This video is one of the most astounding things I've seen in a while. Not only does this guy do MC Hammer better than Hammer himself, but he does it in a tiny living room while his mom (I assume) sews on the couch through the whole thing without even looking up!

Apparently this kind of behavior must be a lot more common in this house than one would initially believe.

In an age of content aggregators, short attention spans, quick hits, and viral videos, I saw something this morning that really did make me laugh out loud. Actually, I laughed a little harder each time I watched it, and I watched it all the way through.

Watch the spoof first.

Then take a look at this video demonstration of the BigDog Quadruped Robot by Boston Dynamics.

Although, the robot's agility is unquestionably amazing, I can't decide which is funnier. The spoof, or the real robot slipping on the ice in the parking lot.

Enjoy.

As part of our client work, we're often required to make recommendations for third-party, off-the-shelf software solutions for our clients. This involves a lot of requirements gathering, research, critical thinking, and other serious tasks I won't go into.

The problem is often that the best solution for the client is saddled with an idiotic name. I don't understand what it is about software developers who think naming their product or company "Dinkytown", "ChumpSoft" or "DooDooFace" (okay, I made that last one up) bestows any sort of credibility whatsoever.

Look, I'm sure it's really cute that your toddler said "DimDim!" one night over dinner, but that doesn't make it a good name for your online meeting application. I actually feel ashamed when I have to tell clients "Um, yes, the program we've chosen is made by, um, ChumpSoft."

You have to wonder what names they discarded before arriving at these winning monikers. "Uh, we wanted to call it Monkeybutt, but uh, Joe's mom thought that was pretty dumb."

Here is a good rule of thumb. If the people using your product are embarassed by its name, you've done a bad branding job. Yes, Google is a silly name too... but at least it's not offensive. Cute MIGHT work, if you're a genius. But if you're just three guys coding in your basement, hoping to make a gazillion dollars from your marvelous Web 2.0 app, please ask an adult for help with your marketing.

Raphael. Michelangelo. The Cathedral at Chartres. Illuminated manuscripts. Modern Easter programs. Which of these things is not like the other?

This Easter, along with reflecting on far more important things, I have begun to wonder why the aesthetics of modern religious organizations have become so.... cheesy. (Note: As a churchgoer myself, I say this in the most respectful way possible.) Is it a severe lack of Medicis? The ability of your local parish to print their own bulletins? Or just a devaluing of the aesthetic, itself?

Look, I mean, I'm not really in church for the graphic design. But wait--for thousands of years, the church has made beauty a central part of its appeal. Why else have these beautiful buildings, priests in elaborate vestements, and all that incense? In medieval times, the squalid state of ordinary people's everyday lives made the church one of the few places of pure aesthetic enjoyment in their lives. Nowadays, with every middle-class American able to decorate their home with the latest Phillippe Starck paper-towel-holder from Target, perhaps it's just not as necessary.

Or maybe the church-graphic-design industry is staffed entirely with refugees from Hallmark.

I've thought this before about political campaigns: their design aesthetic always seemed so needlessly lowbrow, their lack of white space appalling, their inability to use colors other than red, white, and blue a sign of massive lack of imagination. Then Obama came around and showed us that political graphic design needn't be horrifying. Maybe churches need a similar breakthrough.

Those of us who design things for a living believe that there's never a reason for bad design; that effective communications should be attractive. But I think that, for churches and political campaigns alike, there's almost a sense of comfort or pride in the specific signifiers of their design aesthetic. Like, you know it's a church program immediately just by glancing at it, because that is how church programs look; just as you can immediately identify a political bumper sticker out of the corner of your eye. It may be more about that identification than anything else--if your church program was beautifully designed, it might not readily signify its purpose or appear to be, well, churchy enough.

But I think it's possible to clearly broadcast your identity and intent through the look and feel of your communications without them being unattractive. We do this all the time with clients. Appearing "serious," for instance, doesn't mean your web site needs to be times new roman type on a white background--just as sentimentality needn't appear saccharine, nor "boldness" appear tacky.

A friend of mine spent years designing architectural and theatrical lighting schemes for new churches down South. The builders of these houses of worship understood, even today, the importance of the aesthetic experience to their adherents. Yet, in their printed materials, this same care for good design seems to disappear.

I don't know if other religions have a similar problem, but if they do, it might be time for all talented designers of various religions to volunteer some time at their local place of worship. It may seem silly, but I believe that beauty is important--in all things. And I think good design improves our lives and uplifts our hearts. In the grand scheme of things, of course, this is relatively unimportant--I'd much rather churches spend their money helping the poor. But it's no more expensive to design something nice as it is to design something unattractive. Why not make the church programs as beautiful as the church?

PS: If I am not at work next week, it may be because I have been struck down by lightning for writing this post.

I should probably put together a list of the most inaccurate lists ever, but until I do it this list is one we can just marvel at for its astonishingly vapid ignorance:

Listed on the "8 careers to help lower your stress level" is not, as one might assume, a naturalist, a researcher or librarian, no we find such gems as:

1. an accountant (did they put this out in tax season to be extra special wrong?)
2. a nurse - uhm... my lord.
3. a preschool teacher! My, it is so calming to be disciplining 20 screaming kids.
4. desktop technical support - that's right, because we are all so nice to desktop techs.
5. and MY PERSONAL favorite: a graphic designer. I am dumbstruck.

I really shouldn't get all up inn arms over what amounts to be an ad posing as an article, but darnit, this is simply so powerfully wrong it is nearly incomprehensible.

http://education.yahoo.net/degrees/articles/featured_8_careers_to_help_lower_your_stress_meter.html

Labels: list, stress

At SXSW Michael Lopp explains how Apple consistently churns out serious bad ass design.

Here is a summary of the summary I read:

Pixel Perfect Mockups
This, Lopp says, “removes all ambiguity.”
Of course this takes tons and tons of time, but it is totally a case of measure twice cut once.

10 to 3 to 1
Every feature has ten TOTALLY serious mockups. Not, "I am pretending this is a different mockup but it is really just a copy with a different look" - 10 completely compelling and good mockups. It is typical to throw some designs in there just to make your favorite one look good - but apple doesn't do that, he said. Afterwards they whittle it down to three and then find the one that works best from there.

Paired Design Meetings
Every week there are two meetings. One in which to as Lopp put it: to "go crazy" free from constraint and full of "I wishes." Then they also hold a production meeting, separately, which is all about whens and hows and logistics. Even enar the end of a project, when you would think all the "i wishes" were irrelvant, this seems a compelling way to think about potential features and ideas even while the current project has solidified.

Pony Meeting
This is where everyone gets to show ALL their ideas to managers. The managers always want to see lots of ideas and this is an opportunity for a Manager to identify something in someone's idea they hadn't been able to express previously.

As one commentor said (I paraphrase) "The secret here is probably that this process is so simple."

It is simple, but it is hard to do and even harder to do well.

Learn more here:
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/03/apples_design_p.html?link_position=link1

Labels: Apple, Design

Hulu - Finally a real tv channel online with actual shows and an impressive archive.

I guess someone somewhere in the tv stratosphere realized that they WANT people to see tv and that there is no reason not to show it - all of it, as much as possible.

http://www.hulu.com/


Quoting from the site:
"Hulu offers current primetime shows like The Office, Prison Break, Bionic Woman, House and Bones, and episodes from TV classics like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Miami Vice, Arrested Development and more. We've also partnered with premier content owners like E! Entertainment, FUEL TV, SciFi Network and USA Networks to add to our growing collection of premium programming. "

Yeah, and there are talks with Viacom and others to add far more shows.

And so the people behind Hulu have also realized that the best advertising vehicle for these shows is us, so they are encouraging us to share them.

"Hulu lets you enjoy your favorite videos at websites where you are already spending your time online. Visit our partner sites: AOL, Comcast, MSN, MySpace and Yahoo, to view the same selection of premium programming available at Hulu.com. Each partner features content in its own customized video player to provide a seamless viewing experience on their sites."

Additionally, I am fascinated by how sophisticated the embed tools are. They allow me to select a portion of the show with great precision. I hope Hulu takes off and once it is out of beta I will definitely be an avid viewer.

Take a look at how rough this old meet the press show is on poor sweet cuddly Reagan.

Labels: hulu, online video

No, the most boring awards ceremony on the planet isn't dying.

But you wouldn't be wrong to think that the Oscars just survived its worst year in recent memory. The ratings weren't just bad, they were apocalyptic. I didn't see it and in a quick informal poll around the office, no one else saw it either.

As Reuters put it, This past year's Oscar's was the least watched Oscars telecast ever.



The question on everyone's mind is
a) is this a trend, will next year's ceremony be even worse?
and
b) why, what caused this? Does this mean something about movies in general?

Well it has been variously argued that the writers strike, Chris Andersen's Long Tail theory (in which blockbusters become the smaller half of the market), the emergence of netflix & on demand, movie piracy, and a million other circumstantial details have derailed the ceremony.

But the most obvious cause appears to be the one that the math indicates is most true:

There were no hit movies.

To test this hypothesis, here is a scatterplot that measures box office receipts against # of Oscar-watchers.



Basically, if you have a Titanic block buster in 1998, then you will get more viewers. Or, if you have a lot of stars that people care about contesting an Oscar, then the tension is worth watching. (even if the movies weren't all that good, people want to see their favorite stars pout, I guess.)

So to those who are bemoaning the poor woe-some fate of the movie industry the way others bemoan the poor fate of the music industry, I say this: give us good stuff, don't treat us like pirates, and we will show up.

A side point is worth mentioning as The Wire ends its 5 year odyssey: TV is kicking ass these days, I would watch the best TV over the best movies any day of the week - but this didn't necessarily help the Golden Globes.

To see this topic in more depth, see this excellent blog post from conde nast.

Labels: movies, oscar

I have been very impressed with microsoft's mac office banner ad campaign. It is human, engaging and unavoidable on a page.

Of particular note is the soft sell. Microsoft isn't trying hard to sell me something, it is trying hard to make me smile, and really that is best way to approach me and any consumer.

I only wish the rest of microsoft could learn to be this charming.

Labels: banner ads, illustration, Microsoft, Microsoft Office

We spent a large portion of our weekend not only picking our jaws off the ground, but also mopping up the huge puddles of envy-drool that accumulated while watching this video:


[Justice - DVNO]

It's rare that I really get into the 3D CG stuff, but the group that did this video (Machine Molle, FR) has a lot of really original and beautiful work from the last few years (check out their 2002 Royksopp video for "Remind Me"). Machine Molle.

Labels: 3d, computer generated, design studio, ed banger, france, graphic design, justice, Logo, machine molle, music video

I dare you. Really. Watch this and try not to smile.