Month: January 2008

Unbelievable, the power of collective collaboration.

Go now and search for something common on Google, first page of results has to have the wikipedia article.

The fact that wikipedia even exists and works is unreal. Anyone can add or change any article, opening itself to mischief from the unforgiving world, and yet it works. I love its self-healing nature. I like self-healing systems.

This is an open, free, social self-healing system. Even better. This is good design.

I was browsing edge.org’s world question, “what have you changed your mind about?”, Kevin Kelly’s response was wikipedia, one particular run of sentences I found interesting:

“The Wikipedia is impossible, but here it is. It is one of those things impossible in theory, but possible in practice. Once you confront the fact that it works, you have to shift your expectation of what else that is impossible in theory might work in practice.

I am not the only one who has had his mind changed about this. The reality of a working Wikipedia has made a type of communitarian socialism not only thinkable, but desirable. Along with other tools such as open-source software and open-source everything, this communitarian bias runs deep in the online world.”

Sudoku is for people with crossword puzzle envy.

Wikipedia will tell you about the history of the game and the rules. I will tell you why I like it.

I like sudoku because it’s a simple game. You don’t have to know a thousand words and their quirky meanings. You simply need to know:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Not even zero. You think in horizontal, vertical and box. Here, you must think inside, outside and yes even around the box. 🙂

The easy ones can be done within 5 minutes, most of them within 12 minutes, and then there are challenging ones that are nearly impossible to get.

I, personally, use the dot notation and it seems to be working well for me. I don’t like guessing, so if I have exhausted all options and have to guess a number for a box, I won’t bother completing the puzzle, will move on to the next one.

Simple is good. Sudoku is good.

The TTC is currently (and has been for a while) running ads for debt management. There are two companies that are running their ads, CreditCanada.com and InChargeCanada.ca. Let’s compare.

Starting with the subway adverts:

Credit Canada

This is an awesome ad. Large clear font, extremely legible, perfect spacing. The hook is the ad copy, “like hell money doesn’t buy happiness”. This literally compels you to look below and get more details. The details are also clear. Motto/slogan, followed by website, followed by phone number. Done. Message sent, message understood.

They have a number of these on the subway cars, and each one had a different ad copy, one of them reads, “Rags to?” . It’s clever, it makes you think, and once you have, you know someone else put thought into it.

In Charge Canada

*apologies for the picture below, it was taken by my phone camera. I need a spiffy camera like the one that was used to take the picture above.

There is so much that is wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin.

Let’s start with the distribution of information. It’s all crammed in. The spacing is awful, there is no breathing room. The mini paragraph is useless, because it’s small and hard to read. Also because it has no flow, the capitalized and bold words are used way too much, breaking the rhythm of the sentences. If your sentences require this much emphasis, they’re probably wrong.

The background color is too close to the empty lighting cover in the back, this doesn’t help draw any attention to the ad.

There are pictures of people. Big Mistake. At least in my opinion. Because I’m thinking, “ah so that’s what people who were in debt look like”. And if they are the same race or the same type of person as me, I wouldn’t be too pleased. Who do you put there? White people? Black people? Brown people? seriously, keep people pictures out of debt ads, or at the very least cleverly cover their identities.

The next part I really really hate. There are mini-flyers hanging off the ad that people are supposed to rip off so they can remember the phone number and the website and other details. First of all, the ad is so bad that they realized they should probably have some physical take away for people. Thanks, but do you really want me to get up, walk up to a terrible debt management ad and rip off your mini-flyer in front of all these people?

“Oh haha, yes, this isn’t for me, oh no no, this is for a friend, she’s addicted to gambling”.

Ummm… no. Get a better ad copy so that people remember your ad without having to exert too much effort, not to mention face possible public embarrassment. You should be grateful that someone even bothered to look at your ad.

Slogans

InCharge: Debt Solutions

CreditCanada: Debt is Manageable

Sigh, yet once again. CreditCanada completely nailed it, their slogan gives you hope, it’s as if someone is talking directly to you. InCharge’s sounds like corporate drivel, like “Web-based Solutions” what does that even mean?

Websites

It’s interesting how the design philosophies of each company is not only reflected in their subway advertisements, but also in the design of their website. InCharge is all crammed up as well, while CreditCanada is lean, clean and very well spaced out.

I land on the InCharge website and I think to myself, “what? what should I do next?”. When I land on the CreditCanada website I think, “hmmm… I want to find out more about X, and gee look, I know exactly where to click to find it”.

InCharge is too image heavy, while CreditCanada is text heavy, which is great for search engines. Taking a look at the code, InCharge is table based, while CreditCanada is using proper CSS based layouts. HTML validation shows CreditCanada to have 5 errors (minor things, really), InCharge has over 60 errors.

InCharge was way too many menu options, and the side bar on the right distracts from the content. CreditCanada has excellent consistency in the pages, and has a simple side menu.

Think about it, if you’re in debt and you visit one of these sites. If you visit CreditCanada, it seems open, lots of room to relax and breathe, and you can use that since you’re in debt and all. InCharge, however, you feel more cramped and uneasy.

If you had to choose a company to help you get out of debt, who would you choose?

I love good design, good design makes me happy. Design encompasses a whole lot though. There is graphic design, costume design, software design. etc… Pretty much everything is designed in some form or another. There’s aesthetic design and there’s design for usability. Take craigslist.org for example, not so good in the aesthetic department, but it serves its purpose so well and is very usable, information is well organized (this is also design) and easy to find.

Great design requires great thought. So much work, planning, constraints and issues. Colors, spacing, font, words, flow, patterns… so much.
Overall, I’m not too great a designer (hopefully except for software design), but I admire good design. But most important of all, I consume design.  When I see something, I’ll quickly develop an opinion about its design.

I’ll use this ‘design of things’ category to comment on… wait for it… the design of things. All sorts of things: physical products (e.g. mp3 players), tv commercials, ad copies, logos, websites etc.

Should be fun.