• Update 2:55pm: The rumors are true; there will be copy and paste in iPhone 3.0.

And for those of you who have been looking for a good Monopoly strategy, I suggest you take a look at this simple instructive video.

source: Daring Fireball

I’ve ranted about this point before, so I’ll sum myself up:

As a designer I’ve always considered the word usability a dirty word—as if saying that you are going to design something implies that you don’t necessarily want anyone to be able to use it. Design should be enough. Unfortunately, I also understand that more often than not designers allow their verve for aesthetics get in the way of function. And having people like Neilsen around to remind us that design should be about the end-user is not such a bad thing

Okay, it looks like I used to be a little more middle-of-the-road on this subject, because these days I feel like having people like Neilson around is a very bad thing. His mere presence gives credence to the awful fission between function and form. He continues to influence people into believing that there is a quantitative approach to design; that there is a heuristic for every situation, and any student of aesthetics will tell you that’s assinine. There are absolutes even in subjectivity, but every individual design has its own needs and simple rules will never satisfy them all. For all his insistence on conventions and yet his illustrated ignorance of old, good ones, Neilson is trying to tell people that there is One Way, and he is dead wrong on that matter.

Found via Daring Fireball

Moreover, there’s only one motor! That also might not sound like such a big deal for a toy, but when you consider that this toy has six degrees of freedom (rotate left-right, up-down, left-right elbow, up-down writst, wrist rotate, pinch) then you really have to marvel at the fact that it is all gear driven and all powered by only one motor. If you take a look at the picture on the right, you can see that the motor is the little silver cylinder. That motor turns the whole green tumbler assembly, each section of which is in control of one of the degrees of freedom that I mentioned. The motor essentially never stops turning the whole time the machine is on; instead, the controls (two joysticks on the outside panel) simply release the different sections. That was a surprise to me—that really the controls aren’t “activating” anything, but rather releasing elements of the device.¹

Well, hopefully I can get a new motor at Radioshack; it would just be too cool to have it on my desk at school. Picture a cup of pencils, a cup of pens and a cup of candy. Person enters the room. “Excuse me, could I borrow a pencil.” Me, “Why, yes,” Whhrrrrrr whrrrr whhrrrr click whirrr whirrr (ten mintues later) Me, “There you go!” Person, (rolling eyes) “Thanks so much.” Why, people would never borrow writing instruments from me again!

For starters, you might consider the opinion of typographers Hoefler and Frere-Jones Frankly, when it comes to typography, it doesn’t get more expert than that.¹ They think that Obama is really the only one not hiding being false imagery with the use of Gotham, but rather embracing the image he has. Considering how little he has deviated from his message of hope and change in the last year, it’s not odd that his aesthetic and message line up nicely. He’s even inspired quite a few artists with his message. It’s instructive to let design critic Steven Heller walk you through an interesting history of campaign art to see what other candidates have inspired artists in the past. And while Heller doesn’t admit to being all that inspired by the poster that Sheppard Fairey created for Obama, I would personally have to disagree. Fairey’s image truly captures, in my mind, the fact that Obama stands for an America that is no longer willing to kowtow to the fear mongers. And another thing that is clear about Obama’s web site design is that designer’s John Slabyk and Scott Thomas didn’t get overrun by their client—their voice and design sensibility is clearly part of the mix. That, I think, is a good sign that Obama isn’t the kind of leader to run roughshod over his own advisor’s advice. Of course, even with a message as clear as hope, not everyone gets it.

McCain’s design isn’t terribly original, but I don’t think it disguises what he wants to portray himself as: a tough straight-shooter. And by shooter, I mean using a gun. You can’t get more obvious than including a military style star in you logo. And you can’t get more morbid that using black in most of your materials, including a desaturated gray American flag on your web site. Actually, the use of black is problematic, not because it’s inherently morbid, but as the absence of color, it often invites the viewer to fill in the blank. Black is just as easily chic as it is morbid. Given the yellow highlight, there’s a hint of hope—or support for the troops. But in a campaign that is seeming to shore up around the dichotomy of “hope” and “stay the course” McCain’s graphic style will re-enforce his message; namely, that this is a dark time for the country with horrible people out to get us. We need to fight!

And as for Hillary, I have to agree with Sam Berlow and Cyrus Highsmith’s article in Boston Globe that her design seems like an afterthought; staid. In a sense, a stereotypical aesthetic does re-enforce her message that she is the candidate with experience² but she is also saying that experience is dull and uninspired. Unfortunatly, that ignorance of design or lack of excitement about it isn’t all that different from out last commander-in-chief whose flagrant disregard for aesthetics is pretty horrific to the eyes. Oddly, a number of people have raised the question about the three stars in her logo being a subtle hint at the idea of a third term.

In short, Obama inspires, McCain stands firm, and Hillary stands for more of the same. I get a distinct feeling that the final results of this election will likely reflect the same order in terms of success.