Image source: cultureby.com

On Saturday, I got to hear Grant McCracken speak at the AIGA GAIN conference in New York.
I documented that I was going to the talk in my usual way of writing a quick note in twitter, which gets dumped into my facebook status.

“At AIGA, just heard Grant McCracken say smart things on design & culture, and the role of the anthropologist”

I got two quick responses from friends of mine who are working on their dissertations in anthropology, who basically asked what is the role of the anthropologist?

Of course, their requests had a bit of tongue and cheek, who am I to tell anthropologist what is their role? And I hope that they understood, that the talk was about the role of the anthropology within the context of design and culture. Nevertheless, the question is worth a response, because it is an interesting one, and perhaps the answer is not so obvious, although it is after hearing the talk.

During his talk, in a conference room mostly full of designers, McCracken refers two kinds of practitioners of anthropology. Anthropologists with an upper case A, and anthropologists with a lower case a. McCracken is an Anthropologist (PhD U Chicago) just as my friends are training to be Anthropologists. As well, there are many anthropologists (I would count myself in that group) who have the opportunity to practice anthropology in their work.  For designers, that practice is decoding culture and explaining it back to the design or marketing client. Although many in the Field (uppercase F) might have a problem with that, McCracken does not, and in fact encourages it. Although, it must be done in a smart way.

Decoding culture is crucial to the designer, because “culture provides infrastructure” to how we understand the world.  McCracken divides culture into the “above” (Malcolm Gladwell, Coolhunters, trendsetters) and the “below” which is all the rest.  Culture below is more hidden, and is made up of the assumptions people make in their construction of their worlds. The culture below is so obvious to the individual that they don’t even realize it exists. It remains in the domain of the unknown, until the anthropologist enters and maps out assumptions that. He cites the example of what makes a Harley more than “just” a motorcycle.

What does this have to do with design?

The designer must consider more than the cultural relevance of her creative output.  She must also consider the people who will see, hear, try, and her designs.  The successful designer will have an intimate knowledge of her end-user/audience/market and the culture surround the products and services that use in their daily lives. She will then use that knowledge to create a relationship with that person.

McCracken began with the question, “who owns culture in the corporation?” His claim is that designs probably don’t, but they should.  And today, the answer is probably nobody, which makes that there is an opportunity for the designer to lay claim to that corporate group.

What does this have to do with the Anthropologist overall or in training? McCracken often talks about the missed opportunities of Anthropologists because, they could provide insight in a post-modern world of flatten hierarchies (high-low, East-West) where known cultural structures are eroding.  In their place is an ad-hoc, but quite real, infrastructure of culture that is ripe for mining. Although they may not be the traditional domain of Anthropology, these cultural norms have a huge influence on the every day lives people in a post-industrial, consumerist culture. There is a great need for these changes to be explained back to the corporations that are creating that culture.  Whether for the corporation or academia, there is an opportunity for both Anthropologists and anthropologists to weigh in on the issues of the bagginess or skinniness of jeans, the identities of our vehicles, or personalities of our beverages.

Perhaps, there are Anthropologists in training who are already tackling these issues. If that is true, that would be great. For those who are designer or marketers who are (aspiring) anthropologists, there are also many opportunities as well. For both parties, McCracken has just created a blog conpendium on how to be an anthropologist for hire.

The last week has been a little hectic. I give this talk last week to some first year Masters of ID students at UArts. The title is “Compuation + Maps.” I’m not sure how much of it will make sense without the spoken part, but the basic ideas should be discernable. I’m looking forward to going back in a couple of weeks to see their projects.

Something has been confusing and annoying me basically since I started reading blogs. It’s one of those slight annoying things, where a little design considering would make the issue irrelevant. When reading or searching blogs, the bottom of the screen usually offers you two choices, of which, the following combination is quite common:

<< Older Entries          Newer Entries>>

<< Previous Entries     Next Entries >>

Am I the only person who is confused by this interface? Both examples are slightly ambiguous. What does “previous” or “next” mean?

Blogs are generally organized by descending chronological order, that is, newest post on top of the screen or webpage. Books are generally ascending chronologically, if they have a time-based narrative, and start at a point in time and move forward.

Because English is read left to right, the “next” page of a book and navigation pointing to the right refers to pages dates in the future. However, in a blog, “Next” and “arrows pointing to the right” could either refer to blog web pages with posts that you haven’t read yet or a page with blog posts written in the past, ie older then the posts you are currently reading. To further add to the confusion, some blogs use Google as their search engine, which serves results in order of relevance.

To reiterate the two main points of ambiguity:

#1: Blogs and books don’t chronologically map in the same way. Books based on chronology are usually presented oldest information first. Blogs are generally displayed with the newest post first.

#2: Pages in blogs and print don’t map in the same way. The subsequent unread (I’m trying to avoid saying next) page on a blog is going backwards in time. Going forwards in a history book, toward the right, is moving forward in time.

In these two examples, left arrows link to older posts by date and right arrows link to newer posts by date.

Here is the interface of weatherapattern.com, so I write:

Notice the subtle different in terminology in designnotes (composite image):

As mentioned before, the questions arise:

What does “next” mean? That is, does it refer to unread posts or posts dates in the future?

In both cases, when I see “<< Previous Entries,” do the arrow mean the past in time or unread posts?

Why are the older post to the right? If I were to print out a blog and bind it, the older posts would exist towards the right.

Is there a better solution?

I think Gigaom, has a very good solution, part of the time. Instead of using the interfaces of many blogs, they both map to the closest to the print experience as well as have clearer wording.

With this interface, Gigaom both avoids the ambiguity of “previous” and “next.” Using “newer” and “older”  clearly refers to date of the posts. Also, the arrow points in a direction that map to the printed out and bound blog. Unfortunately, that interface is only used for the main pages, and not when you search. Sigh.

So, the remaining point is, why should blogs map to the convention of English (or any language read left to right) books? My only response is that most English speakers read books before blogs. It is important for a designer to build upon the obvious reference points and mental models of their users. For blogs in languages the read right to left, such as Chinese or Hebrew, I was have Older Posts pointing to the right.

Now, I have to go try to tweak this site’s navigation.

Image source: myspace.com

I’m feeling really nostalgic lately, maybe it’s because the Pixies have reunited, or the launch of muxtape, or that I’ve been catching up with friends from high school and college in Facebook, and then of course, was my roadtrip to Pittsburgh (where I spent my college years.)

For all the reasons above, I’ve been recently listening to my catalogue of Bob Mould and his 90s band Sugar: Workbook, Cooper Blue, and File Under Easy Listening. This prompted me to look into Mould more recent recordings. I had heard that he was went electronic (which is sort of true) and had been meaning to check him out again for a while. So, I finally got his most recent record, District Lines. (Ok, when I say “got,” I mean I bought the mp3s on amazon.com.)

Music was such a huge part of my past especially in my college and post-college years, that there is a distinct soundtrack that I can hinge to parts of my life. If bands are brands as Grant McCracken recently and brand formulates our identities as Rob Walker suggests, then we are what we listen to. However in revisiting this albums, what’s changed over the years, isn’t just what we listen to that is most striking, but *how* we listen to it.

I played it a few times from start to finish. In the age of mp3 downloading and streaming (even the legal ones on myspace or band sites,) who still gives an album three or four full listens just to see if they can get into it? More often than not, I jump from site to site, checking out singles, which often do not even get a full play. Tracks that I immediately like get frequent (sometimes even obsessive plays) for a week before I move on the next ones, most other get are quickly forgotten. The music listening experience is akin to Galactus, the devourer of planets from Marvel Comics, who descends upon a planet to suck all life from it, before it moves on to the next one.

District Lines was a return not only to a musician I’ve admired for years, but also a return to a way of listening to music. I love how Mould uses the traditional album structure, built around tracks 1 and 4. Track 1 “Stupid Now” opens on the quiet side, not unlike “Sunspot” of his solo album, Workbook. But then, the song shifts into great power pop, with melodies layered underneath the noisy guitars that fans expect from Mould. Track 4 is the *hit* track. In this case, “Old Highs, New Lows” shows the electronic influence of DJing at Blowoff, his DC-based party, and is, for me, as least, the biggest track on the album. From his involvement in the electronic scene, Mould started adding electronic elements to his records, like Modulate (which I haven’t bought, but it is now somewhere up on the list,) which confused critics and die-hard rock fans. Maybe he was getting used to the form, or his listeners needed to get used to his new direction. Many people have noted for years, that labels don’t have the patience to nature a musician to develop a sound over a few albums. However, I’m not sure audiences have the patience today either. But it is great to be able to trace the progression of a career over 20 years, plus he blogs.

I just made a muxtape.

And actually, I turned 19 in 1992, but “19 in 1991″ made better copy. In any event, 1991 was a pretty influential year. I graduated high school and started college at CMU. Back then, music was a scarce resource. Not just music, but information about new music was fairly scarce as well. We read magazines, listened to the radio, and watched MTV to learn about new music. CDs were expensive, imports from Japan or the UK were $40 and locked behind glass cases in record stores. Despite all that, it was a great time to be in college, just for the music. Freshman year in college, you could size up a person with one simple question, “so, what do you listen to?” (If you needed a second opinion, you could also look at their shoes.)

We were also transitioning from cassette tapes to CDs, analogue to digital. (Vinyl is a whole other story.)

Back in the era of cassette tapes, I made a pretty damn good mixtape, complete with of course carefully chosen songs, but also, witty titles and cover made from cut up magazines. I also made mix CDs, but it wasn’t the same.

In 1991, I made a mix tape for my sister, who was still in high school. I filled it with “college music,” precisely keeping track of the song lengths to maximize the 90 minute tape. I also had to physically borrow music from new friends in my dorm. The whole process now seems antiquated, in the post-Napster world.

A couple of months ago, muxtape launched. You can upload a mix tape, or what the kids called playlists. I must say, muxtape is impressive. I am not sure of the legal issues, but the system is smart enough to automatically link your songs to amazon.com to buy the mp3. I finally got around to making a mix tape, two months everyone else seems to have.

The theme is 1991, although just like the title, I took some liberties. So, the mix tape is more early 1990s than strictly 1991, but I really tried to stick to music that I was really into and frequently listening to, which as you can see was mostly 4AD, brit pop, with a bit of grunge, and a lot of Pixies influenced music. As I said, the early 90s were a great time to be in college. I left out the bands, I “should” have been listening, at the time, but got into late. I think that goes back to the scarcity issue. The tracks include lesser known gems from familiar voices, one hit wonders, and early singles from bands before they really hit it big. I’ll leave it up to you to decide which ones fall into which category.

Enjoy, and I wonder if my sister still has that tape…

It’s been quiet here, because my word press account got hacked, so I’ve been archiving, researching and upgrading. Cross your fingers, folks. Update: It just hosed my theme. I’m super depressed…

While you are waiting, check out Facebook Lexicon, which lets you search the popularity of words that appear in Facebook Walls. Here is a graph of Clinton and Obama. Many of you will know how about my feelings towards the awesomeness of word frequencies.

On a rainy Friday, here are some follow up tidbits to some previous posts that have been collecting in my mental Inbox. I think it’s a good practice to follow up on posts. In both blogging, even more importantly traditional journalism, the story after the story is too often neglected.

1. A few kind readers have asked me about the other youtube famed video, D.A.N.C.E., by French techno duo Justice. While it is a great track and video, I still like DVNO better. Superimposing motion graphics on a shirts is a brilliant idea, however the visual effects prowess of the creators overtakes the visual imagery. The viewers spends a lot of time thinking, how did they do that? and what a cool effect. DVNO required a similar level of design skill (with albeit less rotoscoping.) As stated before, in the case of DVNO, the technology is invisible and the viewer can focus on the imagery.

2. The game designer who created Passages, which I alluded to as work of interactive fiction, has created a new work called, Gravitation.

3. From March 1 to March 31, Google blog search reveals: 16,526 results for awesomenessand 706,055 results for awesome, which is lower than the results from my original post:February-2008: Awesomeness: 17,182 ; Awesome: 736,783 ; Are: 61,531,049
January-2008: Awesomeness: 9,627 ; Awesome: 429,769; Are: 57,214,958

Is the use of “awesomeness” leveling of?
I’m not sure. The results that Google is now giving me is different results for previous months when I first collected data, which is a little troubling.

However, if I really want to understand how search engines work, I may have to try to read this suggestion from Wojciech, Introduction to Information Retrieval, by Standford profressors, Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan and Hinrich Schütze.

Image source: Barron’s Online

One more note on subscription content. Last week I had the fortune of hearing some editors at Barron’s magazine speak, including managing editor, Richard Rescigno.

He noted that Barron’s main selling point is that they provide evaluations of (mostly) equities which they feel are either overvalued or undervalued. Unlike, many of their competitors, their company profiles offer an opinion to respectively sell or buy these stocks. They also publish reports cards to show readers how they are doing. Not surprisingly, their circulation is stable, and at near high levels.

Like the Economist which has been covered here, Barron’s has a subscription based business model, which is supplemented by advertising. They means they they are not as beholden to the companies who advertise on their pages, or the shifts in the media buying landscape. Paying readers get this weekly paper on Saturday. On Monday noon, they also publish their articles on the web for free, as not to take away too much on paying readers who may want to buy or sell when the markets open on Monday morning.

As newspapers and news weeklies continues to see their revenue, stock prices and staffing levels drop, my conclusion would be to aim for in depth reporting that gives an clear opinion and point of view. People will pay you for them.

Image source: Wikipedia

This is going to be slightly off topic, so you’ve been warned. Carly Simon seems to be bubbling up into pop culture consciousness, even without being included on a Quentin Tarantino/ Wes Anderson film soundtrack. Her controversial “He Hit Me” she wrote that is covered by Grizzly Bear on their Friend EP and in live shows.(Please read comment thread.) On an anecdotal level, a friend, Ray, randomly mentioned that he has been into the Simon track “Why.”

A little additional internet research is showing that she is also releasing her next record on the Starbucks label, and one of her songs was featured on American Idol. I’m waiting to see if she shows up anywhere else. How are these related, if at all? Can the fluctuations of the comeback popular culture be tracked, traced, understood and gasp predicted?

All this leads up to the big question I want to ask, which has to do with her ode (dare I almost say, pre-rap battle?) to Warren Betty (or Kris Kristofferson or Mick Jagger, depending on who you ask) “Your So Vain.”

The lyrics of the accusatory chorus “you’re so vain, you think this song is about you, don’t you?” have always confused me.

um… the song IS about him, isn’t it?

Image source: Economist.com

Coming from home last Thursday, I sorted through my mail to find my copy of the Economist, one day early from its usual Friday delivery. Of course, last week’s copy has barely been opened, and now the pressure it on. I don’t often read it cover to cover, but I try to skim each section. I am a firm believer in the ideas that is always a good idea to have a vague notion of what you don’t know. But each week around Wednesday or Thursday, I get a little nervous but I know the next issue is on the way.

The Economist, as a publication itself, got some press recently. Mostly because it is one of the few news publication that is pushing for more growth, rather than shrinking, trying to grow from 700,000+ US subscribers to one million in the next five years. Jon Friedman at MarketWatch wondered out loud if they push would dumb down the coverage. I certainly hope not, an doubt that they will, unless they want to alienate their constituency, which editor-in chief, John Micklethwait, describes as “people who want an intelligent read.”

Although the wit of cover headlines and artwork is amusing, that the fact that the magazine has a distinct point of view is one of the most important aspects of the magazine and why it is successful. It has a single value proposition: The weekly magazine in depth analysis of of global news from a pro-free market perspective. How would you describe Time or Newsweek in one sentence?

The Economist provides coverage on every region, each week. (You get a steady stream of articles on the developing world, that are go beyond natural disasters and civil wars.) They stay away from celebrities, popular culture coverage, scoop driven reporting, and thankfully “best of” lists. Their unified perspective is so rigorous that they don’t provide by-lines, even to their columnists.

Fox News’ success can be similarly linked to attracted audiences, because their viewers are looking for a specific point of view. However, the Economist is able to stay above the fray of partisanship, and the criticism that is linked to it. Because the position they have taken is not directly linked to a political party, they can be more critical of both sides. One article can be pro-privatization of state owned industries and another can be pro-stem cell research at the same.

Today, “mainstream” journalism thrives for “objective” coverage, which I’m starting to feel is impossible. Balanced reporting often becomes let’s try not to upset our sources, advertisers and readers. Articles in the Economist offer opinions (which I don’t always agree with) if a policy is good or bad, as well as recommendations, and solutions to problems. Readers rarely get that in other US news publications, outside of the Op-Ed pages. Traditional news organziation, such as Time, Newsweek, but also the New York Times and the Washington Post, need to be more polemic, not less. As stated in a previous post, people will want to pay for quality content, even in the (gasp) print media format, while competing with all that “free” information.