Thoughts on WWDC Keynote (2007)

So, now, that I've had time to digest some of the WWDC Keynote address, here are my thoughts:

1) Cover View - This iTunes-initiated interface is getting out of hand. It's on Apple's redesigned web site, it's now a view option in Leopard's Finder. It's on iPhone.

I just don't think it's very effective for a large amount of stuff. It's nice in iTunes, as you see the album covers, and it harkens back to a time of flipping through LPs…but for the Finder? No way. Give me a list of files and their content and I'll be happy. A better way to improve Finder navigation would simply make column view default to always show full filenames (instead of truncating them). People need better ways to find their stuff (like Spotlight, not another way to view icons).

2) Safari on Windows & Ver. 3 - Hooray for re-arrangable tabs! Finally!

People are bitchin' about restarting upon installation. Doesn't bother me too much. I'm sure the newer versions won't have that.

The fact that it is available for Windows is so smart and so huge. iTunes is on everyone's PC, and it's ease of use has piqued people's interest in Macs and OS X. It does open up an interesting question of how these two operating systems (Windows and Mac) are starting to come closer together and are we beginning to see the end of true differentiation between platforms.

3) New dock - Eh. Not sure how cool it is. Kind of weird to see it recess into space, although it seems to be working towards the feel of Time Machine. I just don't think I need to see more reflections in design. Our Web 2.0 obsession with the properties of glass has jumped the shark, I hope.

4) New menu bar - Oh, we're just realizing that people put their own pictures on their desktop? And now we're going to make the menu bar semi-transparent so you can see 10 pixels more of a photo. I don't think so. This reeks of degrading functionality and seems unnecessary. Hopefully, it'll be an option we can turn off.

5) Stacks - Like tabbed browsing in iChat, this seemed a long time in coming. My biggest question is why are these opened stacks leaning like the tower of pisa? Is it just me or is there some funky reasoning behind this windblown effect?

6) iChat - Looks awesome. Tabbed chats, finally! Love the presentation feature. It makes it much more appropriate for business use. The changing backgrounds thing is weird, and I can foresee more pornographic uses for this than actual functional uses. Plus, I don't know how many times the holographic version of me can bee seen before getting old and just weird.

7) Time Machine - Sounds great, but seems like it will be less easy to use than Jobs has been boasting. First, you need a massive hard drive to keep backed up with all your home computers stuff. Second, if you're going to do this wirelessly-even with the new 'n' protocol-it seems like it will take a much longer than demonstrated.

Ultimately a good first step, but I don't think most people will have the resources needed out of the box. Plus, am I the only one who feels like the whole swirling space time-contiuom feel is a bit to treky for my liking?

8) Quick Look - Seems like a great answer to a common frustration. Opening the wrong file, and waiting for an application to load is always a tad frustrating. So, if this can help that's great. I don't think I'll be using it a lot, and I actually think there are some big problems with it.

I think people are going to open files via Quick Look and then want to edit them. I don't think people will understand that it's a "quick look." I see it's use in driving the iChat functionality, but I'm afraid most everyday users will misunderstand the purpose and find it frustrating.

Plus it seems like the biggest pain is having developers add the quick view functionality to their files. I can Quick Look this file, but not this one? Seems like something's not working right, then. How much bigger are these files with a high quality preview in Quick Look? How much resources does it take up to use it? Is it a RAM hog like Dashboard?

Plus, for some apps, what's the difference between Quick Look and the app? For example: Quicktime and Preview. If I can play a quicktime file via Quick Look and make it full screen, then why do I have an app for Quicktime? Same with Quick Looking PDFs. What's the point of having the Preview app?

9) iPhone apps - This seems like a joke. I'm no developer, but if you wanted to show me how developing an app on the iPhone is cool, you could give me something better than a directory. Doesn't this thing already have an address book? Don't I already have a sense of what that looks like? Didn't you just do the same thing with an LDAP on the back end?

This is the coolest extension of the iPhone's capabilities that I have seen: a shopping list application called OneTrip.

10) .Mac stuff - "Back to my Mac" is fantastic, and really nice the way the IP integration works behind the scenes. My biggest question is will it work when the computer I want to access is asleep?

11) Boot Camp - Parallels is way better. I don't know why you just wouldn't use that.

Overall, I'm not too excited about Leopard yet. Tabbed iChat browsing and the Safari features are honestly all I'd want right now. Tiger is so nice, and these newer features seem like they will really need some solid user time to work out their functionality.

Lastly, does anyone know for sure if Leopard will be a Universal app?

A small reminder of why we need to care about design.

I think, as designers, we have moments where we truly feel good about our profession. We contribute to beauty within our culture. We help product and consumer find each other. We create excitement and fun. At times, we can even feel like we've positively contributed to the world in which we live.

Then we run into something awful and grotesque and disheartening. Something that makes us want to bury our heads in the sand or pull a King Lear. For me, that moment came this past weekend while traveling in my car.

Some may say that there isn't much to be caught up about in this photo. Some might not give the back of this truck a second look. But, for me…on this day…this is what made me frustrated with the world of advertising and design.


The first thing that bothered me was the logo. There are probably worse typographic blunders out there, but this one has a number of things to make my blood boil.

First, the dropped 'J.' Drop caps can be beautiful and eye-catching in editorial design, as it gives your eye a place to start reading an article, and very often it can fit in with the layout of an editorial spread.

This is not an editorial spread. This logo has three words and an abbreviation. I know where to start reading. Your typeface is 400 points tall. I also don't find your "tuck the blue bar behind the letter J" trick all that amazing. It certainly isn't reason enough to offset the 'J' with that much weight.

Now let's attack the problem of letter-spacing. It seems that this company would prefer to be known as "Je a d." This is better known in some circles as jihad…not a term with which you want your company confused.

This logo represents your company. I can only assume you don't care too much about your brand, because you used Microsoft Publisher to create your logo.

Lastly, let's just kill this idea of using a company's logo in the middle of a sentence. It's not a word, it's a mark. If you want to say that this truck is on it's way to another satisfied "jihad" customer, then say it. Don't interrupt the sentence with your huge-ass logo, and leave the poor word 'customer' on it's own, fighting to be seen.

Do you remember those children books that use pictures instead of words, so that kids can feel like they are reading? That's what you're doing here. Your interrupting the sentence with an image. I am driving a car. I can read. Don't insult me.

And there's another thing. Why are you distracting my driving with all of this reading? Are you trying to get me in an accident, so that I need your auto parts?

Oh, the humanity!

So, what about you? Share a moment when all the design world seemed ot fall apart before you.

AI: Season 6, Round of 6 & Giving Back

Due to work constraints I haven't been able to weigh in on Idol of late. In fact, I did not even see the round of 6's performances. I did however see the much hyped "Idol Gives Back" 2-hour plead-o-rama.

I gotta say: somewhere Jerry Lewis is crying tears of joy, because his attempts to kept the telethon genre rolling had seemingly died, until American Idol decided to pick it up and keep it alive. This is a touchy subject, because no one wants to bad-mouth efforts to do something good, BUT this was 120 minutes of crappy television.

First off, the parade of celebrities was about as ungenuine as it gets. I didn't believe that any of those people were there for any reason other than their own PR. The only celebrities who I believe were doing this out of their own desire to help others were Bono and Madonna. They were the only two that I knew had a solid history of doing good prior to the show.

The other bright spot was Ellen Degeneres, who at least tried to do some creative things to solicit donations.

Why put Simon in a situation where he is clearly uncomfrotable, meeting AIDs patients? And why have him and Ryan in the way of a patient getting to the hospital? Just ridiculous, set up crap to sell the idea of getting people to give. I don't believe for a second that Simon wanted to be there.

Everything else felt like it was produce by the same people who brought us Bob Sagat and America's Funniest Home Videos in the 80s. What was that horrible "music video" with all the celebrities? How scary was that Celine Deion/Elvis performance? What the hell was that? Did we learn nothing about creepy celebrity rebirths with Orville Redenbacher?

And although they gave a bunch of money, I was not impressed by all the corporate sponsors. If those companies really wanted to prove to me that they cared about these causes, they would have given the money and expected no credit for it. No logos, no sponsored music videos, no corporate personailities appearing on TV. Oh, and they would have given enough money, so that we television viewers wouldn't have been asked to pony anything up. The sad thing is that the people who probably gave the most, were the people who couldn't afford to give much anyway.

The whole thing with no one being kicked off was lame. Just tell us you're not going to send anyone home right away. You're just stringing people along and it's lame. I'd understand if you told me that you're not going to send anyone home that night. They should have had enough leverage with all their celebrity appearances, not to need to do that.

Since I didn't get a chance to say it last week, I'll quickly weigh in on Sanjaya's departure: it was a fix. How do you drop from top 5 to being kicked out in one week? You have producers manipulate the numbers, so that your charity show isn't overshadowed by the embarrassment of Sanjaya and the vote for the worst phenomenon. I think it was pretty obvious from Simon's comment, that Sanjaya's departure was timely for more than one reason. I really don't think Idol would survive another season if Sanjaya had won. Alright, enough of that.

A review of where we are:
12: Sanjaya Malakar (Brandon Rogers)
11: Sanjaya Malakar (Stephanie Edwards)
10: Phil Stacy (Chris Sligh)
9: Phil Stacy (Gina Glocksen)
8: Phil Stacy (Haley Scarnato)
7: Haley Scarnato (Sanjaya Malakar)
6: Chris Richardson
5: Phil Stacy
4: Jordin Sparks
3: Blake Lewis
2: LaKisha Jones
1: Melinda Doolittle
Also check out: Vote 4 Idol Online, Vote Fair

Virginia Tech: Blame the shooter

We are all mourning today after yesterday's horrific incidents on the campus of Virginia Tech. But I can foresee the mourning turning to anger and frustration soon enough. I think we're going to start seeing headlines about people demanding answers about the administrations reactions or lack-thereof after the first shooting.

While ideally we would all like to believe that the second half of this rampage, which took exponentially more lives than the first, could it have been avoided, I am not so certain that it could. It is far too easy to look back with all that we know now (which still is not much) and say this could have been prevented. In truth, this student seems to have been on a mission and had predetermined that he was going to kill others. I am not so sure that an "aware" student body would have stopped someone with concealed weapons who was also a student.

Listening to the timeline and first response of both police officers and school administrators, I don't believe, initially, that they fell short of what should be expected of a college campus. I was thinking about what the response would have been 20 years ago, and there would have been no e-mails or web site messages or emergency phone public bulletins. All these things were the right use of the technology. I also don't think there was any reason that the shooter would go on the second rampage that occurred. In fact the police seem to have been questioning their primes suspect at the time of the second murders.

Ultimately, we only have one person to blame for all of this: the shooter. And since that person has been counted among those lost, people need another outlet for their pain and frustration. The easiest target becomes the police chief and the school's president, but this doesn't mean they are deserving of such blame. We must give the administration and police credit for doing what they could with the information they had.

It's so hard to be powerless in a situation like this. We want to be mad at the shooter, the administration, the police, the government… maybe even God. It's natural to feel this way, but it doesn't mean that anyone deserves blame for this shooting other than the man who pulled the trigger.

Flexibility vs. Simplicity

Apple and EMI made their big announcement yesterday about DRM-free music and premium downloads. It certainly is a big deal, as those who care a lot about technology and music, have been fighting for a wider range of DRM-free music for a long time.

The announcement is really wonderful and begins the slippery-slope of DRM changes that consumers have been demanding. There are a few things that haven't been discussed in the Q&A session that I found interesting.

First, EMI's CEO, Eric Nicoli, made the statement that EMI had known about Steve Job's feelings about DRM far before his well-known open letter about DRM. It seems that this letter was more of a rebuttal to attacks on Apple's iPod and iTunes in Europe than an attack on the music companies. It was as if Jobs was letting the nay-sayers know that he has been in favor of DRM-free music all along, but it was the music companies holding everyone back. Kind of like saying, "I told the big boys already, but their not listening, so stop blaming me and my company." Passing the buck a bit.

Anyway, the really interesting comment to me was from Steve Jobs on choices (Timestamp 41:02): "Life is a balance between total freedom and simplicity. We try to strike the local maximums… where we can give people what they tell us… and what we think they want… and yet keep it very simple."

I connected to this statement, because it Jobs articulates the struggle of design very well. As designers you want to create something that will satisfy the consumer's problem (i.e. I want to buy music easily and securely form the Internet), be flexible (i.e. I want to buy only one song, or a song at a better quality, or without dirty words), and yet keep it simple (integrate the store within the player, make backing-up the music integrated, and give me album artwork automatically, etc.).

To me companies like Microsoft and Sony have always been scoring really high in the total freedom category. Their products can be "modded" and third-party applications abound for them. They allow a person to do virtually anything related to their products.

Companies like Apple and Google have done well with simplicity. Here's one white page with a dialog box, one image, and two buttons. Apple for years had only a one-button mouse ship with it's computers.

To me the race is now on for that balance that Jobs mentions. Google's front page is actually a bit more complex now, including a personalized home page, and customizable widgets. Apple has embraced a mouse with four buttons and a click-wheel. Microsoft is simplifying it's interface to resemble the more user friendly OS X.

Google's Adwords is a terrific example of the two extremes of simplicity and freedom. There are two ways to use Google's Adwords: a Starter Edition and a Standard Edition. The Starter Edition is on the simplicity side of the extreme and the Standard Edition is all about Freedom. Starter has one campaign, one defined area, one set of keywords, etc. Standard has the ability to create multiple campaigns over many specific areas with various keywords. It includes analytics and reports. You have a virtually infinite array of choices.

Jumping from a Starter Edition to a Standard Edition is overwhelming, and I wish now that I could jump back for my NJ Mac Help campaigns. If you have ever "graduated" from Starter to Standard like me, then you perhaps know what I mean. There is no middle ground for Adwords.

Apple, I think has been doing a great job of opening itself up to more flexibility, while still safeguarding it's simplicity. Boot camp, the Intel switch, iTunes/iPods working with PC's: these were all flexibility moves. So, as we see Apple become more balanced or hit those "local maximums," I wonder how many people will seek to reap their benefits.

Hydrogen, Fuel and the Future

I was reading an e-mail by NY Times columnist David Pogue about the future of car fuels, and I thought that he served up an interesting solution via BMW and a new car they a prototyping.

Basically, BMW has created a prototype of hydrogen car that runs on both hydrogen and regular gasoline. Like current hybrids it seamlessly switches between gasoline and hydrogen power, when the hydrogen runs out. This is necessary as there are not enough hydrogen refueling stations to make an all-hydrogen car viable yet. The big benefit here is that hydrogen fuels by product is pure water instead of Carbon Dioxide, and other greenhouse gases.

You can read all of David Pogue's Column on BMW & hydrogen fuel here.

As I was reading about it, I thought to myself that there are probably a lot of opinions about this technology, and I might have my own, but it's certainly not as informed as those who are currently working in fields related to fuel technology. So, I e-mailed three of my chemical engineering friends who do do work in the field to see what they thought. Below is a condensed version of their thoughts, as one statement. I thought their thoughts were worth sharing:

"Fossil fuels are finite."

Agreed. In the meantime oil company salaries are probably only going to keep going up and up as we try to squeeze out every last drop. If you are interested in a good read about the future of oil, check out either of the two books here: Hubbert's Peak and Beyond Oil are both fantastic. Ken Deffeyes weaves an excellent story about the past, present, and future of oil.

"Hydrogen as a fuel."

I am extremely skeptical of the hydrogen economy. In my opinion there is currently no viable technology to store hydrogen. Activated carbons have been promising, but we are nowhere near DOE targets. Anything involving nanotubes is a load of crap. Adsorption on MOFS is partially irreversible. I think all of these chemical storage methods are likely to be better than compression though. How far did that car go before refueling or before the tank heated up? How are they cooling it? If the tank is "a tank so bulky, it makes a visible bulge behind the rear seats," what family is going to want that in their car? How will they fit in their 5 kids? Storage is the big problem. How much weight does it add to the car to have these high-pressure tanks?

"Their primary objection, of course, is the amount of energy that's consumed (and pollution generated) in producing hydrogen in the first place."

Yes! Hydrogen can solve the fuel problem. Burning hydrogen is clean but making hydrogen is not- although it should be cleaner than burning gas. Big Al Gore (and I mean big, have you seen that dude lately?) won't be too happy to find out that although greenhouse gases aren't coming out the tailpipe, they are coming out somewhere else. OK, what about CO2 sequestration? This is not completely feasible at the present time, but it is closer to working than any of the methods to store hydrogen.

"Ethanol?"

The efficiency of ethanol is very low. And corn prices are skyrocketing. This idea is better for the American farmer than anything else.

In conclusion...

I pretty much agree with Pogue. I have bashed all of the technologies out there, but I do think all of them are only in their infancy. Importantly, none of them is the silver bullet. Each will only makeup a portion of the total solution. People out touting the greatness of just one of these technologies drive me nuts. Especially when they quote figures to make a case that their solution can make up 100% of the total. No freaking way. Whatever the final solution is, it doesn't exist right now. In the meantime, we need to conserve. All new vehicles should be hybrid within 5 years, 10 at the most. If we can double efficiency, then we have double the time to come up with a better solution before oil runs out.

I propose a minimum 25-50 cents a gallon tax on gas with all money going toward renewable energy research. This would also encourage people to drive less and buy more fuel efficient cars.

The holy grail is hydrogen from water using sunlight. There is an infinite supply of both.

Many new technologies plus conservation need to contribute to the total solution. I am actually part of a collaboration that is working on solar-powered water splitting to make hydrogen. There is "capital" CO2 produced in making the device but no "operational" CO2 produced to keep it going. Our method is just one of many being tried. Hopefully one will work. At least we are trying, the worst thing anyone can do is the same thing that we've been doing for the last 50-100 years.

Anyone else have an opinion?

NCAA Football

Congrats to Florida for trouncing Ohio State. I didn't care who won the game, but I was happy to see the unpredictable nature of football at play.

For those who care, here are my thoughts on college football for the moment:

1) Playoffs. Just get it done. Get the coaches and presidents together and make it happen. Enough is enough, just get it done. Bowl committees - your time has passed. Get over it.

2) Timing. Stop pushing games later and later (this applies to the NFL's Super Bowl too). By the time teams play post-season college football, everyone has forgotten why they should care about them. Fans of individual schools will always watch their team's games, but if you want "Joe Football Fan" to tune in, you can't let him forget about why these teams are worth seeing. Keep the momentum of an exciting regular season going by leading directly into playoffs.

3) Stupid rules... yank 'em. The rule that has the clock start on the kickoff instead of the kickoff's reception is just plain dumb. Designed to make games move faster, I was still dumbstruck by how long these last few games took. Television networks are jamming more and more ads in, and cutting to commercials more often. I think the last four BCS games took over 4 hours each... no joke. Keep the integrity of the game, and cut the dumb clock-killing rule. And then limit the TV timeouts.

No one is talking about this, but can we please get rid of the arcane rule of when a college player is down? This is football. A player should only be down by contact. I'm tired of watching guys slip in the open field and not being able to get up and continue running. The play should be over when the defense says it's over, not when wet grass impedes traction.

4) Ridiculous naming conventions. Division I. Division I-AA. You and I know what they mean. I don't however know what a Football Bowl Subdivision and a NCAA Football Championship Subdivision mean. The NCAA needs to regain control of the football post-season and just keep the division names. The only people who like bowls are on the committees or work for TV networks. The division I championship should be a Division I Championship, a division I-AA championship should be a Division I-AA Championship. Note the use of capital letters. It's important, because it makes them official titles. Oooooo.

That's it for now. Unless you have more to add.

A case for donation

In Law & Order Episode 382, "Remains of the Day", Dick Wolf's crew explores an interesting issue: organ donation and the black market for it.

It is supposed to be based on the death of Daniel Wayne Smith, although in the end, that was just a shell of a plot encasing the greater issue of health care and it's availability to America's rich and poor. While the message tip-toed around universal health care, it got me thinking about something else: what happens to our bodies when we die.

I've often wondered (usually when passing a graveyard) when we might reach the tipping point when more of the earth is dedicated to space for the dead then it is for space for the living.

Briefly, what happens in this episode is that a doctor illegally harvests bones and organs from deceased people, and the transplants result in cancer and other fatal diseases being contracted by the recipients. The DA argues that the doctor has murdered these people by performing surgery that could lead to his patient's death, because he can't legally determine the deceased person's health history.

The problem here is that not enough people are able to get the transplant organs they need, as there are not enough donors. Also, the surgery remains too expensive for many, and partially due to a high demand, organ and tissue is highly priced in both legal and illegal markets.

After watching all of this play out in the episode, I began thinking to myself... self... why do we care what happens to our physical bodies once we die, anyway? Most religions profess that we don't take our bodies with us into an afterlife. Our souls or spirits live on without a body. The flesh and blood is returned to the earth, fertilizing new life, presumably.

Well, religion aside for a moment... why shouldn't it be universally true that everyone would be a donor? I'm not saying that a bone cancer patient should automatically become a bone donor upon death, but given a favorable health history, and a knowledgeable doctor, shouldn't all of us be potential donors when we die? Wouldn't this reduce the supply/demand burden, lower the cost of donated organs, and ultimately allow more people to live longer, more productive lives?

It seems to me that the only reason that we put ourselves in the ground sans donation is to appease the living. Others feel some sense of closure when they see someone's body at a viewing. There are, of course, those who believe that a body cannot be touched after death, as it is involved in their religion's afterlife beliefs. This should be the only reason that anyone should be exempt from donation.

And then there is the "they'll take your stuff before your dead" argument. Well, for one, I just don't believe it. I don't think that this really has happened enough to be even measurable. Second, if the supply for donated organs went up, because virtually everyone was a donor upon death, then there would be a far smaller incentive for criminals to harvest organs prematurely.

This should be a touchy enough subject to get some good discussion going. Seriously, why isn't it a law that all persons should become donor candidates upon death (given a religion exemption)?

Doon doon.

You might be a terrorist...

Here's the story of how yours truly became a potential terrorist:

I had the good fortune to be at Shea Stadium for their last win of the season. (If you're a Mets fan you know this was unfortunately Game 6, not Game 7, of the NLCS.)

I brought my camera with me, and took photos at the game. Then, I was on the 7 train back to Manhattan, the 1 train to Penn Station, and finally a NJ Transit train home (yes, I now realize I should have taken LIRR). My point is that I was on a bunch of trains.

If you're like me, trains will start to bore you. Sure there's people watching, I had my iPod (but an hour of consecutive Pac-Man games had drained the battery), but I was getting a bit bored. So, I had my digital camera in tow... decided to look through the lens and see if there was anything worth photographing.

So, I fiddled around with some close-up shots, long exposures, low-lighting situations... looking at things really small, really big... a creative exploration of my surroundings because... wait for it... I'm a "creative."

Try explaining that to the conductor who looms over you and motions for your camera.

Initially I thought he wanted me to take my feet off the seats (I was slouching and had my legs crossed on the seat next to me... I'll note: in a fashion in which I did not have my soles on the seat). I propped up. He motioned again for my lap. I thought this time he wanted my iPod off. Then I realized my camera was in my hands.

I naively thought... oh, a fellow artist. He must be interested in what kind of shots I was getting. (Note: The train was nearly empty, because it was the very last train of the night. He wasn't super busy and we had some time between stops. Logic tells me that he has time to converse with a passenger if you chooses.)

No. He wasn't interested in sharing f-stop stories. He wanted to know, "Why have you been taking pictures at every station we've stopped at?"

I thought for a second. I had taken a picture at the last station because there was a cool lighting situation across the platform. The spot was illuminating a corner of a bench and the yellow edge of the platform.

"I haven't been doing that."

"Well, I guess we've stopped in only two stations." (So, I guess I might have.)

"How do you see what photos were taken on this thing?"

Okay, we're no longer dealing with a fellow photographer here. I show him. I'm now elevated in my seat, guiding him through the camera's preview feature. I wasn't sure how I could explain what I was innocently trying to do.

"Okay, that's Penn Station, the train... that's Shea Stadium..." as he reached the end of the train photos. I had really only taken 6 or 7 photos up to this point.

"You can't take photos of train stations." he said. "Ever since they put planes into our towers you can't do that any more. Somebody saw you taking photos and said something. You gotta delete those photos." Prior to him saying that I actually offered up, "I can delete them if you want." (They were all probably blurred out from camera shake anyway.)

So, he leaves me to delete them (again, not a camera guy, he doesn't know how to do it)... and I do.

After he leaves the following thoughts cross my mind:

1: It's a good thing I'm not using film so I don't lose the Shea pictures.

2: Hey, who's to say I am not trying to blow up Shea Stadium if my camera's contents is evidence of my intent?

3: Are we really so fearful that someone would speak up about someone taking pictures of train stations? I guess I'm happy that I am a blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white potential terrorist. They certainly weren't profiling me.

4: What if I didn't delete the photos? Did they have a NJ Transit version of Guantanamo Bay to put me in? How long would it take me to get out of an interrogation because I lazily was snapping photos on the train? Would I have to lawyer up? Could I be the next poster boy for the ACLU?

5: Lastly, I bet I get flagged by some FBI terrorist search team for this post. I wonder if this is what it felt like if you liked the color red under McCarthyism?

NJ is Broken

Specifically the road system here in the Garden State is broken. As one of the state's newest residents I've noted a few things about this place that have started to get under my skin. Hopefully, divulging these things here will allow me to move past them and begin to try to find those other wonderful things about this state that makes natives swoon for it (besides gas prices, and the fact that you don't have to pump it yourself).

First up is a handicap parking spot in front of my building.


Now, I'm no handicapped person, but if I was, I think I might be better off in a regular parking spot than this joke of a space. As my friend Chris put it, "That handicapped parking spot is handicapped."

Next we have a sign that exists only a few hundred feet from that parking spot. When you look at it this way, it doesn't make any sense.


Take a good look in the distance and you'll notice that the roadway doesn't turn, nor have a diagonal intersection upcoming.

Come at the same sign from the other direction and you'll see:


Oh! A road that makes a 90 degree left hand turn, with a diagonal driveway at it's elbow!

Someone neglected to tell the maker of this sign, that the information only pertained to one flow of traffic (image #2). Thus, it is broken.

Broken point of transportation #3:

A traffic circle was just created where there should simply be a light or a stop sign. From this photo, can you tell what you are supposed to do if you want to go left at this intersection?


The funny thing here, is that this is thought to be an improvement over the previous traffic pattern, which would force the driver to make a right turn, go around a jug handle, and make a left hand turn at a stop light... instead of just making a left hand turn at this intersection.

This traffic circle (and most circles in NJ) are a problem, because people do not know how to drive in them. There is a need to yield to the traffic in the circle, yet most NJ drivers do not abide by that. It also creates a situation of constant merging and exiting, which in my mind, is a bigger potential for an accident than an ordinary four-way intersection.

New Jersey has a lot of people, and equally as many cars. So, it is not easy to thwart the problem of traffic in any area of the state. The DOT here is approaching the problem the wrong way, however. Drivers get frustrated by the inability to make left hand turns on major roads and the constant use of jug handles and exits on state roads. Roadways that are intended to keep traffic flowing, instead make the entire trip longer.

In my opinion, NJ would benefit from more local roads, making it easier for locals to use their own back-roads to avoid major highways, center turn lanes (instead of medians), and conventional traffic lights, with left hand turn lanes that allow for more driver understanding.

More traffic lights would also allow for shorter open stretches of multi-lane highways which encourages drag racing and speeding. Center turn lanes would also allow for emergency personnel to make U-turns and left hand turns more efficiently when needed, shortening their trips, and getting them to an accident scene, hospital, or speeding car more efficiently.

Fhew... okay, I'm done. For now.

Why it matters

Sometimes I think about design and wonder why it really matters. A lot of people in the business of design say it matters all the time, and I generally believe that, but I don't think that the rest of the world buys into it. A bet a bunch of people would say that money matters. I bet another bunch would say that people matter. Both camps are right, but the nice thing about design mattering is that it helps satisfy both camps.

You see, two weeks ago, I had to get on a flight to Indiana. This flight was very important to me, as it would enable me to be there with the rest of my family as we put my grandfather to rest.

I woke up very early on the morning of Thursday, August 10th, ready to fly. My flight was leaving Laguardia at 8:00 am that morning and I arrived at 6:30 am.

That same morning I heard of the terror threats in England, and how the airports were going to be increasing security. I thought this would slow me down a bit, but I was getting there earlier than the woman had suggested to me the day before (when no security level was raised and the world was as normal as a post 9/11 world can be).

I checked in for my flight and found my way to a line for security... one that wrapped around the terminal, went outside and doubled up there. The speed at which this line was moving was less than encouraging, but I stayed in it, thinking that most travelers were trying to get somewhere important as well, and that if I could make it through the "normal" way, that would be best.

So, I waited and waited. I met a nice family from Oregon who told me about their son's service in Iraq and it all ironically made me think that all this wait was worth something.

Two individuals would wisk thorugh the security line shouting flight times. "7:30! If you're scheduled to leave at 7:30, follow me!"

Around ten minutes until 8 I asked the nice family to hold my place in line, so I could inquire about any flight delays and ensure that I would make it to my gate. The airport's electronic boards were showing flights leaving as scheduled and on time. Naturally this worried me, as I still had (in my estimates) another hour to wait in line.

I went to the airline counter and there were four people helping more people check-in, but none were able to tell me if flights were leaving on time or who I could speak with to answer that question. One woman got mad at me because I asked her to clarify. She clearly had lost her patience and was demonstrating that to me. Needless to say, it didn't make me feel any more comfortable.

Off duty security representatives were bombarded on their breaks, asked by nervous and confused passengers what they should do. The response of the workers was that they couldn't help because they were on break.

On duty security workers were only able to tell people to follow a singular line around the terminal until they found the end of it.

One worker for another airline could be heard telling people that they were holding flights, and that they wouldn't take off without their passengers. This made sense to me, because it makes little sense to fly an empty plane.

Comforted, I went back into line.

When I heard my flights time called, I rushed forward with an airline representative to another line. This one was long too, but it's length was contained to the terminal. Surely this one would get me through in enough time to get to the plane.

I waited another 45 minutes to get to the security gate. There I went through the steps I had done just the week before, taking off my shoes and belt, unpacking my laptop, and emptying my pockets. I was accepted through the metal detector and collected my things. The process was exactly the same. Nothing had changed, except about an hour before I had dumped any liquids in my carry-on.

When I walked into the terminal it was like I had entered a new dimension. It was quiet and rather empty. A few people were milling about the restaurant and shops. In all there were maybe a hundred people in sight, compared to the hundreds that packed the other side of the terminal.

I ran towards my gate and the plane had gone. They said they had held it, but I still had missed it. There was no turning it around. No magic to get my person to Indianapolis in the next few hours.

The airline representative at the gate was frustrated, because her computer wasn't accepting her count for the now departed flight. I was soon joined by several other passengers who were in my same camp.

She went around to us, asking each of us what we wanted to do: take the next direct flight or a connecting flight through Detroit (noting that Detroit might be backed up too). I told her I didn't know what to do, because I didn't know which way would get me there faster. She seemed upset, and frustrated said "Where are you trying to go?"

I started to cry and said, "My grandfather's funeral."

I think she meant "what city," but that's the place where I needed to go. Suddenly her face grew understanding and she asked me to wait a minute. She finished helping the other passengers and then came over to me.

She told me to take the connecting flight as it had the best chance of getting me there with some time. So, I immediately boarded a flight, only to have it wait for other passengers who were undoubtedly waiting in the same line I had been waiting in just minutes earlier.

The flight eventually took off and we landed in Detroit, after my connecting flight had left. There was no way for me to get on that plane. No way for me to get to Indianapolis until the next one.

I got on it, too tired of being upset, to be upset.

I arrived in Indianapolis at 3:00 pm or so. I rented a car and drove the hour and a half to the funeral home. When I arrived they were packing up the pictures and mementos that symbolized my grandfathers life. When I got to the grave site, the dirt was freshly covering the spot where he lay. I said good bye.

It's all a pretty sad story. As I recount it, I am able to very easily fall into the emotion of the day. There was frustration and anger. Disbelief and exhaustion.

Looking back on it now, perhaps two weeks removed it makes me think about design.

I heard a radio program on NPR about how the new terminal at Indianapolis Airport was being designed to be flexible. It would have no permanent interior walls.

The space could be changed and modified to adapt to the changing needs of the airport. Laguardia had no such plan at its inception. There was no such plan, even after 9/11.

There was no signage or loudspeaker to help you find your way. None of those tension barriers to make lines, nor people to construct or manage the lines. There was no liaison between the people checking those in passengers in at the baggage and check and those at the gate. There was no way to call out individual passengers to move through the line so as to make their flight. No way to identify persons who might have a priority in their travel plans (i.e a family emergency, a doctor en route to surgery, etc.). The electronic boards wrongly went through the schedule of flights as if they had left, when they really hadn't.

The airport seemed very good at how to declare a state of emergency, but not very good at how to handle it. The airlines had poor communication with the security officials and vice versa. The employees had an inflexible "my job, not my job" philosophy. Ultimately, it could have been solved by better design of communication systems, line management, prioritization, flexibility of design and space, and foresight.

There are those who will say that the entire situation was handled well and it was a crisis averted. What I experienced that day, however, was a complete breakdown of control and an ability to adapt to a situation.

Why does good design matter? Because it could have had a hand to play in the events of that day to make the whole situation more effective, and perhaps this passenger would not have missed such an important event. When I think of the emotional strife that good design might have prevented, it makes me believe it's worth the emphasis.

Do not see the World Trade Center movie!

It would be very easy to say that that Oliver Stone's film World Trade Center is nothing more than an attempt to play on people's nationalism and grief in order to make a lot of money.

It would be easy to say this film is an obvious attempt for an Oscar-minded producer/director to play the sympathy card at next years Oscars. (If you're a member of the academy it will be like voting against the No Child Left Behind Act: "Oh, you didn't vote for the World Trade Center movie for Best Film? You must be a terrorist or French or something!")

But, I've thought about it and these are not the reasons that I will not see this film boycott this film.

I remember the events of 9/11/2001 well. It has be almost six years since that day, and I don't find my recollection of the events or my emotions to be fading.

I don't need a movie to be made for me to remember what happened that day. I don't need a movie to be made about two men, when there were thousands of other stories that day that are just as important. I don't need a movie to be made for me to remember the heroes and survivors and victims of that day.

So, Mr. Stone, instead of giving you $10, or some other ridiculous sum, to see your pathetic attempt to mimic a day that lives far more vividly in my own mind's eye... I will donate that money to help build the memorial where every story will be remembered.

I invite you to join me in agreeing to NOT see this movie, sign this petition and donate the money you would have put towards the movie to the World Trade Center memorial fund.

As an aside, if you want to see what some really committed citizens/designers/minds can do around the subject of the World Trade Center, go check out Project Rebirth.

Too much of everything

Being a "creative" in the marketing and advertising industry demands that you are constantly reading about how much bad advertising there is in this world. From infomercials to billboards, banners and pop ups, movie ads, etc. etc. everybody is bitching about something someone else made.

This is not to say that there aren't any good ads, and that they don't get their due, but an exorbitant amount of time seems to be spent pointing out, ridiculing, justifying, and lamenting the bad ads of the world. Many fingers are pointed. Many agencies are shunned. Fewer are exalted.

Recently I have been thinking about how many people there are in the world. This led me to a dizzying attempt to think about how each of them could really find a job, a place in life, to be happy. I came to the conclusion that there must be a huge number of people working in jobs that they don't belong in, despise or even hate. This must be true of the many players in advertising as well - client and agency side alike.

So, with that motivation and considering the number of possible time slots on televisions to fill, the number of billboards that need communication, the ever-growing pages of magazines, an internet explosion... it seems to me that it is fairly reasonable to expect a lot of terrible advertising to be produced.

Great work takes time and cunning and the ability to revise and contort and just plain think. We don't have enough time or committed people in the industry to make them all great ads.

So, when we choose to be choosy about the least among ourselves, perhaps we should consider that the people who made it might have no desire to do good work in the first place. Perhaps they are on their way to the thing that really makes them happy, or they are filling the space that we have generated or perhaps the process killed everything good along the way, because the process is the same people who hate their jobs anyway.

Perhaps we just have too many people who need jobs and too many ad spaces to fill.

All of this was spurred by this lovely post from American Copywriter.

Why Bridgstone ads suck... maybe not.

Here is a terrific example of how poor management of your brand can result in very different messages.

What's the difference between a great Bridgestone commercial and a horrible Bridgestone commercial?

I've been waiting a long time for a good reason to complain about the Bridgestone campaign which is running right now. It uses an audio track with variations on the song "The Wheel." The songs repeats "And the wheel goes round and round. The wheel goes round and round. And the wheel... goes round."

Are you fucking with me? The wheel goes round? Talk about choosing a point of communication that is absolutely the same for everyone of your competitors. Plus, the song is just really annoying.

Apparently these spots were shot by some big shot music video director and the dancers were all painstakingly auditioned. Yet, I have never seen more awkward looking dancing in my life. And what does all these over dressed dancers have to do with tires? Apparently "A Passion for Excellence", but I am not buying that it has anything to do with tires.

The spots are so bad that I was only able to find one on the web, and it was an ice skating version at that. If anyone knows where I can link to the other dancing in the rain or dancing in the dark spots, please let me know.

The other Bridgestone commercial that I just saw on the web is in such stark contrast to "The Wheel" campaign that I can't believe that they are from the same company.

The spot communicates a real emotional reason to buy the tires, tells a great story, and is tremendously different than any other spot by other tire companies.

Sure, the dog is "cute." But it's well directed and edited. I'm sure the doggy sex makes it hard for the spot to run in the US. If you search YouTube, Google video or any other video engine, you'll find that the dog spot is the one that is all over. That should be reason enough for Bridgestone to realize that it is the better direction for the brand.

It's really frustrating working in the business of advertising and seeing the spots that I see with dancers and rain and spinning wheels and bad wheel music, because you know that the whole thing could be meaningful if taken in another direction. Then you see a spot like the one with the dog and you wonder if the agency just fell down on the creative end or if there are new people on the client's side, or someone is out to prove something to someone and the ads got sacrificed along the way. No matter what happened there is clearly a better ad out there-if someone is willing to make it.

F*ck Geno's, Go to Pat's!

I had just finished telling someone that I agreed with the sentiment that all PR is good PR, then Geno's Steaks in Philly has to go and ruin the whole theory.

As reported, Geno's has decided to put up a sign that says they want you to speak English. And they have an adjacent sign reading "the management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone." Basically... if you don't speak English, you're not welcome to eat at Geno's.

Can anyone tell me when it is a good business practice to turn away customers? It's not like Geno's is an affluent brokerage, choosing their clientele. They serve cheesesteaks. Cheesesteaks! I may not hold a business degree, but a customer with U.S. currency is a customer you want.

An ironic part of all of this, is that Geno's founder, Joey Vento, is Italian. I don't know if he was born in America, but he certainly has Italian heritage, and I guarantee that whoever came to America in his lineage did not know English when they got here.

Another irony is that the United States has no official language. English is the most common, but if you think about it, there's nothing American about it. It's origins are in England. So, who are we to suggest that English is our own language?

This whole thing doesn't surprise me. It's a tacky move by a tacky place. Take a look at Geno's web site and you'll see what I mean.

If you want a real cheese steak in Philly, you should go to Pat's. I'll take the cheesesteak place with the uglier web site any day. Why? Because they're worried about making great cheesesteaks, not about pimping themselves on the web or generating stupid press stories based on false patriotic pretense.

If you're in Philly, do yourself a favor and eat at Pat's, where everyone is welcome to screw up their order, but still get a cheesesteak in the end.

High education

This past weekend I attended the Commencement ceremonies of the University of Delaware. It was the first time back to the alma mater for graduation since my own in 2004.

It was rather nice to be sitting there as an observer of the ceremony, rather than a participant. I didn't have to think about how I was going to find a job or how I was going to move all of my stuff or the shock of moving back home. I was able to cheer and applaud a new group of graduates and their accomplishments.

At lunch, I was having a conversation about college and what it means to graduate these days. For a while now I have felt that college is no more the fertile ground of higher education that it once was. (I'm thinking in terms of pre-1980 or so.)

In the conversation I talked about how I felt that college is more-so an extension of high school than a place of elevated academia. It isn't for all persons, but it is hard to argue that a bachelors degree has the same value as it once did, when a much smaller percentage of the population was able to earn it.

There is certainly an argument for college being more readily available than it has been in years past, and I agree with that and applaud that wholeheartedly. Still, I feel the value of a college education is really far less than it used to be, and that a Masters degree is the new Bachelors Degree.

A recent New York Times article explored how some colleges are accepting students without a high school diploma.

The article states, "New York awards those students a high school equivalency degree when they complete 24 college credits. But the State Education Department says colleges should be more selective in whom they admit."

For me, this is where we see colleges crossing the line between place of business and institution of higher education. The "er" in higher education is missing in this situation as the student has not graduated from one level in order to move higher up the academic ladder.

You may say that I am being too strict, but I do believe that everyone who is admitted to college should have a high school degree, passed the GRE, or equivalent. College should be about a demanding and rigorous academic experience, that is not meant for every person. Otherwise college is simply high education.

What do you think?

Sappy and sorry meet their match.

It is well known that ABC is out to make America cry. Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Miracle Workers. They both do a great job of keeping Kleenex in business.

American Inventor doesn't exactly fit the mold of these shows, but you shouldn't tell that to the show's producers who had Josh Grobin's "You Raise Me Up" playing on a continuous loop for the last half hour of tonight's cut down show. Why does every moment have to be the biggest, most emotional, tear-jerker? Why do contestants need to fall to their knees like TV evangelists? Because American loves to the emotional rollercoaster 3 times a week starting at 8pm Eastern, 7pm Central.

Shouldn't a show called American INVENTOR be in some way inventive about the way the show is produced? They have stolen almost everything from American Idol (yes I do know that Simon Cowell is a co-creator). In fact, the only thing that is markedly different from Idol is that there are four judges instead of three. Who's brain-child was that? An even number of judges? Have they found an inventor that can break a 2-2 tie?

Speaking of the judges... they don't need two people from the world of marketing/advertising. They have an inventor, a businessman, and all they need is one more judge. Come to think of it, they don't even need someone from marketing - especially from an agency like JWT that wouldn't know how to sell water to beached goldfish (or how to make a web site). The third judge should have been Jessica Simpson or Paris Hilton or someone who knows how to create something out of nothing - they could have helped the shows ratings as well.

Let's talk about Mary Lou Quinlan for a second. She apparently is a marketing expert when it comes to women. She has interviewed thousands of women to understand what American women are like. One might say she knows women better than anyone (with the exception of Gene Simmons, who claims to know a thing or two about marketing as well). Well, if we were to judge what women want by Ms. Quinlan, we could assume that women want to fit into traditional stereotypes, cry on tv a lot, and act like push overs. Besides that, can this woman look more like the mom from Home Alone?

To top it all off, this amazing show has one of the most comprehensive and informative web sites on the planet. Don't expect those crazy flash animations and punched up graphics on this site. Oh no... it's all content there. All three links of it. Heaven forbid someone should actually realize that it'd be interesting to profile the contestants or their inventions.

I think what has been proven here is simple. America doesn't like to be reminded of it's emotionally unstable geek community. Instead, we'd prefer to listen to pitchy melodies, from amateur karaoke fans, on a stage the size of Greenland (I'm referring to a different "American" themed show of course). Why? Because it gives us a good reason to use the text feature on our cell phones. And that is what is really missing from American Inventor.