CNN new website definitely places greater importance to its entertainment section, but I feel like it goes about it in the wrong way. Placing so many images creates too much visual noise, I feel as if the page is screaming at me. Plus, many of the large images don't even link to a video (a bit misleading), I don't see the point of luring people to read articles with an images.
I am not sure if they achieved the "contemporary look" they wanted. I think red header is a bit obnoxious, and I can not stand the huge commercial space at the top of the page.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
New and not improved
I guess it's always hard to get used to something that's new.
CNN's new design is no exception, especially the top half of the page.
I miss the column stacked with the day's best stories in the middle of the page.
This new format, with six stories highlighted in boxes in the center of the page, only showcases a few stories. That leaves me to search for other content on my own.
While the day's most popular stories are to the immediate right of the boxed stories, the list is shorter than before. I remember at least 12 top stories stacked on the page, now there are six.
The Lexus ad in the top right of the page is annoying an could be confusing.
It is so close to news stories and the design is very similar to them. At first glance it is difficult to distinguish the ad from the stories.
The bottom half of the page is better. It is organized and helps viewers go straight to their topic of interest.
It is neat, clean and easy to navigate.
I also do like the new format with the CNN/Headline shows highlighted at the bottom of the page.
This feature easily guides viewers to the shows they are interested in with ease.
The new CNN is a little better, but some old features are missed.
CNN's new design is no exception, especially the top half of the page.
I miss the column stacked with the day's best stories in the middle of the page.
This new format, with six stories highlighted in boxes in the center of the page, only showcases a few stories. That leaves me to search for other content on my own.
While the day's most popular stories are to the immediate right of the boxed stories, the list is shorter than before. I remember at least 12 top stories stacked on the page, now there are six.
The Lexus ad in the top right of the page is annoying an could be confusing.
It is so close to news stories and the design is very similar to them. At first glance it is difficult to distinguish the ad from the stories.
The bottom half of the page is better. It is organized and helps viewers go straight to their topic of interest.
It is neat, clean and easy to navigate.
I also do like the new format with the CNN/Headline shows highlighted at the bottom of the page.
This feature easily guides viewers to the shows they are interested in with ease.
The new CNN is a little better, but some old features are missed.
CNN Web Design
After taking a quick look a CNN's new website, it's clear that they're really trying to target a more multimedia-based reader without compromising the novelty of "breaking news." The website's column design using videos seems much more organized and inclined to attract users. I also noticed that the site implemented more interactive features like newspulse, quickvote, and hot topic which will definitely help to "showcase a lot more of the deep, rich content" CNN creates.
In general, the site's new design is much more organized and not bogged down with text - there's the right balance between written content and multimedia on the homepage which should really attract a more vast range of news readers. Another crucial is the new "personalization" of the site. The "Sign-up" box in the site's upper right corner is a smart step toward attracting news readers looking for customized news. This call to action helps CNN accomplish what Nick Wrenn, CNN International's vice president of digital services, calls that "step toward being more appealing." Better organized content, interactive features, and a variety of niche-based news stories creates "new personalization functionality enables users to customize a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather, and CNN's community-based iReport site will be featured in a curated section on the homepage, as well as in the middle of unfolding stories," Wrenn said. All in all, I think it's a job well-done. It's nice to see news outlets take that first daunting stride from the old ways to new media.
At least now I can sleep at night knowing that news won't be buried beneath the heap of disheveled dinosaur bones known as print journalism. I'm glad news outlets are moving away from the print method of attracting viewers to something much more interactive - something that will hopefully make news' late transition to online successful. Thank you CNN for setting a good example.
In general, the site's new design is much more organized and not bogged down with text - there's the right balance between written content and multimedia on the homepage which should really attract a more vast range of news readers. Another crucial is the new "personalization" of the site. The "Sign-up" box in the site's upper right corner is a smart step toward attracting news readers looking for customized news. This call to action helps CNN accomplish what Nick Wrenn, CNN International's vice president of digital services, calls that "step toward being more appealing." Better organized content, interactive features, and a variety of niche-based news stories creates "new personalization functionality enables users to customize a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather, and CNN's community-based iReport site will be featured in a curated section on the homepage, as well as in the middle of unfolding stories," Wrenn said. All in all, I think it's a job well-done. It's nice to see news outlets take that first daunting stride from the old ways to new media.
At least now I can sleep at night knowing that news won't be buried beneath the heap of disheveled dinosaur bones known as print journalism. I'm glad news outlets are moving away from the print method of attracting viewers to something much more interactive - something that will hopefully make news' late transition to online successful. Thank you CNN for setting a good example.
New CNN
I am quite surprised that it has taken CNN, a cable news network that has been making 24 hours of TV content daily for years, has taken this long to shift the focus on their website more towards video. Duh.
I don't mind the shift to entertainment. With Americans increasingly wanting to have their own opinions validated by talking heads, CNN has been losing more and more viewers to both MSNBC and FOX News. Maybe the increased focus on entertainment will draw back some of those viewers, as they tire of watching people complain about posters of Bush and Obama with Hitler mustaches on them. This could be either a savvy business move or a dying gasp.
As for the design of the site, I have to partly agree with Snooch about the header. I don' think it's too big nor do I think red is too bold. Considering CNN is trying to rebrand itself and stay in the public consciousness, this is not overboard at all. But yes, the reds are sort of mismatched, and there's no gradation at all. This will look awful on mobile devices. CNN will have to change this pretty soon. I also don't like the font type, sizes, weights or colors, which changed little from the previous design. Overall, CNN's site still looks and feels clunky, even with the new focus on video.
I don't mind the shift to entertainment. With Americans increasingly wanting to have their own opinions validated by talking heads, CNN has been losing more and more viewers to both MSNBC and FOX News. Maybe the increased focus on entertainment will draw back some of those viewers, as they tire of watching people complain about posters of Bush and Obama with Hitler mustaches on them. This could be either a savvy business move or a dying gasp.
As for the design of the site, I have to partly agree with Snooch about the header. I don' think it's too big nor do I think red is too bold. Considering CNN is trying to rebrand itself and stay in the public consciousness, this is not overboard at all. But yes, the reds are sort of mismatched, and there's no gradation at all. This will look awful on mobile devices. CNN will have to change this pretty soon. I also don't like the font type, sizes, weights or colors, which changed little from the previous design. Overall, CNN's site still looks and feels clunky, even with the new focus on video.
Functional Design
There were two things from Vignelli's lecture that stood out as important for us to consider as web designers.
Firstly, the heckler who interrupted in Joe Wilson/Kanye West-esque fashion unfortunately drew attention away from Vignelli's point about fonts. The reason he said one only really needs four fonts, two with serifs and two sans, was that there are so many other changes you can make to adjust the impact of a font like color, font-weight, font-size and others. If these changes are applied first and in the right ways, the use of more fonts becomes unnecessary and usually, distracting. His reminder that Bordoni is a font that is several hundred years old, and could therefore be said to be implicitly attractive to humans from many ages, was quite illuminating. I am reminded of a Coco Chanel quote: " Fashion fades, only style remains the same" Substitute design for style and you get Vignelli's stance. His insistence that design of an element should be judged by how functional the element would be in 100 years is something more designers should take to heart. Obviously, Vignelli does not design with built-in obsolescence in mind.
This was really Vignelli's second point about design, that if it is not functional, it is not design, is possibly even more pertinent to our design of websites. The web is all about ease of use. Ask someone if they would rather visit an aesthetically pleasing site or a functional one, and they will always pick function.
It was great to see 230 slides of work by a man who has designed in so many different arenas. People are intuitive and creatures of habit. They want things to work the same in all phases of their lives. Our websites are no exception. Let's just hope Massimo doesn't start doing web design.
Firstly, the heckler who interrupted in Joe Wilson/Kanye West-esque fashion unfortunately drew attention away from Vignelli's point about fonts. The reason he said one only really needs four fonts, two with serifs and two sans, was that there are so many other changes you can make to adjust the impact of a font like color, font-weight, font-size and others. If these changes are applied first and in the right ways, the use of more fonts becomes unnecessary and usually, distracting. His reminder that Bordoni is a font that is several hundred years old, and could therefore be said to be implicitly attractive to humans from many ages, was quite illuminating. I am reminded of a Coco Chanel quote: " Fashion fades, only style remains the same" Substitute design for style and you get Vignelli's stance. His insistence that design of an element should be judged by how functional the element would be in 100 years is something more designers should take to heart. Obviously, Vignelli does not design with built-in obsolescence in mind.
This was really Vignelli's second point about design, that if it is not functional, it is not design, is possibly even more pertinent to our design of websites. The web is all about ease of use. Ask someone if they would rather visit an aesthetically pleasing site or a functional one, and they will always pick function.
It was great to see 230 slides of work by a man who has designed in so many different arenas. People are intuitive and creatures of habit. They want things to work the same in all phases of their lives. Our websites are no exception. Let's just hope Massimo doesn't start doing web design.
The New CNN
It's obvious what CNN is trying to do with their new design: they want to appeal to a greater variety of people, especially teenagers and young adults, to compete with places like Youtube. In the article describing the changes, the first thing the author points out is that, "The new design, which looks tidier and a bit fresher, is far less text driven, with videos and photography as the centrepieces of the homepage." With so many technological advances, no one wants to just go to a straight news story anymore. They want multimedia storytelling and intricate designs and videos. They should. Anything else is selling the consumer short.
Also, in the article it says that CNN grew just over 3 percent in the past year. For a powerhouse news station, that is pretty bad. Eventually, and perhaps even as we speak, other more modern and flexible news stations and web sites are going to be passing them by. They had to keep up with the times and this redesign is their way of moving forward. Almost immediately, the colors jump out at you. That red is ferocious and the videos are just calling you in. Color is important and that is something the old site didn't have much of. The color gives people the idea that the news is going to be presented in a more creative way. It makes them want to stay.
Also, in the article it says that CNN grew just over 3 percent in the past year. For a powerhouse news station, that is pretty bad. Eventually, and perhaps even as we speak, other more modern and flexible news stations and web sites are going to be passing them by. They had to keep up with the times and this redesign is their way of moving forward. Almost immediately, the colors jump out at you. That red is ferocious and the videos are just calling you in. Color is important and that is something the old site didn't have much of. The color gives people the idea that the news is going to be presented in a more creative way. It makes them want to stay.
Totally Tubular Design Kicks Some Major Shell
I don’t know who the Krang was behind this operation, but Paul Brockwell likes this re-design. He thinks the use of more dominant visuals gives the site a nice feel while accomplishing the identified goal of relying more heavily on video.
Incorporating pull quotes and headlines into the visuals does a nice job of cleaning up what had been part of the problem of news expanding beyond the eyesight down the page. The incorporated headlines save space and also evoke, with the white Arial on black bkgrd, the idea that someone’s watching a video presentation/clip from the network. In our highly visual online culture, the site no longer suffers from a laundry list of links and one moderately-sized visual.
D’arps mentioned some interesting points on (cringe) infotainment. For me personally, though, CNN the Newer seems like it’s presenting similar information but just in a better way. In responding to the question re HuffPost, CNN’s Nick Wrenn said the redesign shows how important entertainment was to CNN already, not how much they intended to mimic HuffPost's success. I think their decision not to focus too much on the use of social networking beyond existing agreements substantiates this claim, and anyone who’s surfed HuffPost lately (a guilty pleasure of mine... just like Grey’s Anatomy..) will know that Arianna has social media coming out the ying-yang.
To me, Wrenn’s response underscores the reality that CNN has covered entertainment/infotainment/crap for awhile now. Today’s re-design is just a better window dressing. For that I congratulate them, and will continue to visit when I want to learn about a man breaking into a house and cooking while naked, or for the latest updates on Jon and Kate as they Separate, or even celebs gone wild.
What will be interesting to watch is how new emphasis on the user might validate some of CNN’s more bizarre news stories from before of it it will reveal an informed, engaged and disgusted proletariat seeking substantive news coverage.
Paul Brockwell awaits those results with... anticipation (and a bit of sarcasm is seriously wondering whether people at large want a higher level of discourse).
P.S. - I’m glad this redesign occurred after Jeff had us mock up one of the divs for the assignment.
P.P.S. - It’s interesting to note that the UK, generator of this article on the new design, also heavily censored the TMNT when airing the animated series - first by renaming them the Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles and replacing images and removing phrases like “Let’s kick some shell” and “Bummer” from the shows. They also didn’t like nunchuks...
Incorporating pull quotes and headlines into the visuals does a nice job of cleaning up what had been part of the problem of news expanding beyond the eyesight down the page. The incorporated headlines save space and also evoke, with the white Arial on black bkgrd, the idea that someone’s watching a video presentation/clip from the network. In our highly visual online culture, the site no longer suffers from a laundry list of links and one moderately-sized visual.
D’arps mentioned some interesting points on (cringe) infotainment. For me personally, though, CNN the Newer seems like it’s presenting similar information but just in a better way. In responding to the question re HuffPost, CNN’s Nick Wrenn said the redesign shows how important entertainment was to CNN already, not how much they intended to mimic HuffPost's success. I think their decision not to focus too much on the use of social networking beyond existing agreements substantiates this claim, and anyone who’s surfed HuffPost lately (a guilty pleasure of mine... just like Grey’s Anatomy..) will know that Arianna has social media coming out the ying-yang.
To me, Wrenn’s response underscores the reality that CNN has covered entertainment/infotainment/crap for awhile now. Today’s re-design is just a better window dressing. For that I congratulate them, and will continue to visit when I want to learn about a man breaking into a house and cooking while naked, or for the latest updates on Jon and Kate as they Separate, or even celebs gone wild.
What will be interesting to watch is how new emphasis on the user might validate some of CNN’s more bizarre news stories from before of it it will reveal an informed, engaged and disgusted proletariat seeking substantive news coverage.
Paul Brockwell awaits those results with... anticipation (and a bit of sarcasm is seriously wondering whether people at large want a higher level of discourse).
P.S. - I’m glad this redesign occurred after Jeff had us mock up one of the divs for the assignment.
P.P.S. - It’s interesting to note that the UK, generator of this article on the new design, also heavily censored the TMNT when airing the animated series - first by renaming them the Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles and replacing images and removing phrases like “Let’s kick some shell” and “Bummer” from the shows. They also didn’t like nunchuks...
Vignelli: "Thats Just Trash"
As is evident in my title, my favorite portion of the speech was when an audience member challenged Mr. Vignelli's opinion that a lot of commercial design was "garbage" or "trash". This created an akward exchange during which Vignelli asserted that his opinion was correct while the audience member spit out his title as VP of some organization or other in an effort to gain credibility. The exchange ended with Vignelli dismissing the the audience member's opinion and moving on (although he briefly brought it up again).
While I was amused by the awkward quasi-argument it really pointed to a larger theme in Vignelli's speech. It is easy to over think design when working to boost sales or hype a product. While clients often want an explicit message to be apparent in design (i.e. buy my shit) an overstated design does not work. As Vignelli stated, "the layout should be invisible". A good commercial design will sell the target product without letting the audience totally understand what is so appealing about it. Vignelli has been wowing the design world for decades, not because he is overtly complicated or because he works in high brow concepts, but because he understands this important concept:simplicity is beautiful.
While I was amused by the awkward quasi-argument it really pointed to a larger theme in Vignelli's speech. It is easy to over think design when working to boost sales or hype a product. While clients often want an explicit message to be apparent in design (i.e. buy my shit) an overstated design does not work. As Vignelli stated, "the layout should be invisible". A good commercial design will sell the target product without letting the audience totally understand what is so appealing about it. Vignelli has been wowing the design world for decades, not because he is overtly complicated or because he works in high brow concepts, but because he understands this important concept:simplicity is beautiful.
Under Pressure
So, CNN has caved to financial pressures and are now trying to appeal to the entertainment news seekers, a demographic that continues to grow. I want to be disappointed in them but how are they to stay afloat, let alone competitive, by putting out a product that has little demand? They are in a for-profit line of work and, as disappointing as it is for me that people would rather read about Brad and Angelina's break-up than about the latest issues in the Iraq war, they will feel a need to provide a product that people want. As Nick Wrenn, CNN International's vice president of digital services put it, "For us the news is still first, but we have to move in other directions as well."
As for the redesign itself I think it is more attractive and it looks more lively. The bright red at the top of the page wakes the viewer's attention and works to brand their logo. It offers many options on the first page without confusing the viewer. It offers a lot of video but also makes paths to other sections of the site clear in a well designed navbar. The entire site is easy to navigate and the three columns in the main section break down into very sensible categories; hard news, entertainment news, and an interactive section that lets the viewer see how others are viewing the site. All in all I like the new design, even if i don't enjoy the push towards more entertainment news.
As for the redesign itself I think it is more attractive and it looks more lively. The bright red at the top of the page wakes the viewer's attention and works to brand their logo. It offers many options on the first page without confusing the viewer. It offers a lot of video but also makes paths to other sections of the site clear in a well designed navbar. The entire site is easy to navigate and the three columns in the main section break down into very sensible categories; hard news, entertainment news, and an interactive section that lets the viewer see how others are viewing the site. All in all I like the new design, even if i don't enjoy the push towards more entertainment news.
CNN Redux
CNN's new website design allows for easy navigation. The immediate visuals bring the late breaking stories to the forefront and allow the user to find news as it is happening. The redesign also allows cnn to push out their multimedia content, and most internet viewers are more apt to spend time looking at multimedia than reading long blocks of text. This allows cnn to accompany their written articles with clips from their shows: helping to promote the network. Look at the Wayward Jet Story. The sidebar is loaded with clips from CNN's network content.
Certainly the look of the website is more appealing, but as far as the content goes the company may be off target in their redesign. The Guardian writer mentions that the website is trying to create a mix of entertainment and news, similar to the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is popular because is amalgamates content and provides it in an easily digestible format. But CNN should not be confused, The Huffington Post is not a news organization. CNN may be better off changing their format to shorter forms, but just because people like entertainment mixed with news doesn't mean a respectable news organization should give it to them.
First: Most media organizations are looking for ways to adapt and monetize, and I certainly do not have the answers. But I can assure CNN it is not Flash Intro web ads. Few things are more annoying.
Certainly the look of the website is more appealing, but as far as the content goes the company may be off target in their redesign. The Guardian writer mentions that the website is trying to create a mix of entertainment and news, similar to the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is popular because is amalgamates content and provides it in an easily digestible format. But CNN should not be confused, The Huffington Post is not a news organization. CNN may be better off changing their format to shorter forms, but just because people like entertainment mixed with news doesn't mean a respectable news organization should give it to them.
First: Most media organizations are looking for ways to adapt and monetize, and I certainly do not have the answers. But I can assure CNN it is not Flash Intro web ads. Few things are more annoying.
Revamped CNN.com
I have a kneejerk reaction when I hear words like "infotainment," and that reaction is disgust. The idea that I, or any other intelligent viewer, need to have my news couched in flashy videos or content worthy of TMZ is insulting. I have no problem with going to CNN.com and seeing Jon Hamm's beautiful Don Draper mug front and center, but for the lead story to be "'Mad' about period detail" is a little surprising. This is CNN, where I go to feel informed, educated and high and mighty, so I expect the News, capital N.
But frankly, it looks great. As the Guardian article rightly points out CNN is going back where it came from: TV. All the news content is still there, but the great work CNN does with "rich content" - video news stories saturated with information in an easily digestible format - adds a new layer of interest to the site. The clean layout of the new homepage makes it all easily accessible.
In addition, the Guardian mentions what is perhaps the coolest feature of the new and improved cnn.com: customizable content. "New personalisation functionality enables users to customise a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather," and that is pretty effin sweet.
CNN.com seems to have found its niche in the world of the 24 hour news cycle, an amalgam of hard and soft news, text-based and visual storytelling. It can leave the heavy writing to the online newspapers. They need the work anyway.
But frankly, it looks great. As the Guardian article rightly points out CNN is going back where it came from: TV. All the news content is still there, but the great work CNN does with "rich content" - video news stories saturated with information in an easily digestible format - adds a new layer of interest to the site. The clean layout of the new homepage makes it all easily accessible.
In addition, the Guardian mentions what is perhaps the coolest feature of the new and improved cnn.com: customizable content. "New personalisation functionality enables users to customise a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather," and that is pretty effin sweet.
CNN.com seems to have found its niche in the world of the 24 hour news cycle, an amalgam of hard and soft news, text-based and visual storytelling. It can leave the heavy writing to the online newspapers. They need the work anyway.
CNN (and a little bit about that charming Italian gentlemen)
Say what they will at CNN, the website redesign makes entertainment news the websites centerpiece. The first thing I saw upon opening the site (aside from the obnoxious pop-up ad) was the "Mad Men" story that is front and center. The first bottom section lists "Entertainment" before "Politics" or "Money." I'm a music and movie guy, and I understand CNNs need to cater to an audience that is increasingly more interested in entertainment than news. But when it comes to me personally, I get my movie and music stuff elsewhere. When I visit cnn.com, I'm usually looking for hard news, so the more they shift to entertainment, the less I'll likely go. But, I'm only one man, I suppose.
This is the part of my post where I say I hate the word "infotainment." Moving on...
As far as the layout goes, it sure is prettier. Less text-heavy, less "drudge-reporty," especially on top. The only place where a picture or video doesn't accompany a headline is in the "Latest News" section on the left. I also noticed the site coloring uses three sexy shades of red as opposed to the one shade used on the old site. As far as making the site more customable and video-driven, CNN is probably headed in the right direction, as more and more websites seem to be moving this way. However, It might be a bit more overwhelming for people who were used to using the old site (I remember how pissed off I was when facebook switched to tabs).
I missed the boat on posting about Massimo (are we on a first name basis?) but I'll try to make up for it a little bit here, and even tie CNN in. I thought it was interesting how much he stressed simplicity in design, particularly in fonts. It's awesome that we're using all these spicy HTML tricks, but when it comes down to it, the most popular websites are incredibly simple. Just look at Google or Amazon. Few colors, simple design. CNN appears to have taken a step in a more complex direction using more columns, more colors, and more videos, so we'll see if that pays off.
This is the part of my post where I say I hate the word "infotainment." Moving on...
As far as the layout goes, it sure is prettier. Less text-heavy, less "drudge-reporty," especially on top. The only place where a picture or video doesn't accompany a headline is in the "Latest News" section on the left. I also noticed the site coloring uses three sexy shades of red as opposed to the one shade used on the old site. As far as making the site more customable and video-driven, CNN is probably headed in the right direction, as more and more websites seem to be moving this way. However, It might be a bit more overwhelming for people who were used to using the old site (I remember how pissed off I was when facebook switched to tabs).
I missed the boat on posting about Massimo (are we on a first name basis?) but I'll try to make up for it a little bit here, and even tie CNN in. I thought it was interesting how much he stressed simplicity in design, particularly in fonts. It's awesome that we're using all these spicy HTML tricks, but when it comes down to it, the most popular websites are incredibly simple. Just look at Google or Amazon. Few colors, simple design. CNN appears to have taken a step in a more complex direction using more columns, more colors, and more videos, so we'll see if that pays off.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
CNN cleans up, refocuses
The new CNN.com, which officially launches tomorrow, appears to be a well-thought redesign that focuses on a more user-friendly version of what the network does best--distinct storytelling and breaking news. Its new attention to format--"This is built to be flexible and will feature the medium that's best for the story."--is a smart, innovative presentation that adjusts well to the times. Multi-media is here to stay, and those not utilizing it to its full potential will be left to realize the disadvantages of being stagnant.
Moving away from the network's former newspaper-style Web format, CNN.com has also taken on a sleeker aesthetic, which appeals to a wider audience. Where it formerly said, "I know my current events, but am a bit dry and probably your dad's age," it now says, "Hi, come on in and enjoy the view, while I keep you up-to-date on the hottest issues today." Obviously, the new personality opens a dialogue with a much broader group of users.
One thing that will be interesting going forward is what numbers on the editorial coverage will do. I'm going to guess the site's new focus on video will cause article clicks to decline. But, hopefully the opposite will happen--videos will serve as a teaser and send more users to the full-text article for more information.
Only time will tell the actual success of the relaunch, but for now, I think CNN.com is on the right track.
Moving away from the network's former newspaper-style Web format, CNN.com has also taken on a sleeker aesthetic, which appeals to a wider audience. Where it formerly said, "I know my current events, but am a bit dry and probably your dad's age," it now says, "Hi, come on in and enjoy the view, while I keep you up-to-date on the hottest issues today." Obviously, the new personality opens a dialogue with a much broader group of users.
One thing that will be interesting going forward is what numbers on the editorial coverage will do. I'm going to guess the site's new focus on video will cause article clicks to decline. But, hopefully the opposite will happen--videos will serve as a teaser and send more users to the full-text article for more information.
Only time will tell the actual success of the relaunch, but for now, I think CNN.com is on the right track.
It's About Time
The new CNN site is so much easier to navigate than the old version. Instead of scrolling through what seemed like miles of stories to find the one I want (I was never even satisfied with its search options), the stories are actually organized according to category. Who knew!?
CNN.com relaunch to focus on video mentioned that the site now attaches greater importance to entertainment. I agree. Of course there is now an entertainment section, but the whole feel of the site seems lighter, with less columns, more video and white space-- making it more inviting to people who aren't looking for just a serious news source, not that the site was ever that, but i digress..
I also like it that CNN is adding more broad coverage to include Africa, the Middle East and South America. I noticed that the U.S. version is also including a section to highlight Soledad O'Brien's "Latino in America" series. Hopefully there will continue to be a focus on diversity.
CNN.com relaunch to focus on video mentioned that the site now attaches greater importance to entertainment. I agree. Of course there is now an entertainment section, but the whole feel of the site seems lighter, with less columns, more video and white space-- making it more inviting to people who aren't looking for just a serious news source, not that the site was ever that, but i digress..
I also like it that CNN is adding more broad coverage to include Africa, the Middle East and South America. I noticed that the U.S. version is also including a section to highlight Soledad O'Brien's "Latino in America" series. Hopefully there will continue to be a focus on diversity.
Ryan digs the new CNN.com
Personally, I thought the old CNN website was boring and "newspaperish"(look it up). In the attempt to broaden its target audience I think CNN hit the nail on the head. Not only is the format much more visually appealing but the addition of the video element adds interactivity that was not present before. In general, I think video is able to capture news better and I think the use of "infotainment" will position CNN to be an innovator in the industry. According to the article, the site puts more emphasis on entertainment, a quality that before was not regularly associated with CNN. I think the new site is also creating a different brand image for itself. Its much more hip and trendy, but it remains strategically laid out with the three column format. The new sight is far less intimidating for me visually as well. CNN can pat itself on the back for a job well done. Whoopi!!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Copy Nonchalant Naming game (AKA CNN blog)
Wow, it looks so much better than it used to, it's insane. The header and banner are much more different and there's a higher contrast between the banner stuff and the main content. As it says in the article, the homepage is a lot less text heavy, focusing more on the videos, images and most important headlines. While the "latest news" section still has the same number of headlines (I think) the site still looks a lot less busy because there's not nearly as much text around it. When I first looked at the site, I wondered where all the rest of their content would be. So, I scrolled down and found my favorite part of this new design, the fancy boxes that break the headlines into categories!!! It's so much more appealing to the eye than what they used to do. The overall look and layout just seem so logical and symetrical and straightforward and I'm a huge fan!
However, there's one piece in particular where I think CNN went wrong. They've put a huge amount of emphasis on entertainment, even giving it the center story and the first box option at the bottom of the page. CNN tries to explain this move in the article but I think they fail to adequately explain why they'd do something like this. CNN's lost quite a few points in my eyes because of this move. I guess you could call me a News Puritan, but I get a little annoyed when "entertainment news" takes over the top spot and I have to read about "lipstick killers" and Kanye as top news items.
Overall, I think they've done a great job at giving this site a new, cleaner, tighter look. I completely agree with the article in that regard. But, at the same time, the decision to put even more emphasis on entertainment news rubs me the wrong way, but over the past few years CNN has become less and less about actual news, on both TV and the internet, so pretty soon I'm sure they'll just end up trying to compete with TMZ.
However, there's one piece in particular where I think CNN went wrong. They've put a huge amount of emphasis on entertainment, even giving it the center story and the first box option at the bottom of the page. CNN tries to explain this move in the article but I think they fail to adequately explain why they'd do something like this. CNN's lost quite a few points in my eyes because of this move. I guess you could call me a News Puritan, but I get a little annoyed when "entertainment news" takes over the top spot and I have to read about "lipstick killers" and Kanye as top news items.
Overall, I think they've done a great job at giving this site a new, cleaner, tighter look. I completely agree with the article in that regard. But, at the same time, the decision to put even more emphasis on entertainment news rubs me the wrong way, but over the past few years CNN has become less and less about actual news, on both TV and the internet, so pretty soon I'm sure they'll just end up trying to compete with TMZ.
sNooch Cares about Cool design --
Okay -- I stole your idea with capitalizing CNN in my name title. Sorry. I'm not cool.
CNN's new website! Woohoo, go new website.
It's alright, nothing special.
I like a few things that I want to point out, that the article also touches on. First off, I do like the addition of the international page. If you notice closely, the logo of "CNN" changes when you go to the international page, and there is a world icon next to "CNN".
"The new site will spread the focus of CNN.com from Europe, Asia and North America to include Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, and will incorporate language feeds in Spanish and Arabic," according to the article.
Umm, do I like the new header of the website -- not really. One, I think it is too thick. Two, I think the reds clash, from the header to the drop-down bars. And three, I know 'CNN' is red, but why the whole top of the page. Red is to loud and apparent.
The addition of the large multimedia selection at the top of the page -- is a great, because it is right in your face and on the front, front of the website. This is important because of how digitalized the web is now -- everything for news is done on video/audio slides. Every 'updated' website should have top-of-the-line resources to multimedia.
One thing that I also like is the new websites accessibility -- it is more appealing, user-friendly, and not just news stories with links. I feel that this website is, once again, more digital -- which is good for a re-design of a website in 2009.
"So the new site will make a step towards the user to be more appealing: new personalisation functionality enables users to customise a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather, and CNN's community-based iReport site will be featured in a curated section on the homepage, as well as in the middle of unfolding stories."
Welp, until next time --
CeNtertaiNment.com
As the internet begins to overshadow things we used to consider important like newspapers or even TV, it should come as no surprise that people don't have the attention span to read an article or tune in to the news at a certain time of day.
We'd rather be simultaneously informed and entertained--whenever we please--with a few digital soundbytes.
CNN.com's new design reflects these new prioritites by making video clips more prominent, "bringing the site to life," according to international vice president of digital services Nick Wrenn. The site is much improved with regard to organization and its use of space. The nav bar is prominently emphasized in red, displaying the various news categories. Breaking news is listed just below on the left, flanked by a series of multi-media stories.
A new feature called "News Pulse" filters through the site to list that day's most popular news stories, allowing readers (or viewers?) to define their taste according to what the masses have decided is most interesting.
It is a step up for the news channel's online presence, but the emphasis on entertainment is somewhat disconcerting given the fact that news gathering is not traditionally on par with watching interactive film reviews or accounts of the latest trends in Vegas.
It would seem that the New York Times and CNN are now in competition for the same audience: relentless surfers, the ever-curious, millenials eager to customize their access to information at the click of a mouse.
We'd rather be simultaneously informed and entertained--whenever we please--with a few digital soundbytes.
CNN.com's new design reflects these new prioritites by making video clips more prominent, "bringing the site to life," according to international vice president of digital services Nick Wrenn. The site is much improved with regard to organization and its use of space. The nav bar is prominently emphasized in red, displaying the various news categories. Breaking news is listed just below on the left, flanked by a series of multi-media stories.
A new feature called "News Pulse" filters through the site to list that day's most popular news stories, allowing readers (or viewers?) to define their taste according to what the masses have decided is most interesting.
It is a step up for the news channel's online presence, but the emphasis on entertainment is somewhat disconcerting given the fact that news gathering is not traditionally on par with watching interactive film reviews or accounts of the latest trends in Vegas.
It would seem that the New York Times and CNN are now in competition for the same audience: relentless surfers, the ever-curious, millenials eager to customize their access to information at the click of a mouse.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Learning from the master(s)
Massimo Vignelli's recent lecture to a crowded auditorium of anxious design students and professors proved to be an hour and half of education on the simple. As one of the cleanest designers known, it was easy and enlightening to follow Vignelli's strong conviction that less is more. "The purpose of design is to carry a message," he explained. "If the carrier becomes more important than the message, something is wrong."
This ideal has obviously been the focus of both Vignelli's and his wife Lella's aesthetic from the beginning of their career. From light fixtures to flatware, from jewelry to tables, from subway system graphics to paper invites, this notion has been applied to everything the Vignellis have touched. And, it's definitely done its job of creating design that is timeless and invisibly--two attributes Vignelli says are a must.
Interestingly, when talking about the future, Vignelli said the Internet and new technology is where it's at. "The book is dead, and online is here." Therefore, he suggested this the place to be today and moving forward, and he gave some parameters for making clean, good design in this arena. "There are very few good typefaces. I only use four--Bodoni, Times New Roman, Helvetica and Garamond."
He continued by warning that it was the computer age that gave designers the ability to do the best typefaces in 500 years. However, it also permitted the ugliest and highest level of stupidity in 500 years.
Again, less is more, even when applied to the digital age. Web design deserves to be as timeless as a chair. And, as Vignelli explained: "Great design should be invisible. It should just exist."
This ideal has obviously been the focus of both Vignelli's and his wife Lella's aesthetic from the beginning of their career. From light fixtures to flatware, from jewelry to tables, from subway system graphics to paper invites, this notion has been applied to everything the Vignellis have touched. And, it's definitely done its job of creating design that is timeless and invisibly--two attributes Vignelli says are a must.
Interestingly, when talking about the future, Vignelli said the Internet and new technology is where it's at. "The book is dead, and online is here." Therefore, he suggested this the place to be today and moving forward, and he gave some parameters for making clean, good design in this arena. "There are very few good typefaces. I only use four--Bodoni, Times New Roman, Helvetica and Garamond."
He continued by warning that it was the computer age that gave designers the ability to do the best typefaces in 500 years. However, it also permitted the ugliest and highest level of stupidity in 500 years.
Again, less is more, even when applied to the digital age. Web design deserves to be as timeless as a chair. And, as Vignelli explained: "Great design should be invisible. It should just exist."
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Design is won
Internationally acclaimed modernist designer Massimo Vignelli spoke to a full auditorium last night about the principles of design, be it graphic, interior, furniture, or jewelry.
"Good designers are cultural approachers," he said. "Everything you do will reflect that kind of policy."
According to Vignelli, design has two main purposes: functional and decorative. The most imporant task is striking a balance between these two elements.
"If any one (element) is exclusively expressed, something is missing," he said. "In music and literature, you have these issues, so why not in design?"
He showed slides of a compact dish set and black laquered couches from the 1960s which were very forward-looking, as most Italian designers today rely on a similar model for high-scale furniture that is popular throughout Europe.
Vignelli showed an image of furniture inside boxes by means of which he inteded to show the scale of the furniture within the space allotted.
He explained that the design of newspapers also rely on the use of space within columns. The example he showed exploited space very little, which is of course not as pleasing to the eye.
What was even more important to Vignelli was the role of light. "A lot in design deals with surfaces and the effect of light," he said.
While this may seem obvious, it is his attention to basic principles and sleek design that makes his work so elegant and timeless.
Fashion designers or web designers can all aspire to Vignelli's restrained, yet graceful approach, to creating everything from bags for department stores to cubic jewelry.
"Good designers are cultural approachers," he said. "Everything you do will reflect that kind of policy."
According to Vignelli, design has two main purposes: functional and decorative. The most imporant task is striking a balance between these two elements.
"If any one (element) is exclusively expressed, something is missing," he said. "In music and literature, you have these issues, so why not in design?"
He showed slides of a compact dish set and black laquered couches from the 1960s which were very forward-looking, as most Italian designers today rely on a similar model for high-scale furniture that is popular throughout Europe.
Vignelli showed an image of furniture inside boxes by means of which he inteded to show the scale of the furniture within the space allotted.
He explained that the design of newspapers also rely on the use of space within columns. The example he showed exploited space very little, which is of course not as pleasing to the eye.
What was even more important to Vignelli was the role of light. "A lot in design deals with surfaces and the effect of light," he said.
While this may seem obvious, it is his attention to basic principles and sleek design that makes his work so elegant and timeless.
Fashion designers or web designers can all aspire to Vignelli's restrained, yet graceful approach, to creating everything from bags for department stores to cubic jewelry.
Vignelli's lecture
First of all, I found the man to be absolutely charming. He seemed very down to earth, friendly, and modest.
He spoke of some great universal themes that I think could apply to web design as well as flatware, furniture, or subway systems.
Perhaps the most salient of these points was "less is more." Simplicity is best, and good design should never forsake function for useless decoration. In fact, he stressed the importance of "decoration by subtraction," a concept I found rather interesting. For example, he showed us a set of black dishes he designed. The only decoration was the whitish trim. Instead of painting the rims of the plates white, he had stripped away the black. Instead of looking to add a little something special, he asked, "What could I take away?"
I think this is an important principle to keep in mind for websites. Every component--text, graphics, links, etc--should have a purpose in navigation. Even after the design has been edited down to the necessary basics, we should always ask what else could be simplified or clarified.
--Leah
He spoke of some great universal themes that I think could apply to web design as well as flatware, furniture, or subway systems.
Perhaps the most salient of these points was "less is more." Simplicity is best, and good design should never forsake function for useless decoration. In fact, he stressed the importance of "decoration by subtraction," a concept I found rather interesting. For example, he showed us a set of black dishes he designed. The only decoration was the whitish trim. Instead of painting the rims of the plates white, he had stripped away the black. Instead of looking to add a little something special, he asked, "What could I take away?"
I think this is an important principle to keep in mind for websites. Every component--text, graphics, links, etc--should have a purpose in navigation. Even after the design has been edited down to the necessary basics, we should always ask what else could be simplified or clarified.
--Leah
Massimo Vignelli aka The "G" of design
Massimo is pretty much the man. Even when I couldn't hear what the hell he was saying I could tell that he was the shiznet. The first thing I noticed about his style was that everything he did was very simplistic. Like he said during his speech, "It is better to take away something than to add something." I was impressed with his speaking skills too, he had a great personality. As for his classic work compared to web design, I think his use of simple copy and layout is also important for websites. Many bad websites share the same common mistake of being too cluttered. Using his opinion of good design will help you create a website that is easy to navigate and visually stimulating. He is such a gifted man and he has accomplished so much in his life. Some of the things he designed, including furniture and show rooms were visionary at the time.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Design is One
Massimo Vignelli’s lecture took audience members on a visual journey through works done by Vignelli and his wife. In his visual presentations, he provides a clear definition of graphic design and its artistic mission. Whether through the plurality of typefaces or the simplicity of shapes, Vignelli establishes design as the ultimate marriage between visual innovation and functionality. According to Vignelli, design is “the organization of info that is semantically correct, syntactically consistent, and pragmatically understandable.” By presenting examples of his work from as early as 1964, Vignelli made it clear that the essence of great graphic design lies in simplicity and balance. A design should capture visual intent yet appear seamless. I also appreciated the emphasis he placed on details (i.e. the slide presented of the American Flag he designed using newspaper clippings from different countries).
As a person interested in web design, I definitely see connections between Vignelli’s lecture and web design/coding. His emphasis on “detail” as well as “balance” are applicable to understanding the structure and design of an effective web site. Based on Vignelli’s definition of graphic design, web pages that clutter computer screens with distracting typefaces, excessive flash elements, and distracting graphics should be banished from the internet. He makes it clear that in their simplest forms, “the greatest designs should be invisible.” This idea of “invisible design” applies to the userability of web pages as well. I’ve noticed that the best web designs don’t distract users but rather improve an experience and yield functionality. In this sense, although Vignelli’s presentation addressed issues of graphic design from previous years, the artistic principles (simplicity, balance, detail , etc.) his work embodies remain timeless and relevant.
As a person interested in web design, I definitely see connections between Vignelli’s lecture and web design/coding. His emphasis on “detail” as well as “balance” are applicable to understanding the structure and design of an effective web site. Based on Vignelli’s definition of graphic design, web pages that clutter computer screens with distracting typefaces, excessive flash elements, and distracting graphics should be banished from the internet. He makes it clear that in their simplest forms, “the greatest designs should be invisible.” This idea of “invisible design” applies to the userability of web pages as well. I’ve noticed that the best web designs don’t distract users but rather improve an experience and yield functionality. In this sense, although Vignelli’s presentation addressed issues of graphic design from previous years, the artistic principles (simplicity, balance, detail , etc.) his work embodies remain timeless and relevant.
Vignelli Presentation
"The more design goes to art the less design is." Design is not art? Design is functional and has a purpose, art is abstract and up for interpretation? I need to digest this a bit more...
"Great design should be invisible. It should just exist." This concept really describes website design. Many times when a website is beautifully designed I don't notice the design because I am too busy searching for content, but it is impossible to ignore a poorly designed website.
"If it is not understood by the recipient then you are wasting your time."-my favorite quote.
"Great design should be invisible. It should just exist." This concept really describes website design. Many times when a website is beautifully designed I don't notice the design because I am too busy searching for content, but it is impossible to ignore a poorly designed website.
"If it is not understood by the recipient then you are wasting your time."-my favorite quote.
Carrying a Message
What impressed me the most from Massimo Vignelli’s presentation was when he said “the purpose of design is to carry a message. When the carrier becomes more important than the message, something is wrong.”
This idea was repeated over and over through his designs, through his appearance and through his presentation style.
Although at first I had a hard time understanding him because of his accent and microphone issues, the way he talked and presented seemed to just flow and inform in a way that tied in with the message of what design should be. After a while I didn’t notice his accent, just what he was saying.
Also, I didn’t even notice what Vignelli was wearing until I remembered to take a conscious note of it. His black turtleneck, slacks and blazer didn’t detract or add to his appearance, they just were. And of course, his designs were simple and strong and spoke for themselves.
The design that most impressed me was the church. If he wouldn’t have shown us the incense holder or other utensils he had designed I wouldn’t have been able to tell what denomination the church was just by looking at the design. It didn’t hold to a formula, it was just simple and beautiful.
Likewise, I think that a good Web site design draws you to the content of the site. You may like the colors or design, but if the site is doing its job, you’ll remember the information on the site, not the layout.
This idea was repeated over and over through his designs, through his appearance and through his presentation style.
Although at first I had a hard time understanding him because of his accent and microphone issues, the way he talked and presented seemed to just flow and inform in a way that tied in with the message of what design should be. After a while I didn’t notice his accent, just what he was saying.
Also, I didn’t even notice what Vignelli was wearing until I remembered to take a conscious note of it. His black turtleneck, slacks and blazer didn’t detract or add to his appearance, they just were. And of course, his designs were simple and strong and spoke for themselves.
The design that most impressed me was the church. If he wouldn’t have shown us the incense holder or other utensils he had designed I wouldn’t have been able to tell what denomination the church was just by looking at the design. It didn’t hold to a formula, it was just simple and beautiful.
Likewise, I think that a good Web site design draws you to the content of the site. You may like the colors or design, but if the site is doing its job, you’ll remember the information on the site, not the layout.
Left me wanting to hear (Massi)Mo'
“Great design should be invisible, should just exist,” says Vignelli.
Many of these principles given in the definition (prev. referred to and accurately quoted by Mssr. Snooch are arguable universal and applicable to web design - not only must we organize our coding in a way that makes it easy to navigate and build on, but the final display of our information needs a simply identifiable hierarchy if we want users to find value in our sites and return. On the big ‘ol WWW it’s too easy to move on to something that doesn’t require an owner’s manual to navigate.
Even his talk on fonts applies very easily to web design - we’re limited in what fonts we can use, and most of them appear on his list of the classics. This is widely the result of standard available fonts, but nonetheless a concern that must be dealt with in web design (the CSS-based efforts to yield greater font styling aren’t up to speed to be viable on a large scale).
Vignelli’s career exemplifies that - he’s designed not only graphics and corporate identities, but cups, tables, showrooms, and clothing (not to be confused with clothing brand Mossimo). The breadth of projects he’s been involved in shows that principles he articulates can easily be applied to new terrain, esp. web design.
Simplicity was for me the biggest take away... speaking of take away, LOVED his point about subtraction as better than adding on. I almost ascribed to that philosophy in this blog post by deleting my last rambling one on Google and not posting this week. Alas, Jeff, I didn’t want to let ya down.
In general, Vignelli emphasized the importance of having a purpose and understanding your audience/client. I think this was best illustrated by his design of the coffee cups with handles that would make us over-indulging Americans burn ourselves very quickly (but fit perfectly with the imbibing habits of this lovable octogenarian and his gal Lella.
Worthy of checking out is his online canon geared to help younger designers. I was excited to hear it was free.
paul
Note: until the mic switch, it was incredibly hard to understand him from the back of the auditorium.
Sidenote: Massimo’s bell bottoms in one photo = COMPLETELY timeless...
Many of these principles given in the definition (prev. referred to and accurately quoted by Mssr. Snooch are arguable universal and applicable to web design - not only must we organize our coding in a way that makes it easy to navigate and build on, but the final display of our information needs a simply identifiable hierarchy if we want users to find value in our sites and return. On the big ‘ol WWW it’s too easy to move on to something that doesn’t require an owner’s manual to navigate.
Even his talk on fonts applies very easily to web design - we’re limited in what fonts we can use, and most of them appear on his list of the classics. This is widely the result of standard available fonts, but nonetheless a concern that must be dealt with in web design (the CSS-based efforts to yield greater font styling aren’t up to speed to be viable on a large scale).
Vignelli’s career exemplifies that - he’s designed not only graphics and corporate identities, but cups, tables, showrooms, and clothing (not to be confused with clothing brand Mossimo). The breadth of projects he’s been involved in shows that principles he articulates can easily be applied to new terrain, esp. web design.
Simplicity was for me the biggest take away... speaking of take away, LOVED his point about subtraction as better than adding on. I almost ascribed to that philosophy in this blog post by deleting my last rambling one on Google and not posting this week. Alas, Jeff, I didn’t want to let ya down.
In general, Vignelli emphasized the importance of having a purpose and understanding your audience/client. I think this was best illustrated by his design of the coffee cups with handles that would make us over-indulging Americans burn ourselves very quickly (but fit perfectly with the imbibing habits of this lovable octogenarian and his gal Lella.
Worthy of checking out is his online canon geared to help younger designers. I was excited to hear it was free.
paul
Note: until the mic switch, it was incredibly hard to understand him from the back of the auditorium.
Sidenote: Massimo’s bell bottoms in one photo = COMPLETELY timeless...
Massimo Vignelli
It's always interesting me to go to lectures on stuff that is interesting but yet, I know so little about. Sometimes I look through magazines or online web sites and see all these crazy pictures of nothing but say a rock or a huge room. And it looks so good. I can't ever comprehend how someone could have the expertise or the skill to make something as simple as a wine bottle look so good.
Vignelli definitely showcased his talent at the lecture tonight. Most of the stuff he showed off was really simple stuff that he made special. I think it is obvious that he sees design in almost everything. I almost feel bad for the man. The guy probably walks around all day critiquing and examining statues, buildings, homes. One of the designs he showed us was a pyramid with a weird, metal line snaking through it. He could even make that look good. Another picture had just a table with nothing around it. I couldn't figure out what made that look so good, but I guess anything can really be design if certain people look at it like that.
I've always enjoyed looking at really well-designed buildings and logos and Vignelli definitely has done his fair share in that regard. Most of the presentation, I couldn't understand exactly what he was saying, but the pictures were all I needed to see. The elegance in many of those buildings that he showed was crazy. I feel like having the type of feel that he does for design is something that only comes around once in a while.
What did I take away from the lecture? Probably that I will never understand people like that. Design of that caliber is too much for me. But, it was interesting to hear and see his takes. To him, it is all second nature and almost lucky. He was really non-chalant about his techniques and how he came up with his ideas.
He takes a minimalist approach and makes it look good because he knows how to use white space and knows the power the smallest object or shape can have if put in the right light. What I got from the lecture is it is isn't what you put into a design. It is how the spacing and emphasis shape what you are trying to say. The object or logo has to be incorporated with simplicity so that it stands out.
-Sean S.
Vignelli definitely showcased his talent at the lecture tonight. Most of the stuff he showed off was really simple stuff that he made special. I think it is obvious that he sees design in almost everything. I almost feel bad for the man. The guy probably walks around all day critiquing and examining statues, buildings, homes. One of the designs he showed us was a pyramid with a weird, metal line snaking through it. He could even make that look good. Another picture had just a table with nothing around it. I couldn't figure out what made that look so good, but I guess anything can really be design if certain people look at it like that.
I've always enjoyed looking at really well-designed buildings and logos and Vignelli definitely has done his fair share in that regard. Most of the presentation, I couldn't understand exactly what he was saying, but the pictures were all I needed to see. The elegance in many of those buildings that he showed was crazy. I feel like having the type of feel that he does for design is something that only comes around once in a while.
What did I take away from the lecture? Probably that I will never understand people like that. Design of that caliber is too much for me. But, it was interesting to hear and see his takes. To him, it is all second nature and almost lucky. He was really non-chalant about his techniques and how he came up with his ideas.
He takes a minimalist approach and makes it look good because he knows how to use white space and knows the power the smallest object or shape can have if put in the right light. What I got from the lecture is it is isn't what you put into a design. It is how the spacing and emphasis shape what you are trying to say. The object or logo has to be incorporated with simplicity so that it stands out.
-Sean S.
Massimo
Wow, what can I say? I found myself looking at these images of his lamps and mugs and tables and stackable plates and wanting each and every one of them. Their simplicity is what made them amazing. Despite their simple shapes, everything had a unique look and did something that made it amazingly functional. Things like the American Airlines logo and the various packaging showed how just one or two solid colors with a strong, simple font can be the strongest design. It's as much about what is there as what isn't. His explanation of design as a language rather than an art is very fitting I think, design shouldn't be there for the sake of being there, it should serve a purpose in communicating the message you want it to.
One thing that especially got my attention (being a newspaper addict) was the newspaper layout he showed from the '60s or '70s. The grid layout he used was very interesting because of the fact that it did look different from the usual common layout that we've all grown accustomed to. However, I wasn't really a fan of the layout style. There was just so much text. Maybe it worked back in its day, but I can't imagine anyone reading that paper nowadays. It just seemed like more than half the page was a solid block of text, so I doubt today's culture would be able to put up with that. However, it may have been the way things worked back in the 60s, and people might not have been annoyed by large blocks of text.
Overall, the presentation was a feast for the eyes, I wish I'd thought of a table and chair set that tuck neatly into a little square...but that would mean I would be brilliant, which is a stretch :)
One thing that especially got my attention (being a newspaper addict) was the newspaper layout he showed from the '60s or '70s. The grid layout he used was very interesting because of the fact that it did look different from the usual common layout that we've all grown accustomed to. However, I wasn't really a fan of the layout style. There was just so much text. Maybe it worked back in its day, but I can't imagine anyone reading that paper nowadays. It just seemed like more than half the page was a solid block of text, so I doubt today's culture would be able to put up with that. However, it may have been the way things worked back in the 60s, and people might not have been annoyed by large blocks of text.
Overall, the presentation was a feast for the eyes, I wish I'd thought of a table and chair set that tuck neatly into a little square...but that would mean I would be brilliant, which is a stretch :)
Massimo Vignelli: Design is One-derful
Massimo Vignelli's bold, clean aesthetic is instantly recognizable, even to those of us for whom the design world is a relatively unfamiliar place. No space is wasted, no color random, no image unnecessary. In his mind, there are four useful typefaces, and the rest can be trashed. He is clear, imaginative and ruthless. This is the stuff brilliant designers are made of.
His vision of utilitarian design is equally applicable in the digital age, where web page space is at a premium and content delivery is the name of the game. Paramount if his design philosophy he says, "It's so simple. I hate layout where you can see the layout and not the content." This is a crucial element in designing a good website. Visitors should know immediately what they're looking at, be it a product, a service, information, etc. Perhaps this explains why he was remarkable philosophical when a student asked how he felt when people don't realize it's design. People don't realize music is music sometimes, he said, but they always hear it.
When questioned about the difference between art and design, his response was a matter of function. If it has a purpose, it's design. If it doesn't, it's art. It's easy for designers to get wrapped up in their own vision as artists that they forget how something has to function in a person's life. No matter how beautiful it is, if something doesn't serve it's intended purpose, you've failed as a designer.
His work is a great model for those starting out as designers. And that man loves his wife, Lella, like it is his job, which doesn't hurt either.
His vision of utilitarian design is equally applicable in the digital age, where web page space is at a premium and content delivery is the name of the game. Paramount if his design philosophy he says, "It's so simple. I hate layout where you can see the layout and not the content." This is a crucial element in designing a good website. Visitors should know immediately what they're looking at, be it a product, a service, information, etc. Perhaps this explains why he was remarkable philosophical when a student asked how he felt when people don't realize it's design. People don't realize music is music sometimes, he said, but they always hear it.
When questioned about the difference between art and design, his response was a matter of function. If it has a purpose, it's design. If it doesn't, it's art. It's easy for designers to get wrapped up in their own vision as artists that they forget how something has to function in a person's life. No matter how beautiful it is, if something doesn't serve it's intended purpose, you've failed as a designer.
His work is a great model for those starting out as designers. And that man loves his wife, Lella, like it is his job, which doesn't hurt either.
Snooch vs. Massimo Vignelli, just kidding --
Sitting here in a room full of undergraduate designers, dreaming of ways to reinvent the aesthetic value of all "Exit" signs or the future of the Syracuse mascot as we know it -- I am excited for Vignelli to prove all the young thinkers of Syracuse wrong. Haha. Yes, I laugh at you.
Vignelli's "Design is One" lecture was interesting. The first thing Massimo did was awesome. He drank his Pepsi, or some form of drink in a Pepsi cup. This was awesome, and made me giggle. Vignelli continues to discuss his view of design.
"I see graphic design as the organization of information that is semantically correct, syntactically, consistent, and pragmatically understandable. I like it to be visually powerful, intellectually elegant, and above all timeless", says the power-point presentation at the beginning of the lecture above Vignelli.
One of the things that worked with his lecture and our class -- is this notion of design being 'timeless'. Just like web design, for a website to be applicable and maintainable, it must be timeless in design, simple and usable. Vignello hits the nail on the head, when he talks about consistent and understandable design, because I think it should be applied to all design theories, especially for the web.
Early in his career --designing was like creating a language to Vignelli -- you never know what it will be in the beginning or how it will end. He liked using things like silver and glass in his earliest designs: lamps, vases, water vases, etc. In the 60's, his image began to change to type and writing: which is another important aspect of web design. Vignelli thought that type and different type-faces -- was an incredibly creative and special part of design -- all the way from pamphlet covers, to the program of a play. Space and the response of the reader/viewer, are ideals to good design.
Just like web design, spacing, type and the response of the viewer/browser, will reflect how good the design is of that website via the navigation, colors, control and spacing. The design for the Subways of NY really impressed me. He didn't talk about it a lot, but he was also difficult to understand -- so maybe I missed something. "Great type-face, what more to do you want?" Vignelli says kind of in a way, laughing, as he referred to his design of American Airlines logo. I may have got this quote incorrect -- but I wanted to talk about American Airlines, becuase Vignelli makes a good point saying that some design is so simple, and sits well with a choice of a great font-type or color, and size.
"Luck is a great thing. You have to be lucky," says Vignelli, as he started designing the logo for Bloomingdale's. One of the best design choices of his lecture was his choice to use glossy style boxes for the packaging, and the simple design for the name.
Overall, I really liked the lecture -- in that I realized that a world-renown designer like Massimo Vignelli isn't much different than you or I in his thinking. He worked with simple aspects of design like light, color, texture and size. Ideally, all of his values for design can and should be applied to web design.
And as a final note to Vignelli's lecture -- Here are some words of wisdom from one of the greatest designers of the 20th century: "Can I take this out of my pants?", responds Vignelli, as he was asked to change microphones during his lecture.
Until Next time--
Vignelli's "Design is One" lecture was interesting. The first thing Massimo did was awesome. He drank his Pepsi, or some form of drink in a Pepsi cup. This was awesome, and made me giggle. Vignelli continues to discuss his view of design.
"I see graphic design as the organization of information that is semantically correct, syntactically, consistent, and pragmatically understandable. I like it to be visually powerful, intellectually elegant, and above all timeless", says the power-point presentation at the beginning of the lecture above Vignelli.
One of the things that worked with his lecture and our class -- is this notion of design being 'timeless'. Just like web design, for a website to be applicable and maintainable, it must be timeless in design, simple and usable. Vignello hits the nail on the head, when he talks about consistent and understandable design, because I think it should be applied to all design theories, especially for the web.
Early in his career --designing was like creating a language to Vignelli -- you never know what it will be in the beginning or how it will end. He liked using things like silver and glass in his earliest designs: lamps, vases, water vases, etc. In the 60's, his image began to change to type and writing: which is another important aspect of web design. Vignelli thought that type and different type-faces -- was an incredibly creative and special part of design -- all the way from pamphlet covers, to the program of a play. Space and the response of the reader/viewer, are ideals to good design.
Just like web design, spacing, type and the response of the viewer/browser, will reflect how good the design is of that website via the navigation, colors, control and spacing. The design for the Subways of NY really impressed me. He didn't talk about it a lot, but he was also difficult to understand -- so maybe I missed something. "Great type-face, what more to do you want?" Vignelli says kind of in a way, laughing, as he referred to his design of American Airlines logo. I may have got this quote incorrect -- but I wanted to talk about American Airlines, becuase Vignelli makes a good point saying that some design is so simple, and sits well with a choice of a great font-type or color, and size.
"Luck is a great thing. You have to be lucky," says Vignelli, as he started designing the logo for Bloomingdale's. One of the best design choices of his lecture was his choice to use glossy style boxes for the packaging, and the simple design for the name.
Overall, I really liked the lecture -- in that I realized that a world-renown designer like Massimo Vignelli isn't much different than you or I in his thinking. He worked with simple aspects of design like light, color, texture and size. Ideally, all of his values for design can and should be applied to web design.
And as a final note to Vignelli's lecture -- Here are some words of wisdom from one of the greatest designers of the 20th century: "Can I take this out of my pants?", responds Vignelli, as he was asked to change microphones during his lecture.
Until Next time--
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What's next?
Google will eventually by overtaken by something. That's how things go in the tech world. Companies inevitably pop up, dissolve, and fizzle out. It's just hard to imagine how it could fall. Revolutionary technologies are eventually taken over by newer, sometimes highly appropriated technology. But where Google stands now, it's hard to imagine how it might fall. It appears that Bing has tried to compete and failed (at least so far). Google has spent a long time (in tech time) at the top, and there's still little sign that it's going anywhere.
I'd say that part of Google's strength lays in the integrity of it's creators. It would be easy to say "money's down? run more ads." But it's true that Google is a brand, and while it's users have become loyal, they also have expectations of quality- and part of that quality comes from unobtrusive ads. It's also reassuring that they seem to believe in their technology as for the greater good. I think the attitude of Google's creators helps it maintain a positive public image. It's not liked at as a beast in need of slaying, like say, Microsoft a few years back. Although there apparently are some in the tech world, that are starting to feel that way. It'll be interesting to see if that catches on.
I'd say that part of Google's strength lays in the integrity of it's creators. It would be easy to say "money's down? run more ads." But it's true that Google is a brand, and while it's users have become loyal, they also have expectations of quality- and part of that quality comes from unobtrusive ads. It's also reassuring that they seem to believe in their technology as for the greater good. I think the attitude of Google's creators helps it maintain a positive public image. It's not liked at as a beast in need of slaying, like say, Microsoft a few years back. Although there apparently are some in the tech world, that are starting to feel that way. It'll be interesting to see if that catches on.
New Yorker Google article
Remember "Webcrawler?"
That was the search engine I used when I first started messing around on the Internet.
I wonder if it even exists anymore...
Oh, yep, it does--I just googled it.
One of the recurring debates in this article--and, it sounds like, at the Google company--is whether Google is a "one-trick pony," and, if it is, whether it should remain that way in the future.
Even if Google is" just a search engine," it is definitely more sophisticated and comprehensive than other names in that category. And, what do we mean "just a search engine," anyway? Google has redefined the way we do virtually everything--and the way we do everything virtually. It is the nature of the Internet that we begin at a directory, whether it's our bookmark bar or a search engine. For Google to be so many people's first destination--and, in a sense, "contain" all their subsequent destinations--is a big, big "trick" indeed.
--Leah Dennison
That was the search engine I used when I first started messing around on the Internet.
I wonder if it even exists anymore...
Oh, yep, it does--I just googled it.
One of the recurring debates in this article--and, it sounds like, at the Google company--is whether Google is a "one-trick pony," and, if it is, whether it should remain that way in the future.
Even if Google is" just a search engine," it is definitely more sophisticated and comprehensive than other names in that category. And, what do we mean "just a search engine," anyway? Google has redefined the way we do virtually everything--and the way we do everything virtually. It is the nature of the Internet that we begin at a directory, whether it's our bookmark bar or a search engine. For Google to be so many people's first destination--and, in a sense, "contain" all their subsequent destinations--is a big, big "trick" indeed.
--Leah Dennison
Great Google-y Moogly!
Like most people, I love Google. I love it so much I don't even realize how much I love it. My homepage is set to google.com, my primary email account is through gmail, and I rely on Google reader for all my website information gathering needs. I don't even fully understand what Google Voice is yet, but I'm pretty sure it sounds awesome.
Google's impact lies not only in its innovative technology, but in the name brand recognition it now enjoys. Like Xerox before it, Google is now a verb. When branching out into new technology themselves many people, myself included, will choose a Google version (email server, e-bookstore) over others. The fact that they have been so user-centric is very appealing, when so many websites are, as co-founder Sergey Brin points out, covered in advertising and exploding with pop-ups.
Google's impact lies not only in its innovative technology, but in the name brand recognition it now enjoys. Like Xerox before it, Google is now a verb. When branching out into new technology themselves many people, myself included, will choose a Google version (email server, e-bookstore) over others. The fact that they have been so user-centric is very appealing, when so many websites are, as co-founder Sergey Brin points out, covered in advertising and exploding with pop-ups.
My first unease at Google's was the targeted advertising that appears next to emails, generated by an algorithm based on what I write. Sergey Brin dismissed thus qualm as "sort of Big-Brother-type fears." Well, Sergey, the thought of my information being gathered, however 'anonymously' you think it is (which isn't really possible, in the end), seriously creeps me out, and there is absolutely an element of Big Brother in it. (BTW, did you know that if you put enough really offensive material in an email, Google won't place any ads next to it, because it can't find any ad content to match?)
I don't know what anyone else thinks, but being targeted by advertising based on what I choose to put on the web (a la a social networking site) seems much more above board than being targeted based on what I buy or enter into a search engine or write in an email.
Google does seem well on its way to a monopoly, but it seems it may never actually become one, especially since they are intensely scrutinized by government agencies the world over. And thank god for that. The farther Google expands, the more it seems they will have to stifle innovation from the new technology companies and creators that must be out there.
I don't know what anyone else thinks, but being targeted by advertising based on what I choose to put on the web (a la a social networking site) seems much more above board than being targeted based on what I buy or enter into a search engine or write in an email.
Google does seem well on its way to a monopoly, but it seems it may never actually become one, especially since they are intensely scrutinized by government agencies the world over. And thank god for that. The farther Google expands, the more it seems they will have to stifle innovation from the new technology companies and creators that must be out there.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Google is a verb...
Google is a verb now. When we think of searching for information on the Web we "Google it." When we want to be nosey and learn about someone or something new we "Google" them.
Google is deeply rooted in our random and serious quests for information. It's even a part of popular culture (Teyana Taylor's 2008 song "Google Me (Baby)."
The company has remained relevant because they've been open to growth and change (Google mail, maps, docs, books, health and so on).
Google has made itself essential to us.
Others have achieved success and rested.
Google continued to be innovative and bested all of them. Are they are monopoly? Maybe.
But they worked to stay relevant and that is key to survival in a short attention span, Twitter-like atmosphere.
Google is deeply rooted in our random and serious quests for information. It's even a part of popular culture (Teyana Taylor's 2008 song "Google Me (Baby)."
The company has remained relevant because they've been open to growth and change (Google mail, maps, docs, books, health and so on).
Google has made itself essential to us.
Others have achieved success and rested.
Google continued to be innovative and bested all of them. Are they are monopoly? Maybe.
But they worked to stay relevant and that is key to survival in a short attention span, Twitter-like atmosphere.
Over the years google have revolutionized how we surf the web. Searching has never been easier. In high school it was so difficult to use the internet to write research papers, it took hours to find a relevant article using AOL or Yahoo. With the use of google scholar I find most information I am looking for within minutes.
I see transparent personalization as making searches more efficient and relevant. I don't believe that getting the information you are looking for faster will keep us from having different perspectives or magnify our difference. The whole reason why I search for something is because I am looking for something in particular and the less junk i have to shift through to get there the better.
As long as google keeps on evolving to fit the needs and demands of the population I don't see it going anywhere and as long as there are other competitors in the industry it is not a monopoly.
I see transparent personalization as making searches more efficient and relevant. I don't believe that getting the information you are looking for faster will keep us from having different perspectives or magnify our difference. The whole reason why I search for something is because I am looking for something in particular and the less junk i have to shift through to get there the better.
As long as google keeps on evolving to fit the needs and demands of the population I don't see it going anywhere and as long as there are other competitors in the industry it is not a monopoly.
Google Response
I'm taking a Web research class in which we have to regularly read articles about the media industry. It seems that at least 1/5th of the articles that pop up are related to Google.
I don't really even remember a time when I didn't 'google' information. It has always been a part of my web experience. Some of the contributions that Google has given, including Google Maps, Gmail and better, faster search capabilities, impact my life daily.
Google has similarly impacted the general Web culture by leading the industry to Web ads and to more online videos, to more online based news. Today's media world is totally different than it was 10 years ago. The Web is now the media medium of choice.
It does seem that when companies get too large they loose their edge and initial focus. Google is definitely working on more projects than it did when it was young and had a narrower focus. Their online book program, for example, is on the Web, but doesn't have a lot to do with search engines. I believe that Google can profitably use it's core capabilities (search, information capturing, etc.) in any number of online ventures, but that doesn't mean that it will continue to grow and impact change in the industry like it did before. I think they will at least continue to use their infrastructure to continue supporting other businesses and, in turn to create a large profit.
I'm not sure that Google has created a monopoly yet. It seems like it is headed that way. Because they are so big and have so many resources it is easier for them to start new web projects. However, the bigger and older they get, the harder it may become innovating and creating industry-changing tools.
I don't really even remember a time when I didn't 'google' information. It has always been a part of my web experience. Some of the contributions that Google has given, including Google Maps, Gmail and better, faster search capabilities, impact my life daily.
Google has similarly impacted the general Web culture by leading the industry to Web ads and to more online videos, to more online based news. Today's media world is totally different than it was 10 years ago. The Web is now the media medium of choice.
It does seem that when companies get too large they loose their edge and initial focus. Google is definitely working on more projects than it did when it was young and had a narrower focus. Their online book program, for example, is on the Web, but doesn't have a lot to do with search engines. I believe that Google can profitably use it's core capabilities (search, information capturing, etc.) in any number of online ventures, but that doesn't mean that it will continue to grow and impact change in the industry like it did before. I think they will at least continue to use their infrastructure to continue supporting other businesses and, in turn to create a large profit.
I'm not sure that Google has created a monopoly yet. It seems like it is headed that way. Because they are so big and have so many resources it is easier for them to start new web projects. However, the bigger and older they get, the harder it may become innovating and creating industry-changing tools.
Google - Not a Monopoly, but Monopolyish?
Google’s birth-story is truly fascinating. It’s intriguing that the company was the unexpected brainchild of two knowledge-hungry techies hoping to “improve people’s lives through information.” I love that Brin and Page denied advertisers for years – this attests to Google’s humble roots. Instead of being controlled by haughty ad deals, they created an algorithm to provide users with free information and the ability to continuously search for it. This knowledge has impacted the entire way information is indexed, processed, and accessed. The company truly upheld its goal of “customer satisfaction”, placing the insatiable power of omniscience at the fingertips of your average web user. Want a satellite view of your librarian’s street? Want up-to-date news on city councils in all 50 states? Want to play God? Google’s “disruptive innovation” allowed us to do so.
Yet, even knowing the humble beginnings of Google, I definitely see validity in Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg’s statement that “Once you get to a certain size, you have to figure out new ways of growing… and then you start leaking on everyone else’s industry. And when you do that you sort of wake up the bears, and the bears come out of the woods and start beating the shit out of you.” Seidenberg hints at an essential underlying question throughout Ken Auletta’s Searching for Trouble: how much longer will Google’s unchecked reign over media last? Will the government – or Google’s mob of angry competitors –“beat the shit out of” Google?
There is definitely a cautionary undertone in Auletta’s article suggesting that Google reassess its management and business platforms before “trouble” occurs. It just may be growing too fast in too little time. At various points in the article, despite Google’s utopian motivations, I couldn’t help but wonder how much of these lofty ideals are being compromised as the company buys out more and more media outlets. Is customer satisfaction still at the core of the company’s plan to digitize books? Are Page and Brin still willing to just “produce this technology “ and “see how things work out?” Is the company’s mission slowly disintegrating as Google becomes wealthier by the click?
With these questions in mind, Google appears to be tittering the fine line between being a corporate monopoly and an innovative company – or perhaps both. I respect the impact the company has had on reshaping traditional media, information systems, and content but its rapid expansion makes me question the company’s ability to remain judicious. No, Google is not currently a monopoly despite the onslaught of Google-haters referenced in the article (AT&T, European Commission, China, even some factions of Apple etc.). Google simply discovered a creative way to profit from free information and the user’s needs. So no, it’s not a monopoly but yes, with the advent of its new products and business plans, it’s beginning to look real monopolyish.
Unless Google adjusts its growth and business plans to better accommodate competitors – I can see Google and the Federal Trade Commission on their way to a legal brawl that Google may not be able to win.
Yet, even knowing the humble beginnings of Google, I definitely see validity in Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg’s statement that “Once you get to a certain size, you have to figure out new ways of growing… and then you start leaking on everyone else’s industry. And when you do that you sort of wake up the bears, and the bears come out of the woods and start beating the shit out of you.” Seidenberg hints at an essential underlying question throughout Ken Auletta’s Searching for Trouble: how much longer will Google’s unchecked reign over media last? Will the government – or Google’s mob of angry competitors –“beat the shit out of” Google?
There is definitely a cautionary undertone in Auletta’s article suggesting that Google reassess its management and business platforms before “trouble” occurs. It just may be growing too fast in too little time. At various points in the article, despite Google’s utopian motivations, I couldn’t help but wonder how much of these lofty ideals are being compromised as the company buys out more and more media outlets. Is customer satisfaction still at the core of the company’s plan to digitize books? Are Page and Brin still willing to just “produce this technology “ and “see how things work out?” Is the company’s mission slowly disintegrating as Google becomes wealthier by the click?
With these questions in mind, Google appears to be tittering the fine line between being a corporate monopoly and an innovative company – or perhaps both. I respect the impact the company has had on reshaping traditional media, information systems, and content but its rapid expansion makes me question the company’s ability to remain judicious. No, Google is not currently a monopoly despite the onslaught of Google-haters referenced in the article (AT&T, European Commission, China, even some factions of Apple etc.). Google simply discovered a creative way to profit from free information and the user’s needs. So no, it’s not a monopoly but yes, with the advent of its new products and business plans, it’s beginning to look real monopolyish.
Unless Google adjusts its growth and business plans to better accommodate competitors – I can see Google and the Federal Trade Commission on their way to a legal brawl that Google may not be able to win.
Too Big for Their Britches
The portion of the New Yorker article on Google that was most interesting to me was the discussion of Google’s pirating of content. Newspapers (an industry that I hope to work in) are dying off because they can no longer figure out how to get money for their content due to a massive increase in internet readership. Since they cannot charge for content over the internet and remain competitive most publications have seen drastic reductions in revenue and are finding it hard to stay afloat. This has led to the early retirement of many talented and experienced writers and thus the quality of reporting has been compromised.
As Ken Aluetta writes, “as Google moves beyond search, it has antagonized just about every traditional media at one time or another. “ I think that antagonize is to light of a word. In reality they are stealing content and thus ad revenue. Google puts stories written by reporters paid by other organizations up and then collects ad revenue on their page without paying these organizations. They get away with this because they are in unchartered territory. There are no laws against posting a link to a news article and so Google is breaking no laws by stealing content.
While this is working for Google and others (yahoo) now it will not last forever. As publications continue to lose money they will no longer be able to pay reporters and so reporting will be left to citizen journalists and conglomerate news corporations with many political and financial ties. While Google is innovative they need to watch whose toes they step on. New technology is always followed by new legislation and this will be no different. Some sort of ownership must be recognized for internet content or the quality of reporting in this country, and across the globe will continue to decline.
As Ken Aluetta writes, “as Google moves beyond search, it has antagonized just about every traditional media at one time or another. “ I think that antagonize is to light of a word. In reality they are stealing content and thus ad revenue. Google puts stories written by reporters paid by other organizations up and then collects ad revenue on their page without paying these organizations. They get away with this because they are in unchartered territory. There are no laws against posting a link to a news article and so Google is breaking no laws by stealing content.
While this is working for Google and others (yahoo) now it will not last forever. As publications continue to lose money they will no longer be able to pay reporters and so reporting will be left to citizen journalists and conglomerate news corporations with many political and financial ties. While Google is innovative they need to watch whose toes they step on. New technology is always followed by new legislation and this will be no different. Some sort of ownership must be recognized for internet content or the quality of reporting in this country, and across the globe will continue to decline.
Growing up too fast
Not knowing much about Google's past, aside from the fact that it grew quite quickly, I was surprised to learn of its humble beginnings in Searching for Trouble: Why Google is on its Guard—"Google was a 'neutral' search engine that promoted no content company and no advertisers, and was intended to make the world's information available without favoritism." Looking at the company today, it seems they have far exceeded this "for the good of all" basic floor plan to erect a massive empire without much structure—worrying me that without taking the time to restructure the foundation, eventually everything will collapse.
However, it's difficult to deny Google's prominence (and success) in the market—"Eleven years after Google's birth, we no longer search for information on the Web, we Google it." It seems the young, strong, innovative and at times cocky personas behind Google are its greatest strengths, but also, as the company continues to grow, its certain demise (think tragic flaw). "If we both feel the same way, we're probably right," Page said. "If we don't agree, it's probably a toss-up. If we both agree and nobody else agrees with us, we assume we're right! It sounds like a tough thing to say, but that's sort of what you need to do to make progress."
Though I'm not sure I'd call Google a Monopoly quite yet, it definitely seems to be on that track—and running anyone over who gets in its way. Talk about complete disregard for business etiquette. And, when the article gets to Google's latest idea of transparent personalization, my first thought is Big Brother. Scary.
Overall, Google is fascinating. It's over-the-top notoriety and growth in its short lifetime is quite nearly unmatched, yet its future success is open for debate. It and its founders may just be getting too big for their britches, and if they don't tighten the reigns quickly (and intelligently) Google's demise will be just as titillating to watch as its emergence.
Questions to consider:
1. How are other media companies supposed to compete?
2. Do you think this negative light is being cast on Google simply in the hopes of helping push it over the edge to its fall?
3. Are the new generation of businessmen all egotistical, self-involved, money-hungry pricks? And, is this attitude necessary to be successful today?
Sarah
However, it's difficult to deny Google's prominence (and success) in the market—"Eleven years after Google's birth, we no longer search for information on the Web, we Google it." It seems the young, strong, innovative and at times cocky personas behind Google are its greatest strengths, but also, as the company continues to grow, its certain demise (think tragic flaw). "If we both feel the same way, we're probably right," Page said. "If we don't agree, it's probably a toss-up. If we both agree and nobody else agrees with us, we assume we're right! It sounds like a tough thing to say, but that's sort of what you need to do to make progress."
Though I'm not sure I'd call Google a Monopoly quite yet, it definitely seems to be on that track—and running anyone over who gets in its way. Talk about complete disregard for business etiquette. And, when the article gets to Google's latest idea of transparent personalization, my first thought is Big Brother. Scary.
Overall, Google is fascinating. It's over-the-top notoriety and growth in its short lifetime is quite nearly unmatched, yet its future success is open for debate. It and its founders may just be getting too big for their britches, and if they don't tighten the reigns quickly (and intelligently) Google's demise will be just as titillating to watch as its emergence.
Questions to consider:
1. How are other media companies supposed to compete?
2. Do you think this negative light is being cast on Google simply in the hopes of helping push it over the edge to its fall?
3. Are the new generation of businessmen all egotistical, self-involved, money-hungry pricks? And, is this attitude necessary to be successful today?
Sarah
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun
Currently, Google gets 4 out of every 10 advertising dollars on the internet. At its peak, JP Rockefeller's Standard Oil controlled 90% of its market. So needless to stay, Sergey Brin and Larry Page need to step up their act before I start calling them robber-barons. I mean, it could be sort of cool if they did. They'd probably feel guilty towards the end of their lives for invading millions of people's privacy by scanning their e-mails to optimize Ad relevance (got a lot of good Spam recipes though). Then, we would all go to Silicon Valley during the holidays to ice skate at Brin Center in front of the Christmas Sequoia before seeing Handel's Messiah at Page Palladium, the world class concert hall (Thank you, death bed philanthropy!)
The scary thing is, (at least, if you don't like the prospect of a Big Brother-type overlord (I personally would enjoy an age appropriate forced exercise session every morning. And yes, this is a dreaded double parenthetical. Fuck you, English language. I hope Google optimizes you, too.)
Google is set up well to capitalize on future technology trends and experience even greater growth than it already has.
Loot at the interview with NY Times tech columnist David Pogue on NewsHouse (nice work, Doxtad.) Ubiquitous Wi-Fi is coming down the pipeline. Smartphone/laptop hybrids are the focus of most innovation. People are going to be finishing presentations in the cab and sending it to the company server system, which is now part of some 0nline cloud-computing host program run by Google. File hosting fees will be a huge source of future Google revenue.
Also like Mr. Doxtad, I'm not concerned that Google is working its way into the mobile phone market. That entire segment of the telecom industry is a boondoggle. Verizon has a nice network but authoritarian contract policies. AT&T has the iPhone, but will soon lose it once Apple realizes that network upgrades were not as good as AT&T promised. Sprint, Nextel, Cingular...yeah, real scared.
Setting up the Android as an open-source OS was savvy and proof that Brin and Page still have some mojo going on the other side of 30. App creation and innovation on the iPhone has happened at a blistering pace. It will happen even quicker with Android. And remember, developing countries have skipped landlines and gone straight to mobile networks in developing their infrastructures. How do you say Google in Swahili?
Google is set up to succeed, and society is all the better for it.
Tom
The scary thing is, (at least, if you don't like the prospect of a Big Brother-type overlord (I personally would enjoy an age appropriate forced exercise session every morning. And yes, this is a dreaded double parenthetical. Fuck you, English language. I hope Google optimizes you, too.)
Google is set up well to capitalize on future technology trends and experience even greater growth than it already has.
Loot at the interview with NY Times tech columnist David Pogue on NewsHouse (nice work, Doxtad.) Ubiquitous Wi-Fi is coming down the pipeline. Smartphone/laptop hybrids are the focus of most innovation. People are going to be finishing presentations in the cab and sending it to the company server system, which is now part of some 0nline cloud-computing host program run by Google. File hosting fees will be a huge source of future Google revenue.
Also like Mr. Doxtad, I'm not concerned that Google is working its way into the mobile phone market. That entire segment of the telecom industry is a boondoggle. Verizon has a nice network but authoritarian contract policies. AT&T has the iPhone, but will soon lose it once Apple realizes that network upgrades were not as good as AT&T promised. Sprint, Nextel, Cingular...yeah, real scared.
Setting up the Android as an open-source OS was savvy and proof that Brin and Page still have some mojo going on the other side of 30. App creation and innovation on the iPhone has happened at a blistering pace. It will happen even quicker with Android. And remember, developing countries have skipped landlines and gone straight to mobile networks in developing their infrastructures. How do you say Google in Swahili?
Google is set up to succeed, and society is all the better for it.
Tom
Google World: Ken Auletta's "Searching for Trouble"
Google's expansion from an Internet search engine to a multi-dimensional media company may seem shocking, but it is also a natural outgrowth of the direction we are headed.
Nevertheless, the article raises some important questions about the nature of the company's business practices. Is it really designed for pure "customer satisfaction," or does it to cater to advertisers, as Auletta implies?
Google has revolutionized our lives and made things faster and easier. Need to get somewhere in a hurry? Print out a google map. Need to know something for a lecture you have to give? Do a search, and you'll have facts and figures at your fingertips.
Unfortunately, it is not so simple. The Internet spreads a lot of misinformation, and we will shortly turn into machines with no sense of direction if we continue to rely on technology the way we do.
Back to the subject.
On the one hand, Google's growth reflects intelligent business strategies and the ability to cater to people's needs and desires today.
On the other hand, its decision to compete with Amazon in electronic book sales may be going a step too far, especially since they are stepping on the feet of a former investor.
It may be in Google's own interests to be divided by the U.S. government before a sour European Union decides to take matters into its own hands. China has already censored the search engine and blocked YouTube, one of Google's recent acquisitions.
Google is one of the few Internet establishments that has been able to make an abundant profit by reaping the benefits of advertising. Who's to blame them?
Unfortunately, people will because they want a piece of the pie.
Moreover, a free marketplace thrives off of new innovations which stem from many directions. Since the Internet is clearly a central part of our daily and intellectual future, it should be subject to some scrutiny and regulation.
Nevertheless, the article raises some important questions about the nature of the company's business practices. Is it really designed for pure "customer satisfaction," or does it to cater to advertisers, as Auletta implies?
Google has revolutionized our lives and made things faster and easier. Need to get somewhere in a hurry? Print out a google map. Need to know something for a lecture you have to give? Do a search, and you'll have facts and figures at your fingertips.
Unfortunately, it is not so simple. The Internet spreads a lot of misinformation, and we will shortly turn into machines with no sense of direction if we continue to rely on technology the way we do.
Back to the subject.
On the one hand, Google's growth reflects intelligent business strategies and the ability to cater to people's needs and desires today.
On the other hand, its decision to compete with Amazon in electronic book sales may be going a step too far, especially since they are stepping on the feet of a former investor.
It may be in Google's own interests to be divided by the U.S. government before a sour European Union decides to take matters into its own hands. China has already censored the search engine and blocked YouTube, one of Google's recent acquisitions.
Google is one of the few Internet establishments that has been able to make an abundant profit by reaping the benefits of advertising. Who's to blame them?
Unfortunately, people will because they want a piece of the pie.
Moreover, a free marketplace thrives off of new innovations which stem from many directions. Since the Internet is clearly a central part of our daily and intellectual future, it should be subject to some scrutiny and regulation.
Can Google Stay On Top?
Anytime you have a company dominate or monopolize a certain industry, I feel like it always ends up coming back to bite them. It's just a process. A company comes out of nowhere, earns a name and creates a lot of success, sometimes so much that they begin to expand to capitalize on what they can do. In the process of their monopolization and stretching out the company expertise, other competitors take what they've learned from watcher the leader and improve upon their design. You see this happen all the time in business, sports, even in cultures around the world. I feel like this is what is happening with google at this point.
Things like Google Books and Google TV are great and impressive add-ons. Google obviously can't afford to stay neutral. They have to continue to move with the times and attempt to stay ahead. But, eventually people are going to catch up with them and Google won't be hot anymore. The author points out that point are already leaving the company because of nothing else to gain.
Still, at this point Google has defined the internet business by being smarter, savvy and more willing to encourage and embrace the future. Other huge companies have died because they weren't willing to take risks with new programs, but Google has and that's why they make the money they do.
Things like Google Books and Google TV are great and impressive add-ons. Google obviously can't afford to stay neutral. They have to continue to move with the times and attempt to stay ahead. But, eventually people are going to catch up with them and Google won't be hot anymore. The author points out that point are already leaving the company because of nothing else to gain.
Still, at this point Google has defined the internet business by being smarter, savvy and more willing to encourage and embrace the future. Other huge companies have died because they weren't willing to take risks with new programs, but Google has and that's why they make the money they do.
UPDATE!
I just read in today's Post-Standard that Arthur Levinson, mentioned in the article on p.49 in the top right-hand column, resigned from Google's board of directors today. Auletta mentions Levinson as one of three Apple directors who may have to choose resigning from Google's board.
The FTC had already been investigating whether Levinson's double duty smacked of competition reducing as the two companies begin to overlap.
The FTC had already been investigating whether Levinson's double duty smacked of competition reducing as the two companies begin to overlap.
Oh' Frugal Google
Since crime-fighting hero's are being quoted: "Holy Toledo Batman"
The Internet in general has impacted everything my generation holds dear to their hearts on the web -- Google in particular, has had genius effects on markets like email, e-books, maps, search engines -- oh wait youtube -- and every single darn website I go to practically. I think Google, even after reading the article assigned -- Even though Auletta brings great topics to the table concerning the inevitable invisible walls Google will face in turns of anti-trust issues and monopolies down the road by the government -- just like it has in the past, will find a new street, pathway, bridge or avenue (whatever you want to call it) in order to maintain the status of leader of the web environment we have all grown to love.
But, with that said, I think there is one possible obstacle that Google has already started to think about for the future -- being old, over-used and boring?
We as web users, must not forget the heart and guts of the World Wide Web -- it's not that old, and neither is Google. Look at Twitter vs. AIM for example -- talk about a turn-around? Everyone is tweeting out of control today, but where are the American Online Instant Messaging commercials, or the AOL "You've got Mail" commercials? From 2000 to 2005, the entire web was all AOL and AIM -- but what about now?
Technology changes. Websites change. And most importantly, we as educated web users change -- and in a direction to where we get the most, the best and the fastest everything. Who's to say the same thing can't happen to Google?
In terms of Google as a Monopoly -- They aren't one yet! And everything isn't connected to Google yet (Just ideas, talk and prototypes). Will they? I don't think so. Mostly because I know companies will merge together and the government will step in and stop any monopoly-like tendencies before they can go too far -- the government already has.
Most of you know me as "snooch". Everyone knows that someday there will be a website dedicated to snooch that will be better than any google or yahoo establishment -- No I really hope there is, but probably won't happen -- but, let me use a hypothetical situation, and ask a question to everyone in the class:
Say we all started a company, and came up with something so ground-breaking -- that we could do everything Google does, but better, for advertisers and the public web user -- What happens to Google? Do they blow away in the wind and commotion of better competition? Or would they just make necessary changes and adapt to the internet habitat?
As a leading Guh-billion dollar industry of the web right now -- I know it is hard to come to grips with the notion that Google may go away someday. But, what happens when an MIT student creates the next provocative search engine website that offers turn-of-the-century applications and tools that are faster and more efficient than Google? Who is to say that "x" company won't replace Google? Or Yahoo? Or YouTube? What happens then?
Until Next time --
The Google
Nothing lasts forever, but is Google's time at the top coming to a close? Doubtful. Auletta raises some interesting points, but the title of the article, "Searching for Trouble," more realistically resembles his own quest. Auletta looks to Microsoft executives and Verizon representatives for insight into Google. The Verizon executive says Google should be wary in case they wake the sleeping beast of telecom companies. Excellent point from a person whose company didn't see an opportunity with the iPhone and is in dire need of upgrading it's technology to handle mobile devices: Titanic to Iceberg, "Watch out."
The death of Google has long been proclaimed in the media. In 2000 BusinessWeek ran an article on whether or not Google would be able to survive without taking on banner ads: their prediction, probably not. Kind of missed the boat there, BW.
The reason these articles get written is simply because at some point something will replace Google and that point will have major consequences. But that point will not come about because of privacy concerns or under pressure from the telecoms, it will arrive because something better will be introduced. Auletta's points about a move to Facebook and Twitter are more in line with what could happen to Google. Twitter is already redesigning itself with a new focus on search. And Google did find themselves rebuffed by Twitter, but Auletta doesn't mention Twitter's new big problem: Google Wave.
The most interesting thing Auletta speaks about is interference by the government. Google has already raised issues of net neutrality with its Google Voice number blocking system, and Wired recently ran an article on an Obama insider who says his office is open to looking at Google's possible monopoly. But to make the case the administration will have to also convince the people. Is John Smith willing to give up smooth integration with his gmail, google docs, blogger, android phone, etc. because the the government is worried Google is too big? Now, that will be interesting.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Will Google Take Over The World?
I think Google is on its way to taking over the world. Kind of joking but kind of serious. It seems like everyday Google comes out with some new innovation that we havent seen before. I really can't keep up with it. I thought it was interesting what Bill Gates said in the article, "Google was more like us than anyone else we have competed with." Coming from a man like Bill Gates who basically invented the way we utilize computers, that is saying something. For me personally, Google business tactics are pretty depressing. The control on advertising that Google holds is staggering and they bully potential partners much like Wal-Mart.
Like any major company that we've seen, Google will hit a wall eventually. Not to say they aren't doing everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen. They are constantly looking for growth and searching for different markets to enter. Google has developed their own operating system, email, a navigation program(google maps). And if the government doesn't stop them, we will soon see an electronic book site. To say that Amazon is pissed about this would be an understatement. I don't think google will ever fall to the level of yahoo but I do think it is possible they could spread themselves to thin and forget the core values that got them to where they're at.
Like any major company that we've seen, Google will hit a wall eventually. Not to say they aren't doing everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen. They are constantly looking for growth and searching for different markets to enter. Google has developed their own operating system, email, a navigation program(google maps). And if the government doesn't stop them, we will soon see an electronic book site. To say that Amazon is pissed about this would be an understatement. I don't think google will ever fall to the level of yahoo but I do think it is possible they could spread themselves to thin and forget the core values that got them to where they're at.
Mind Blown
I believe Inspector Gadget said it best: "Yowza!"
Auletta brings up a great deal of amazing points about Google's dominance, and I think the vision articulated and history of the company are fascinating. I'm lead to recall the first line sent over the telegraph: "What hath God wrought." Goals and ideals are one part of the picture, but it seems like these fun-loving, insanely rich guys don't contemplate the potential consequences.
Wow - I'm not sure where to start on this. I think for me the biggest take away concerned the potentially side effect of turning the World Wide Web into one giant echo chamber by implementing the idea of transparent personalization discussed on page 54.
I think we already subconsciously do this as a society (select media that affirms our own beliefs), but if the slight opportunity to be exposed to different content decreases when we allow computers to reinforce our own preferences in presenting info to us. Now it seems like we could still accidentally stumble across something that might make us think twice. Does this mitigate the power of the user by reducing things to mathematics aimed towards precision of the decidedly imprecise subjects we are as humans? Cue philosophical debates. This also threatens potentially the Google goal of democratizing information by polarizing society when only certain information is presented to each user.
The other contention I had was the vision for democratization of information. The Google guys (one of whom was described as utopian by his Stanford advisor) seemingly fail to recognize the other elements that are needed to make this happen - a solid education system in k-12 and access to reliable, fast internet. This hasn't happened yet for groups that are already underprivileged in terms of access to resources.
I agree that it's hard to imagine Google completely folding. If the company has already gone through its awkward teen years, now (with the economic downturn) it seems to be entering it's strange post-collegiate years of working and paying the bills/understanding more what is required to run well. Ultimately it will make the company stronger and perhaps embrace a more coherent management structure/process, but growing pains are still a sign of growth.
I do know that if Google does eventually go the way of the Dodo, something even more mind-blowing will probably have boxed it out of the competition. Until then, I'll happily interface with Goog's many services.
Other notes: If I could rollerblade, I'd totally show up late to meetings, out of breath and in workout clothes. Also, I want to write the next peanut butter manifesto... on a bagel.
Auletta brings up a great deal of amazing points about Google's dominance, and I think the vision articulated and history of the company are fascinating. I'm lead to recall the first line sent over the telegraph: "What hath God wrought." Goals and ideals are one part of the picture, but it seems like these fun-loving, insanely rich guys don't contemplate the potential consequences.
Wow - I'm not sure where to start on this. I think for me the biggest take away concerned the potentially side effect of turning the World Wide Web into one giant echo chamber by implementing the idea of transparent personalization discussed on page 54.
I think we already subconsciously do this as a society (select media that affirms our own beliefs), but if the slight opportunity to be exposed to different content decreases when we allow computers to reinforce our own preferences in presenting info to us. Now it seems like we could still accidentally stumble across something that might make us think twice. Does this mitigate the power of the user by reducing things to mathematics aimed towards precision of the decidedly imprecise subjects we are as humans? Cue philosophical debates. This also threatens potentially the Google goal of democratizing information by polarizing society when only certain information is presented to each user.
The other contention I had was the vision for democratization of information. The Google guys (one of whom was described as utopian by his Stanford advisor) seemingly fail to recognize the other elements that are needed to make this happen - a solid education system in k-12 and access to reliable, fast internet. This hasn't happened yet for groups that are already underprivileged in terms of access to resources.
I agree that it's hard to imagine Google completely folding. If the company has already gone through its awkward teen years, now (with the economic downturn) it seems to be entering it's strange post-collegiate years of working and paying the bills/understanding more what is required to run well. Ultimately it will make the company stronger and perhaps embrace a more coherent management structure/process, but growing pains are still a sign of growth.
I do know that if Google does eventually go the way of the Dodo, something even more mind-blowing will probably have boxed it out of the competition. Until then, I'll happily interface with Goog's many services.
Other notes: If I could rollerblade, I'd totally show up late to meetings, out of breath and in workout clothes. Also, I want to write the next peanut butter manifesto... on a bagel.
GOOGLE IIIIIIITTTTTT
When thinking about the sheer size of google, I hadn't realized just how integral it has become in our lives. In fact, when I realized I wasn't sure if I should use "sheer" or "shear" in the previous sentence, where was the first place I looked? Google! It's snuck its way into my subconsciousness and there's no way to turn back. I think one of the most stunning statistics this article presented was that in one year Google brought in 2/3 of the ad revenue that all American newspapers bring in. To me, that statistic is insane. One company is bringing in 2/3 of what thousands of other companies do--and some of those companies couldn't be considered "small" by any standards...look at the NY Times or Boston Globe. Google has done some of the most amazing branding imaginable. When it first started out, it had some competition, like AskJeeves. I remember using AskJeeves in middle school. Now, because of Google, any other search engine (or media conglomerate, as Google has become) has become a relic of the past, a piece of nostalgia, like the Super Nintendo...God I miss my childhood.
I was also surprised to learn that Google had been affected by the recession. Granted, it shouldn't be surprising that everyone's seem some sort of problem arise from the events of the past year, but I think I assumed that a massive company like Google, that would probably receive a few billion hits a week even after a zombie apocolypse, wouldn't really experience the same problems as other corporations. However, the companies 400 layoffs and many more contract layoffs show that hasn't been the case, in fact, the number of cutbacks has probably gone up if the statistics at other companies are any indication. The article questions at times whether Google could fall into the same pit that IBM and some others fell into after a meteoric rise. I don't think that's the case. Google provides too valuable an asset to millions of curious researchers and stressed out students to falter anytime soon. Unless something better comes along, which I don't see happening anytime in the next decade or two because of Googles growing attempts to expand its services and capabilities even further, I think Google has a shelf life for as long as the internet exists. They've just got such a strong foothold and they seem to be digging in even deeper.
Nick
I was also surprised to learn that Google had been affected by the recession. Granted, it shouldn't be surprising that everyone's seem some sort of problem arise from the events of the past year, but I think I assumed that a massive company like Google, that would probably receive a few billion hits a week even after a zombie apocolypse, wouldn't really experience the same problems as other corporations. However, the companies 400 layoffs and many more contract layoffs show that hasn't been the case, in fact, the number of cutbacks has probably gone up if the statistics at other companies are any indication. The article questions at times whether Google could fall into the same pit that IBM and some others fell into after a meteoric rise. I don't think that's the case. Google provides too valuable an asset to millions of curious researchers and stressed out students to falter anytime soon. Unless something better comes along, which I don't see happening anytime in the next decade or two because of Googles growing attempts to expand its services and capabilities even further, I think Google has a shelf life for as long as the internet exists. They've just got such a strong foothold and they seem to be digging in even deeper.
Nick
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)