designs that are too popular.
Sorry for the serious generalization. My brother-in-law suggests I do a thesis-style report on this, which I am considering.
Call Back in a Couple of Weeks
*
In the past I’ve complained about lacking a phone system that transcribes my messages and sends them to my email. But, now I’m just thankful that I don’t have to worry about 20th Century inconveniences.
I recently called 3 businesses and received these responses (please note: I was not soliciting. 2 of the 3 are callbacks):
1. Busy Signal
Returning a call to a company that wanted to sell me ad spots I received a busy signal. I don’t think I’ve heard a busy signal since high school. I called 3 times only to hear the busy signal. I gave up after the 3rd time. I figure if they want my business they can call me back.
2. No Voicemail
Again, returning a call for a partnership, I asked the receptionist if I could leave a message and she said they don’t have voicemail. And, she wasn’t interested in taking the message down on paper.
3. “Call Back in a Couple of Weeks”
I was calling a related company for advice on a policy. I was told, “You need to call Chris. Call back in a couple of weeks.” No option to leave a message or to contact by email.
I’m not sure why I wasn’t allowed to either leave a message or email in any of these cases.
*Sorry for the cat photo. I know it’s cliche for a tech-savvy, blogging, young professional to post lolcats, but I couldn’t think of anything else and I hate stock photography way more. It’s not that I don’t think lolcats aren’t funny, because I do, but it’s not funny to post them on wannabe semi-professional-semi-informal blogs about business. Although, it’s probably less funny that I’ve gone this far out of my way to defend myself. I’ll refrain from making a self-deprecating hipster joke although my post-ironic, self-aware post-script isn’t helping. Sorry, again.
Future of Pop Music
Japan created another fake pop star (tl;dr) recently. It’s really bizarre to think that we will soon (maybe 5 years?) have pop stars that are created by a team of artists and engineers.
No doubt, we’ll have the same arguments (i.e., pop stars aren’t real artists) that largely lasted until the mid-2000s.* However, I must admit that I balked at the idea of computer pop stars at first. But, there is still, if not more, work and art involved as with current pop stars. (Well, some at least.)
Think of it this way: instead of celebrating the one person we’ll celebrate the team of artists and engineers that created her. It’s not like Elvis or Elton John were acting alone. Those guys and much of today’s stars have engineers and writers. Nearly everyone works in a team. Maybe except for Prince and Albert Einstein.
Back to fake people. I don’t see how a computer generated pop star is any different than anime or a motion capture film. It’s just that the new pop stars will have fabricated lives outside of their song or film while looking so real.
I think part of the dislike is not knowing whether you’re getting duped or not. Right now the marketing gimmick is to create the fake person and then reveal them as CGI to most people’s surprise. But my guess is that will get old fast since people will feel hoodwinked. And possibly a little scared that they couldn’t tell the difference. Another guess is that surprising people will be thrown into the sleaze-marketing bag-o-tricks and companies will voluntarily (or due to regulation) disclose the difference ahead of time. The transparency may help detractors accept the new art a little more but it will still take decades before it’s no longer an issue of “real music” vs. “fake music”.
It’s exciting to think about a computer pop star, but I admit, it’s still a little creepy.
*I know these arguments still happen, but they don’t seem to be as ubiquitous as they once were.
You see so many Duchamp/Fountain references — but this one I really like.
Poster For A Duchamp Retrospective, 2011
Can’t stand cliché discussions about Mondays? I love them. Here are some things to look forward today. (Images from the incredible Stuff and Nonsense blog.)
I got this for 1 cent on Amazon ($4 total after shipping). What a great idea. I’m going to enjoy this more than my kids.
