The site I produced for the fine folks at Made by Many and Amnesty International UK has been shortlisted for a New Media Age Effectiveness Award which is rather exciting. It would be amazing if it did well, we did work bloody hard on it!
It's top of the list as well, I'm sure that's a good omen and nothing to do with Amnesty and the letter A.
See the quite long short list here: http://www.nmaawards.co.uk/Shortlist.aspx
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Monday, February 02, 2009
BBC Weather is flawed and angry making
Firstly it's been a very long time since I wrote a blog post. You know how it is, new job, new Christmas, new recession.
So what with all the #uksnow action on twitter I found myself on the Beta BBC weather site. A couple of years ago, the BBC weather forecast changed to the new flying cameras circus. Since then I've been quite annoyed by the terrible usability of this 'look how clever we are at the weather' approach. What I dislike so much is not the flying cameras, indeed I love flying cameras - especially on golf coverage, but the way the new weather displays leave me often confused about what weather I can expect. Surely that is the whole point of the weather forecast. Next time you watch the BBC forecast, see how much you have to concentrate to figure out if generally tomorrow will be warm/cold/wet or sunny. There are three major problems:
1. Gone are the wonderfully simple and clear symbols which everyone (the world over) understands.
Now instead of using sun symbols and cloud symbols, sunny and cloudy days are represented by slightly different colours of brown. I believe that a beautiful hot summery day is is now explained by light brown and cloud by dark brown. Obviously. They could have at least chosen green. Rain is of course blue, heavy rain.. em dark blue.... fog is white..snow is... em white. The flaw in this is illustrated beautifully by the fact that the new BBC Beta site requires a Key to explain the weather - something hardly necessary until a couple of years ago.
So, medium blue could be heavy frost, heavy rain or temperature of -6 degrees. The difference between heavy and light fog is almost imperceptible. In fact, it is so confusing they need a key to differentiate between lakes and rivers and really low temperatures. I'm sure anyone partially sighted or colour blind is absolutely baffled (never mind the people paying for a black and white TV licence - £47 per year FYI). The increasing need to listen to the commentary, because the browns aren't clear enough, is equally not so great for non-English speakers or those with hearing difficulties.
2. The new report is far too detailed for the average person.
90% of the British population need to know if it will be rainy, warm, cold, sunny or dry tomorrow. That's the level of detail most people require for the decisions they need to make. Now we get so much information that it's hard to take on board and mentally summarise. So it's going to rain at 2:34 tomorrow afternoon for 10 minutes north of Bristol is kind of useful, but not as useful as 'generally tomorrow around Bristol it will be wet'. Meteorologists stop showing off how accurately you can now predict the weather - it's too much for our needs. It's like the time, I generally need to know the time to the nearest few minutes not milliseconds.
3. They've taken the joy out of the weather.
People like talking about the weather, this method of forecasting reduces it to a dull scientific experiment I can barely listen to for five minutes.
In the UK we generally have a wet climate. When it's sunny we really want to shout about it and celebrate it. Now, if it's sunny in the UK, the BBC forecast indicates this with a light brown colour, which you could interpret as 'no weather'. Where's the fun in that? We want WOO HOO IT'S SUNNY LOOK AT ALL THE LITTLE YELLOW SUN SYMBOLS. If you're going to have to use colours at least indicate sunny with the brightest yellow you can find and make us all feel good.
I predict another few years of this nonsense until the BBC can return to the old system without embarrassment and we'll see a return to good old fashioned simple and usable weather forecasting. If the whole thing was proving a success the new BBC weather site would be using little brown squares to represent sunny days.
Tomorrow will probably be snowy by the way.
So what with all the #uksnow action on twitter I found myself on the Beta BBC weather site. A couple of years ago, the BBC weather forecast changed to the new flying cameras circus. Since then I've been quite annoyed by the terrible usability of this 'look how clever we are at the weather' approach. What I dislike so much is not the flying cameras, indeed I love flying cameras - especially on golf coverage, but the way the new weather displays leave me often confused about what weather I can expect. Surely that is the whole point of the weather forecast. Next time you watch the BBC forecast, see how much you have to concentrate to figure out if generally tomorrow will be warm/cold/wet or sunny. There are three major problems:
1. Gone are the wonderfully simple and clear symbols which everyone (the world over) understands.
Now instead of using sun symbols and cloud symbols, sunny and cloudy days are represented by slightly different colours of brown. I believe that a beautiful hot summery day is is now explained by light brown and cloud by dark brown. Obviously. They could have at least chosen green. Rain is of course blue, heavy rain.. em dark blue.... fog is white..snow is... em white. The flaw in this is illustrated beautifully by the fact that the new BBC Beta site requires a Key to explain the weather - something hardly necessary until a couple of years ago.
So, medium blue could be heavy frost, heavy rain or temperature of -6 degrees. The difference between heavy and light fog is almost imperceptible. In fact, it is so confusing they need a key to differentiate between lakes and rivers and really low temperatures. I'm sure anyone partially sighted or colour blind is absolutely baffled (never mind the people paying for a black and white TV licence - £47 per year FYI). The increasing need to listen to the commentary, because the browns aren't clear enough, is equally not so great for non-English speakers or those with hearing difficulties.
2. The new report is far too detailed for the average person.
90% of the British population need to know if it will be rainy, warm, cold, sunny or dry tomorrow. That's the level of detail most people require for the decisions they need to make. Now we get so much information that it's hard to take on board and mentally summarise. So it's going to rain at 2:34 tomorrow afternoon for 10 minutes north of Bristol is kind of useful, but not as useful as 'generally tomorrow around Bristol it will be wet'. Meteorologists stop showing off how accurately you can now predict the weather - it's too much for our needs. It's like the time, I generally need to know the time to the nearest few minutes not milliseconds.
3. They've taken the joy out of the weather.
People like talking about the weather, this method of forecasting reduces it to a dull scientific experiment I can barely listen to for five minutes.
In the UK we generally have a wet climate. When it's sunny we really want to shout about it and celebrate it. Now, if it's sunny in the UK, the BBC forecast indicates this with a light brown colour, which you could interpret as 'no weather'. Where's the fun in that? We want WOO HOO IT'S SUNNY LOOK AT ALL THE LITTLE YELLOW SUN SYMBOLS. If you're going to have to use colours at least indicate sunny with the brightest yellow you can find and make us all feel good.I predict another few years of this nonsense until the BBC can return to the old system without embarrassment and we'll see a return to good old fashioned simple and usable weather forecasting. If the whole thing was proving a success the new BBC weather site would be using little brown squares to represent sunny days.
Tomorrow will probably be snowy by the way.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Picking Cotton, picking Presidents
An interesting correlation can be seen in the maps below. The top map shows the recent presedetial election results at a county level (the darker the colour the greater the majority) - blue represents the goodies and red the baddies. The second map shows cotton production in 1860, just before the civil war. Cotton harvest and production was of course dependent on African-American slaves.
An interesting comparison give the 148 years between the data used for the two maps.
Find out more on the original post
An interesting comparison give the 148 years between the data used for the two maps.
Find out more on the original post
Monday, November 10, 2008
Newspapers no longer in the paper business - video
Interview with Michael Rosenblum by Jemima Kiss at the Society of Editors conference in Bristol.
"Newspapers today are in information and journalism business, they're not in the paper business. The biggest weakness in the newspaper is the paper part of it."
I think Michael Rosenblum is spot on. The fact that this video has been posted via Youtube rather than the Guardian's video platform is case in point.
"Newspapers today are in information and journalism business, they're not in the paper business. The biggest weakness in the newspaper is the paper part of it."
I think Michael Rosenblum is spot on. The fact that this video has been posted via Youtube rather than the Guardian's video platform is case in point.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Deep linking is critical - new idea from YouTube
With increasing amounts of long form video content available on the web, it's going to be increasingly important for publishers to provide mechanisms for segmenting or deep linking into videos.
People have always chunked programmes into segments, perhaps favourite bits or funny scenes or lines. These have been manually segmented and uploaded since the day YouTube launched. Here's an example and excuse to watch the famous McGyver coffin jet ski escape scene:
With more long form content, the ability to segment online or on the fly is key. Clips are easier to consume because of their brevity, they're usually the most memorable bits and they're more likely to have some kind of viral impact.
Hulu (of course) have a great system where if I email or embed a video then I can select an in and out point, allowing me to choose a specific segment. It's simple and easy and it passes the Mrs Robertson test, could my mum do it?
Youtube have announced two measures to allow similar sub-clipping. The first is not very user friendly, it involves adding a timecode to the end of the URL to create a deep link. It does work, although my mum wouldn't like it, and it's a little clunky when the page loads. Here's the moment the coffin turns into a jet ski (1 minute and 1 second into the clip): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTWEh2mcdsg#t=1m01s
The second method is far more interesting. In the comments field of YouTube (where you'll find the the swearing and hatred,) if you enter a timecode in the right format, a link is automatically created to that moment in the video.
See it in action on the Mcyver clip and try it yourself.
This allows users to discuss the content in context - this is not a feature I've seen elsewhere. With the amount of commenting on YouTube this could be quite a strong feature and one I think we'll see becoming available on other sites.
Meanwhile in other news, speculation on Hulu making an appearance in the UK and a funny and clever revisiting of the original Wassup TV advert.
People have always chunked programmes into segments, perhaps favourite bits or funny scenes or lines. These have been manually segmented and uploaded since the day YouTube launched. Here's an example and excuse to watch the famous McGyver coffin jet ski escape scene:
With more long form content, the ability to segment online or on the fly is key. Clips are easier to consume because of their brevity, they're usually the most memorable bits and they're more likely to have some kind of viral impact.
Hulu (of course) have a great system where if I email or embed a video then I can select an in and out point, allowing me to choose a specific segment. It's simple and easy and it passes the Mrs Robertson test, could my mum do it?
Youtube have announced two measures to allow similar sub-clipping. The first is not very user friendly, it involves adding a timecode to the end of the URL to create a deep link. It does work, although my mum wouldn't like it, and it's a little clunky when the page loads. Here's the moment the coffin turns into a jet ski (1 minute and 1 second into the clip): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTWEh2mcdsg#t=1m01s
The second method is far more interesting. In the comments field of YouTube (where you'll find the the swearing and hatred,) if you enter a timecode in the right format, a link is automatically created to that moment in the video.
See it in action on the Mcyver clip and try it yourself.
This allows users to discuss the content in context - this is not a feature I've seen elsewhere. With the amount of commenting on YouTube this could be quite a strong feature and one I think we'll see becoming available on other sites.
Meanwhile in other news, speculation on Hulu making an appearance in the UK and a funny and clever revisiting of the original Wassup TV advert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
