A great post on why attractive design is more useful, by UI consultant Stephen P. Anderson. Emotions are not just the waste heat of cognition, they’re essential to cognition. So attractive products are not just “more fun” to use, they actually work better.
Following my recent post about a color-coded reputation management system* for politicians (indicating their truthfulness by the color used to display their names on web pages), I came across Politifact and its Truth-o-Meter.
Politifact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly that will “analyze the [presidential] candidates’ speeches, TV ads and interviews and determine whether the claims are accurate.”
I found it via the techPresident blog, where Joshua Levy notes that the it could benefit by being opened up to users:
…and let them pore through the records and make the connections. As Jay Rosen’s recent overtures to crowdsourcing and the various projects of the Sunlight Foundation have shown us, the crowd is smarter than a few individuals; open up the process to them and you’ll be amazed at what they find.
And I’d like to see a system that follows you around (the way a reputation does in oral cultures), so there’s less cover provided by the fact that the ratings are tied to particular locations on the web, which most people probably wouldn’t end up visiting. A system that follows you around like, say, your name.
*Inspired in part by Luca de Alfaro’s Wikipedia trust-coloring project.
The California Democratic Party held its annual convention in San Diego April 27-29, and I was there blogging, along with hundreds of other traditional and web-based reporters. Here are some observations.
< - First, a thought about this picture: No matter how much technology finds its way into campaigns and campaign coverage, politics is ultimately about touch. This shot is from a rally of Barack Obama supporters just before Obama went into the main hall to address the 2,000-plus attendees. Notice the hand wrapped around Obama's wrist, and the other one hovering over his head. Also: the fists in the foreground, expressing solidarity, and the echo of the fist in the background, holding up a cell phone camera. And meanwhile a big bodyguard tries to make sure all these attempts to connect with the candidate don't get out of hand. More on my O’Reilly Digital Media blog…
From my O’Reilly blog:
I’ve been doing more and more work in politics since the ’04 election (communications consulting and web production). I got involved at first out of a sense of civic obligation–and because my wife told me to “stop ranting and go volunteer”. I expected to dread a lot of what I’d encounter, figuring politics is where the worst people you knew in high school went. You know, the manipulative weasels fascinated by power. But I’ve been surprised by how deeply interesting and satisfying the experience has been so far, and by how many people I’ve met who are still motivated by service.
The intersection of technology and politics is one of the most fascinating areas of all, so I think I’ll be writing about it some.
A couple of recent items I’ve come across highlight the subject’s currency. From Tim O’Reilly’s report of a Clay Shirky talk at ETech:
Social software is the experimental wing of political philsophy, a discipline that doesn’t realize it has an experimental wing. We are literally encoding the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression in our tools. We need to have conversations about the explicit goals of what it is that we’re supporting and what we are trying to do, because that conversation matters. Because we have short-term goals and the cliff-face of annoyance comes in quickly when we let users talk to each other. But we also need to get it right in the long term because society needs us to get it right. I think having the language to talk about this is the right place to start.
And from a New York Times op-ed titled Exporting Censorship, by Xeni Jardin of boingboing:
One of our most laudable national goals is the export of free speech and free information, yet American companies are selling censorship. While some advocates of technology rights have proposed consumer boycotts and Congressional action to pressure these firms into responsible conduct, a good first step would be adding filtering technologies to the United States Munitions List, an index of products for which exporters have to file papers with the State Department. While this won’t end such sales, it will bring them to light and give the public and lawmakers a better basis on which to consider stronger steps.
If American companies are already obligated to disclose the sale of bombs and guns to repressive regimes, why not censorware?
Why not indeed. Increasingly wars will be fought via electrons over networks, not bullets over land.
Electronic Musican recently ran a comprehensive article on podcasting, written by David Battino. It includes some tips from me. A lot of what has stuck with me about communication over the years I first learned as a freelance writer-broadcaster for the Canadian Broacasting Corporation:
“I think the most important thing is a strong focus-an angle,” he replied. “The focus is a simple, active, emotionally compelling statement of what this story is about and why it matters to people. ‘Water pollution’ is not a good focus. But, ‘When you wash your car, you’re sending toxic chemicals into Monterey Bay,’ is.”
Another skill podcasters can learn from radio is how to write for the ear rather than the eye, Critchley says…
More at emusician.com.