Charles Gallant

I just watched an episode of “The Show with Zefrank,” (courtesy of Noah). He’s having an Ugly MySpace Contest, awarding the crappiest MySpace profile page design first prize. Towards the very end of his “episode” (perhaps it could be called a post…), he has a pretty interesting idea about the future of consumer-generated media:

“…As consumer media engulfs the other kind, it’s possible that completely new norms develop around the notions of talent and artistic ability…”

I think that “artistic ability” has always been in danger of being compromised by new media, but I’m not sure if it has really been affected. In the early days of photography, obtaining & operating a camera was very difficult. Now cameras are pocket-sized, lightweight, inexpensive, and auto-focusing, making even the most psychotic soccer-mom a photographer. Once this level of accessibility was reached, image making was changed. People still recognized and appreciated the talent involved in “good photography,” but the value of a photo’s content has been amplified. For example, now that cameras are everywhere, conventional portraits (where everyone stands still, dresses nice, smiles, etc) aren’t quite as interesting anymore. Consider a funny picture taken from a crappy cell phone camera. The medium is blurry and pixilated, but if the content is there, it’s a valuable image. The artistic ability of the portrait photographer is still appreciated, but his content just isn’t cool anymore.

For me, the most interesting development in consumer-generated content has been the novel tactics for conveying messages. Take the “shaky camera technique,” for example. Used in almost every reality show, (and caffeinated moment on Fox news), the camera man will purposely hold the camera casually, emulating a home video. Because the camcorder has become so accessible, we’re all used to viewing (and not being frustrated by) crappy home video footage. This tactic works because home videos are more personal, and make the content more credible than in a static, perfectly produced shot. Also, it’s more visually engaging, as the user is constantly re-focusing on the subject as it dances around the frame.

Perhaps we’ll see a website design some day that takes a departure from “good design” conventions, in the interest of creating a more personal experience…

I just did a google image search for “Charles Gallant,” and the first result is Superman putting Commander Zod in a headlock (courtesy of www.chrisreevehomepage.com). I don’t know what comes up under YOUR google image search results, but I’m going to gloat about how kickass this is as long as possible.

I was excited as a kid when I got Nintendo for Christmas, but something is wrong in this picture.

I work as a flash developer, and I am often approached about building sites entirely in flash. While I welcome the work, I’ve been noticing a number of advantages in alternate information formats.

I think that the questions consistently being overlooked by web designers are about accessibility. How important is it to me that the content is quickly and easily available? Do people coming to my site want to sit back and watch an animation, or are they looking for quick answers? Do I want people to find this site from a search engine (flash isn’t searchable)? Am I willing to let an unconventional interface potentially hide content from un-savvy viewers?

Flash began as an application that could execute complicated roll-over buttons. Then, it became an animation suite, proving to be the web’s best cartooning software. Years later, with the release of ActionScript 3.0 & Flex Builder, flash is stepping into the realm of RIA development along side things like AJAX & Ruby. With a consistently growing set of capabilities, and the spreading ubiquity of the flash player, it’s easy to become entranced by “what we can do in flash.” I believe, however, that because web users have come to appreciate things like clarity, organization, & speed, we should instead be asking “what we should do in flash.”

For sites that can anticipate the necessary patience & curiosity (such as artist’s portfolio sites, or sites about unconventional design & interfaces), flash is a great venue to explore novel forms of interactivity. Also, if the “bells and whistles” of a site don’t get in the way of the information (if accessibility is indeed a concern), flash can be successful as well. However because flash isn’t searchable, and can’t be easily aggregated via technologies such as RSS, using it as something other than a glitzy web trick is just bad design.

watch the youtube video

I love geeky crap like this, but being a “pixel” in this would have been terrible.