Well, my web host completely came through for me and everything is back up top-notch.

Andy Rutledge, who often writes about web design, posted a design quiz. It’s a well written, fun little quiz. I took it and got 70%, which is pretty bad and shows I have a lot to learn about design.

One of the questions from the quiz is:

17. According to countless studies, aesthetically pleasing designs are widely perceived as being [b l a n k] than less-aesthetic designs.
a. cooler
b. more decorative
c. more Web 2.0
d. easier to use

The answer, of course, is easier to use. I instantly wondered, “If aesthetically pleasing designs are easier to use, then why do so many top, most popular sites look like complete trash?” The answer is simple; “design” is only part of web design.

That may sound confusing but only because the word “design” is in the phrase “web design”. Web design encompasses all things related to building a website, possibly more. The Design, as in aesethetic look and feel, is part of it, but so are things like Content and Functionality.

Let me use my leaky toilet as an example. If you’re looking for information on how to fix your leaky toilet, you may find a very pretty, well built site. However, if it doesn’t tell you how to fix your toilet, how long are you going to spend there before you move to that ugly site with blinking banners, no color, and detailed instruction on how to fix your specific make and model toilet? See, a perfectly reasonable and common example where aesthetic design factors very little into the website’s usage. Which website will you go to next time you’re looking for similar information? Which site will you refer your friends to?

Andy’s quiz showed me a lot of places I can improve my knowledge of visual design, but I have to remember that an effective website encompasses more than just that.

Back when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless, it spent a paltry $4 billion changing its name to Cingular. Now due to another corporate take-over, Cingular is reported to be about to spend $2 billion to change its name back to AT&T. All I can think to say is, “Haha!”

Web 2.0 is one of those buisness buzzwords floating out there that can’t really be summed up easily. At first, I, like many others, want to hate it. It’s a buzzword. It has no real meaning. Then, I find myself using it. Rather than hate myself, I’m coming to grips with the fact that Web 2.0 is a useful term.

So, what does it mean anyway? I have to take a pass at this one. Everyone has a different idea of what it means. For me, Web 2.0 is a mindset. The Web is an evolving technology and constantly changes. By thinking in terms of Web 2.0, you are accepting this change and trying to differentiate from older trends. Current Web 2.0 trends include web standard compliant design, usable interfaces, and an abundance of quality content. Really, that list could go on forever. Many would probably throw AJAX into the mix as well.

The real point, however, is that Web 2.0 is building websites for the future, and Web 1.0 is using methods that have largely been proven incorrect, inaccurate, or aversive. By this line of reasoning, I don’t think there will ever be a Web 3.0. Web 2.0 is always the future while Web 1.0 is the past.

I love a good movie trailer. Here’s two:

• Superman Returns
• Casino Royale

Not too long ago, Stephen Colbert, a comedian, gave an address to the White House Correspondents’ Association with the President in attendance. The funny thing about it is that he went on, did the same bit he always, and now all these guys are upset about it. Why, oh why, invite the guy if you don’t like his material?!?

Anyway, Salon has good editorial discussing how news outlets first ingnored the performance then decided to all agree that it wasn’t funny. I’ve seen the 20 minute clip posted on tons of websites, all over the place. I’ve yet to see so much as a 10 second clip on any TV news outlet. Of course, Colbert did make fun of most of the news guys, so maybe they’re just bitter.

From the Salon editorial:

Colbert refused to play his dutiful, toothless part in the White House correspondents dinner — an incestuous, backslapping ritual that should be retired. For that, he had to be marginalized. Voilà : “He wasn’t funny.”

This is a battle that can’t really be won — you either got it Saturday night (or Sunday morning, or whenever your life was made a little brighter by viewing Colbert’s performance) or you didn’t. Personally, I’m enjoying watching apologists for the status quo wear themselves out explaining why Colbert wasn’t funny. It’s extending the reach of his performance by days without either side breaking character — the mighty Colbert or the clueless, self-important media elite he was satirizing.

Hey, if you haven’t seen the Colbert video, you should.

Take a look at this study on the cause of rising gas prices:

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights released a new study today of rising gasoline prices in California that found corporate markups and profiteering are responsible for spring price spikes, not rising crude costs or the national switchover to higher-cost ethanol, as the oil industry claims.

I guess you can get away with that sort of thing when you’ve bought and paid for a US president and company. At least, the oil companies are getting their money’s worth.

My mouth hit the floor as I watched this trailer. I’m not sure if I will be able to sleep until the movie comes out.

Be prepared to watch what is without a doubt one of the best trailers ever. EVER.

Watch the New Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man’s Chest Trailer

This movie is already my favorite all time movie and not only is it not all but I have also not even seen it yet.

YouTube became hugely popular overnight, but if Nathan Weinberg is right, YouTube is going down the tube. Nathan recounts how his YouTube account got deleted, and why YouTube won’t last:

On March 15, my account was deleted, and all my videos were removed. The reason? A minute-long clip from the show 24, taken poorly with a digital camera, showing that Google Earth was being used in the show. If that doesn’t constitute fair use, I don’t know what is. YouTube deleted my account, because as a repeat offender, I clearly posed a danger to the world, and had to be stopped.

Why would a company like YouTube think that it was special enough to piss on its user-base?

As much as I hate to admit it, it looks like the copyfight is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better. It’s sad that in this Information Age people and organizations are working so hard to destroy the very fundamentals of the Internet. How long until there’s an Information Revolution, and what will it take to get there?

Hans Robot over at Music News has the scoop on Radiohead’s Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood’s live show in London.

Read about Radiohead - Live at Koko

Looks like Blogger has made their Captchas accessible. It seems like such an obvious feature I don’t understand why it wasn’t implemented before.

My only question is why do they use a handicapped icon instead of a speaker icon when all it does is give you an audio alternative to the image. Certainly, peeps who aren’t hadicapped might want to use the feature. I know half the time, I can’t really make out what the picture is anyway. Is that a capitol “O” or a zero or a big lower-case “O”? Usually, I answer that question with, “Ahh, forgot about it,” and navigate away from the page.

Apparently, there’s a growing trend of cyberschool. CyberSchooling seems the modern cross between home schooling and traditional schooling. With cyberschooling, it’s all done online. Field-trips can even be arranged for social interaction. With my little tyke growing up every day, I should look into this more.

My rice always comes out a little mushy. Here’s an article on cooking perfect rice (via).

My wife and I had an argument about whether or not the US has an official language. Almost always, I’m wrong in these arguments.

According to this Wikipedia article, Languages in the US

The United States does not have an official language; nevertheless, American English (referred to in the US as simply English) is the language used for legislation, regulations, executive orders, treaties, federal court rulings, and all other official pronouncements.

Confusion on this subject could exist because many states have adobted English as their official language.

Many individual states and territories have also adopted English as their official language: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming

Personally, I think it would be a huge mistake for the US to adopt English as an official language. As a country, we will always have to make exceptions for people who speak other languages. There will always be tourists or foreigners on work visas, and it would therefore serve no practical purpose. Forcing citzens to use one language officially would destory some of the US’s diversity.

Update: This discussion was started by the recent news that some immigrants have begun singing the national anthem in Spanish. It turns out there is precendent for this (via Think Progress):

in 1919, the U.S. Bureau of Education commissioned a Spanish-language version of “The Star Spangled Banner.” The State Department’s website also features four-separate versions of the anthem in Spanish.

I personally feel that having your nation’s anthem sung in a different language is an honor not an insult.

The Economist makes the case for medical marijuana.

From the article:

Today, cannabis is used all over the world, despite its illegality, to relieve pain and anxiety, to aid sleep, and to prevent seizures and muscle spasms. For example, two of its long-advocated benefits are that it suppresses vomiting and enhances appetite—qualities that AIDS patients and those on anti-cancer chemotherapy find useful. So useful, in fact, that the FDA has licensed a drug called Marinol, a synthetic version of one of the active ingredients of marijuana—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Unfortunately, many users of Marinol complain that it gets them high (which isn’t what they actually want) and is not nearly as effective, nor cheap, as the real weed itself.