« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »
April 2007 Archives
April 2, 2007
The coolest toys that nobody will buy
There's been a lot of buzz over at Rogers. Seems they're set to launch their new video-call cellphone services. Sounds great, doesn't it? Very Star Trek. They even brought Captain Kirk.
But this idea is far from perfect, and certainly not new. Video phones have already been invented, just not in cell form. And the result was predictable: nobody bought them. They had two major drawbacks:
1. In order to use it, everyone else needs one too
2. One of the greatest benefits of the phone is that nobody can see you. Who wants to make themselves presentable for a phone call?
This is akin to the issue of Bell's movies and tv on phones, or Telus' pornographic venture (but that's a whole other story). Sure, it's a neat idea. And yes, it's incredible that we have this technology. But who wants to watch a movie on a screen the size of a cracker? Let's not even get started on the hazards we've created of people walking down the street, looking at their phone instead of where they're going (even worse for the drivers!). And really...I'm hard pressed to believe that today's phones have the ability to show a whole movie and still have the battery power left to take a call. My cellphone is only a year and a half old, and it's already got a borderline common-law relationship with its charger.
At least Rogers kept their weird "look-what-MY-phone-can-do" gadget related to telecommunication. The video call idea is still, at its heart, a phone call.
Unless you've got Bell and you want to pretend you're talking to Captain Jack. Or Jenna Jameson if you're on Telus.
Until next time,
JW
Posted by JW on April 2, 2007 9:38 PM Permalink
April 13, 2007
Why Webcomics are destined to stay where they are
The world of online comic strips (webcomics) is an interesting one to study. While I've been inactive in that particular community for some time, I've had my fair share of experiences. I used to read several, and even produced one for a time. And they're fascinating as a business study since every comic is in its own right an exercise in business management. Between art supplies/programs and hosting (overhead and operating costs), accomodating readers (customer service and target markets), affiliate and rival comics (competition and partners), advertising (banners and portals) and stores (e-commerce), every webcomic is a miniature business in its own right, some of which make plenty of money to support their artists.
And then there's expansion. Many comic artists are eyeing syndication of sorts; being a webcomic, while having some legitimacy in its own right, is still seen as "below" print comics. Now, that's a contentious assertion, but the important thing is, there are a lot of artists who want to take their craft to other forms of media. And the sad thing is, in my opinion: it's not gonna happen. Let's take a look at the biggest stumbling blocks facing webcomics busting out of the digital age.
Niches are not necessarily nice
Every successful comic out there owes a lot of their popularity to their ability to focus. Penny Arcade has videogames. Something Positive has cruelty. And so on. The thing is, most comics on the web are targeted to the obvious audience: nerds. And I mean that in the nicest way. You see, the people who are reading most webcomics are above average in their web-savvy, are more likely to play video games, and are (well, sometimes) highly intelligent. This is why you'll see writers like Jerry Holkins (Penny Arcade) and Jeph Jacques (Questionable Content) using massive, obtuse words that people don't actually use in conversation.
I know what you're saying. So what? Well, the problem is, the audience that reads webcomics is a very small portion of the population. And these comics are hyper-targeted. I will tell you first hand that trying to show or explain a webcomic to someone who doesn't fit the above description is difficult. I've seen my share of blank stares, let me tell you. To be fair, this is how they want it. These comics are FOR nerds and geeks. Because they're made BY nerds and geeks. It's a way to strike back, and say, "this is OURS." Geekdom is, for a large part, a collection of obscure movie/tv show/comic references. That's how geeks categorize themselves and separate their cliques from the outside world. So the fact of the matter is, these comics often follow this pattern, and therefore: nobody gets it. Megatokyo defines this, with Largo's use of "L33tsp33k". L33t was created so that nobody but hackers could read it. And to have a major character speak entirely in a language designed not to be read by the general public is a huge issue (note that as far as I know, Fred is keeping MT confined to the internet and his own published collections; this is simply being used as an example).
Uncut, Uncensored, Unsuitable
One of the greatest things about the internet is the almost entire lack of censorship and control. You can say almost whatever you want. This is another advantage that webcomics have enjoyed that in the end is keeping them from getting off the web. The fact of the matter is, while you don't have to comply with lengthy regulations for your comic, you certainly have to if you want to branch out onto tv and print. Even South Park gets edited. What's worse is, many comics almost rely entirely on this crudeness. These are usually the comics that end up going nowhere, but many of the larger ones are guilty of it from time to time. Any comic artist who wants to branch out is going to have to ask themselves: can I be just as funny if I can't swear as often or at all? If the answer is no, then the internet will likely continue to stay home to them.
Appropriate content for this blog
Webcomics are a humongously over-saturated market. There are the big ones that everyone knows, a wide range of moderate sized ones that have gigantic followings, but are still unknown outside of their niches, and then there's a near infinite number of small, terrible ones. Everyone who has the internet can post a webcomic these days. This is both terrific and terrible. The public nature of it is truly inspiring, but it does lead to an awful lot of crap posted online. Many comics are just imitations of popular ones, or even base most of their jokes ON popular comics. This means that if there were to be a giant push to get onto other forms of media, it's going to be painfully difficult to cut through the noise and get noticed. These comics are why I keep mentioning Penny Arcade; while PA doesn't NEED to move offline (and they know it), so many comics are derived from its formula, so this is more meant for them.
Keep the home fires burning
Now, the LAST thing I want anybody to think is that I'm condemning webcomics. I think it's terrific that there's an alternative for people who feel the "funnies" in the newspaper just don't cut it. Webcomics have created some great communities online, and have even effected great social change (such as Penny Arcade's "Child's Play" charity). But the fact of the matter is, many of them are looking outward and considering risking a lot to move beyond the net, and this isn't necessarily advised for most of them. Those that can do it, I tip my hat to them. But it's certainly worth thinking twice about; the internet may be home, sweet home.
Until next time,
JW
Penny Arcade
Something Positive
Megatokyo
Questionable Content
Posted by JW on April 13, 2007 9:41 PM Permalink
April 14, 2007
Are you getting enough Power from your Point?
Every day in boardrooms everywhere, people are suffering from a common affliction: Death by PowerPoint. The symptoms come in all shapes and sizes: boredom, confusion, anger and helplessness. So too do the underlying causes: too much info, not enough info, too much fluff, and animation addiction. But there is a cure. Proper understanding of the purpose and application of effective PowerPoint techniques can alleviate symptoms and make your presentation (at the very least) tolerable.
How much?
One of the most hotly debated topics in this area is that of how much content is appropriate. Do you load up slides with as much information as possible, or keep it absolutely brief with a minimum of points and sparse wording for each? My answer: it depends. There are so many situations where one approach is better than another. If you're delivering a presentation on a highly technical topic, or a presentation where the PP will serve as a hard-copy report, it's better to get more nitty-gritty. These presentations will often result in hand-outs being consulted as guides, and can be consulted and reviewed long after your presentation has ended. You want to make sure that your audience has all the facts, especially if anyone happened to be absent. This is well suited to proposals.
On the flip side, there are many situations where it is more to your advantage to use only a couple points on each slide, and keep each point very brief. If you're presenting to people who don't care about the inner workings or just want a summary of the topic (such as shareholders), this is far more appropriate. As well, if you're just demonstrating an idea, or the presentation is accompanying a report (which itself will contain all the important data), you should stick to this. The absolute best time to use this form of slide is when you're presenting something technical to a non-technical audience. Sum it up and keep it brief in this case.
Confusing PowerPoint slides with a slideshow
If you're trying to convey important data, it's probably best to keep pictures to a minimum. Adding a few graphics to help illustrate a point or to add some "lift" to a horrifically dry topic is advised, but keep it low-key. If every slide has a goofy graphic (or animation), it can serve to distract your audience and hurt your credibility. Of course, if you're presenting to a more relaxed group, you can scale up the pictures a little. Just don't get carried away. It can still be pretty distracting.
Your slides shouldn't be more animated than you are
Many peoples' use of PowerPoint animations is akin to a mountain-climber's explanation for their passion: because it's there. I've seen and heard horror stories of otherwise terrific presentations that were maimed by overuse of animations. Be it animated pictures, text appearances, or even screen wipes, doing these for everything will slow down your presentation and get old really quickly. This feature was created to add emphasis, or to hide important points that you didn't want your audience to see until you decided in order to get the right effect. Adding animations to every section is akin to highlighting everything in a passage or book- sure it looks flashy, but it defeats the entire purpose.
Every presentation is different; the hard and fast rule is that you have to look at your audience and the purpose of your presentation to decide exactly how to put it together. And remember to make it follow a logical order and be easy to read; your own PowerPoint can serve as a terrific way to keep you on track with the verbal part of your presentation, similar to cue cards.
Until next time,
JW
