(Via John Nack on Adobe.)

Lovely bit of motion graphics work. I’m also really enjoying the teeny mini album, cubicroom, that some of the music is taken from.

That is all.

Just noticed, and liked, these subtle progress bars in Stanza, an ebook reader for iPhone OS. (Although, if a user interface element is so subtle as to not be noticed during several months of use, perhaps it’s not doing its job.)

Okay, Facebook app for iPhone, I get it, you are updating my Inbox with all your strength.

From the site, here’s ‘how it works’:

1. Create an Assignment. Ask for what you want.
2. Get Submissions. People create and submit their work.
3. Peer Review. Community voting helps find the best.
4. Pick Winners. Select your favorites and download.
5. Rewards! Winners get prizes and rewards.

Now, maybe I’m just being cynical, but isn’t this just a way for businesses to get a load of free design on spec, something which is a big, big no-no for the creative industry?

In other words, artists spend their time creating something purpose-made for a business’s specification, and then, except for the ‘winner’, receive no compensation for the time involved.

I know there are lots of community art sites and artists out there who happily create stuff for free for the simple of joy of creating stuff. That’s great, and clearly what this site is based on. But tying it in so closely to ‘businesses paying for your work’ just feels incredibly skeevy to me, and bordering on exploitation of talented amateurs.

Still, it’s a free market, I guess, and nobody’s forcing these artists to get involved. But the mere existence of things like this strengthens a increasingly popular mindset that says that creativity comes cheaply, and that the creators should take the financial and time risk of producing something that may not be what is wanted, rather than the purchaser taking that risk.

As AIGA (the professional association for design) says:

Organizations sometimes initiate contests as a way of developing logos or other identity work. Unlike disciplines in which the designer can bill for implementation of the proposed design (e.g., architecture), in communication design, the submitted solution already represents the bulk of the intellectual work…

AIGA believes that doing speculative work seriously compromises the quality of work that clients are entitled to and also violates a tacit, long-standing ethical standard in the communication design profession worldwide. AIGA strongly discourages the practice of requesting that design work be produced and submitted on a speculative basis in order to be considered for acceptance on a project.

Update: Pixish do mention these concerns on their About page:

But isn’t this spec work? We acknowledge that some artists are against working before there’s a contract in place, so they may not want to participate here. And that’s fine – Pixish isn’t for everyone. If you’re already making a living as a pro, hooray! We’re thrilled for you. But you’re lucky. There are a lot of really talented folks who aren’t. We want to give them a chance to get out there, get seen, and get paid.

Which is true, but doesn’t really address my problem with the culture and expectations that this sort of site perpetuates.

Who are these people who have the time and money to sit around “designing” poor crap like this?

Hey, you know what else can hold and dispense round fruit? A BOWL. It can even handle odd shaped fruit. Also, what on Earth are those green things on the far left? Did they run out of real round fruit?

As far as I can tell, the main reason for this is that the current hinge design uses the entire back panel of the unit, thus precluding having any ports there. This is certainly an improvement over the TiBook’s hinges (which had an unfortunate tendency to unravel after a while (mine haven’t yet, touch wood titanium)), and some people have even praised the side-ports in their own right, since they are arguably easier to access.

However, in my opinion, the machine looks downright ugly with all these cables snaking out the side of it. My PowerBook could be hooked up to the nines, but all the cables would be coming out of the back, out of sight, and it would still look sleek and elegant. And then there’s this:

The MacBook Pro is a fantastic machine technically, but I still pine for the design of the titanium PowerBooks.

(Yes, I realise this is a rather late complaint, since every new PowerBook since 2003 has had this ports-on-the-side design. But I bitch about things as I find them.)

Normally I arrange myself and my laptop like this:

The screen is angled so that it is roughly perpendicular to my line-of-sight, and my eyes are slightly higher than the top of the lid. This provides a lovely, expansive computing experience, approximately like this:

However, the iSight camera is positioned at the top of the screen, and stares straight out:

This means that the resulting camera image is centered too high:

Of course, I can adjust the angle of the lid downwards so that the camera image is centered on my beautiful fizzog:

But if I do that, the arrangement now looks like this:

The camera is perfectly aligned, but I’m having to stare down at my screen at an angle:

(Angle in photo slightly exaggerated for dramatic effect.) It feels cramped and wrong and I can’t stand it for long.

Mac users are usually pretty obsessive about their computers, and are quick to whine about perceived design faults, but I haven’t heard a peep from anyone else about this situation. Am I really the only person who has this problem? Am I using my laptop in a completely non-standard position? Am I nuts?

Here’s a page from the Sainsbury’s website that shows all their Christmassy characters in ‘print out and colour in’ form, including my friend, Eggdeer. They managed to get the Eskimo and the polar bear pretty normal, and although Father Christmas is slightly egg shaped too, at least he’s recognisable as Father Christmas. But the egg-shaped reindeer is just weirding me out big time.

This new logo is embarrassingly naff. Look at all the gradients! And why is that central circle off to the right like that?

According to their Chief Marketing Officer, Lawrence Flanagan, the new brand identity “follows an extensive analysis of the MasterCard brand and the value proposition it represents to constituents”, and the new logo reflects the company’s unique, three-tiered business model as a franchisor, processor and advisor.

It all becomes clear! They are obviously trying to communicate that they are an all-knowing, yet transparent advisor, with a strong emphasis on security (notice the thick perimeter wall around Mr Advisor), who are becoming increasingly friendly with their (yellow) franchisees, but without leaving the important (red!) processing part of their business out in the cold. Or something.