The big news this week for me is that I did a quick announcement that I’m going to be leaving Daylife in a couple weeks. I’ve been given an awesome opportunity at Behavior that I’m pretty excited about. As that was being finalized below are the sites and posts that made me think this week for Link Drop.
While I recognize that it is still too soon to talk about the influence of the iPad when it has yet to come out, the post Books in the Age of the iPad is worth spending a lot more time with than the conspiracy theories of whether the iPad will ship with a camera or not.
There’s so much I could block quote, but that would be a disservice to not actually reading the whole post. But I will post this bit…
When people lament the loss of the printed book, this — comfort — is usually what they’re talking about. My eyes tire more easily, they say. The batteries run out, the screen is tough to read in sunlight. It doesn’t like bath tubs.
Important to note is that these aren’t complaints about the text losing meaning. Books don’t become harder to understand, or confusing just because they’re digital. It’s mainly issues concerning quality. One inevitable property of the quality argument is that technology is closing the gap (through advancements in screens and batteries) and because of additional features (note taking, bookmarking, searching), will inevitably surpass the comfort level of reading on paper.
The convenience of digital text — on demand, lightweight (in file size and physicality), searchable — already far trumps that of traditional printed matter.
The formula used to be simple:
stop printing Formless Content; only print well-considered Definite Content.
The iPad changes this.
I don’t usually point to anything from Ad Age because their links becomes useless after the article goes behind their pay wall as time passes. That aside I liked how Ana Andjelic’s article Time to Rewrite the Brand Playbook for Digital made me think about what digital is. She makes some convincing arguments about the wrong questions to ask are in terms of “digital” branding, but I’m also wondering if there are any new methods of calculating success aside from serendipity? Most people still measure success from growth which is a pretty old ideal. While the value of branding (as assumed as just slapping on a logo) is up in the air as an outdated model from the print world, I don’t think you can discontinue it while new measurements for success are still in their infancy.
What I like about this post from Matt Daniels is passes along some hilarious info about guys and credit card interest rates and fees. Apparently a women’s photo had as much impact in response as dropping the interest rate by five points. As sad as that seems the post also goes into behavioral economics. Sometimes when I read about a more scientific method for planning I want to put my head through a wall. Irrational humans can’t predict things they’ve never encountered before but I also flip to looking at my stats to see what grabs people attention. So what’s the happy balance between tipping your hand to overwhelming evidence for something obvious and possibly crass and doing the opposite of what is expected an reap bigger rewards?
I really like the idea behind Inkgredient’s proposed design by Mattias Mackler for his friends print/apparel shop. What printer wouldn’t want an ink based octopus that has CMYK control? Actually check out his entire blog, there’s tons of great examples of things he’s worked on…
Everything about this Qantas flight timeline found via Feltron is perfect. The icons, the type, the actual experience that someone was able to design it for people… I recommend clicking on the image to see it at full size.
This poster might have already made the blog runs, but it’s still new to me…
Earthquake data from data.gov for Feb27th during the Chile earthquake put on display by nickbilton.
I’m not sure if there was any single example that made crowdsourcing in vogue aside from cheap tech, people that had time on their hands, there were no budgets to pay people to come up with ideas and/or the misguided idea of following a crowd is never a mistake (think focus groups). But with that said in the post Crowdsourcing: Art vs Model there’s a lot to consider. Who actually benefits from such an exercise, the people organizing the system or those participating? And down the road what does it mean for those creating the system…
What I like about this post is that Young & Brilliant has contrasted the more typical sports athlete (with an old management team) and contrasted her with another athlete in the same field that by the looks of it has grown her voice and image with the same social media tools everyone has.
Looking at these Confederate Motorcycles via Popwuping are amazing. I can almost hear them now. They’re striking a nice balance between Ducati and Harley—though I don’t claim to be a bike aficionado. So hopefully that comment doesn’t come off to badly to the other motorcycle experts out there…
Watch the Oscar Nominated Short Logorama
Many thanks to Debbie Milllman for mentioning where a person could view the entire Oscar Nominated Short Logorama. It better win!
Sure there’s a lot of talk about the new Gorillaz album, but the trippy award for site music design has to go to Javelin. But how does it actually sound—I’m only into song three as I post this, but so far so good…
Happy to see the interview on Booooooom with Hiroyuki Hamada reposted. I wasn’t familiar with his artwork before today.
Sure maps inherent value is their functionality, though the blog Cartogrammar makes a great point about how nice a map can look by stripping all the elements except for one core visual. Be sure to click HERE to see a large version that shows thing in detail.
I’m not entirely sure what the story is behind the Effing Typeface, though on Alex Merto’s website the description is as follows: “Fan Letter:Twenty-six local, national, and internationally-based designers and artists give a two-minute ode to an alphabet letter or typographic character.” In any case it’s fun to look at.