Accessibility is an important and worthy goal, but it is not at odds with good design. We should settle for nothing less than beautiful and accessible currency. This isn’t it. 

— John Gruber, April 3, 2008

Recently the U.S. Mint released new five dollar bills that have been redesigned in the same style as all the other denominations. Larger numerals have been added to the obverse sides of each bill, presumably to aid in identification by the sight impaired. The bills also contain further deterrents for would-be counterfeiters, like UV inks and special watermarks. But the money still looks the same. It looks like a multi-car pileup on the freeway of design by committee. And the worst part is most of the committee members never even lived in the same century. It seems as though American currency design has gone the way of most design here: an act of contrition to the flow of time, an act of desperation against petty (and not so petty) crime, and a half-hearted nod to those less fortunate than ourselves.

The goal of “beautiful currency” is probably meaningless to most people. Money is a means, a way to buy lunch and put gas in the tank. But more than any official document or printed decree, money is an ambassador. When the U.S. dollar was strong, millions of these little treaties on American ideals were in circulation in parts of the world where few knew anything about us, testifying for us—even if we could never measure up to all those hopelessly noble faces and mighty monuments of architectural achievement.

The five dollar bill I fidgeted with tonight in line at the grocery store looked like a ransom note from some amateurish kidnapper, stained with red Kool-Aid and ham-fisted attempts at foiling teenagers at Kinko’s late at night. The enormous Helvetica “5″ on its back seemed placed there if not totally by accident then at least without care. Held up to the light I saw the lovingly engraved portrait of Lincoln, the president who managed to give his life convincing half a nation that maybe owning humans like cattle was a terribly bad idea, bemusedly looking on at that purple numeral in reverse.

American money, in addition to being stinky, is ugly. And it’s getting worse. But look on the bright side: at least now its looks and its value are getting in synch. The worse our money gets in terms of its aesthetic value, the more it slips in international market value. Am I suggesting that somehow all the world is as shallow as we are? That somehow, entire Saudi families loved the look of the 1967 fifty-dollar bill so much that they stock-piled them in their palaces by the millions and swam around in them like Scrooge McDuck based solely on looks? In a word, no. But design, as Steve Jobs likes to say, is not how it looks; it’s how it works.

So ask yourself next time you’re at the pump putting eight of these new bills in your gas tank if design makes any difference to you. Would it make any difference if the money you used to do it were beautiful, with slogans that reminded you of a bygone part of our shared history that through perseverance and sound governance we could return to? Or would you rather have the key to a Holiday Inn, with a sticker on the back marked by hand in ball-point pen: do not copy?

Peggy Noonan:

I think we’ve reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don’t. There’s no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don’t. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don’t, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will. (via)

My feelings about the Clinton presidency are well known: I loved Bill, and would follow him into a hail of gunfire and stinging shrapnel if it meant America could be like it was in 1997 again. But alas, it can’t; his wife is a lousy candidate and she’s mean spirited and lies with a frequency unmatched by anyone other than the Bush administration itself, the enemy whose deeds we’re trying to undo in the first place.

And I’m not even that much of a stickler for hard and fast truth in politics. I understand that it is a form of theatre in many ways, and that bettering oneself through a few harmless revisions of history is just part of the show. But then I look at Obama and I think, ‘why doesn’t he do that, if it’s so much a part of the show?’ The answer may be that he’s younger and less well-versed in party politics (”look, he doesn’t even know he has to lie yet! How cute!”), or it could be that he’s just better at lying, and less thuggish when he does it. But deep down I believe the reason he feels better to watch on TV and to get an update on Twitter from is just because he knows what it’s like to be decent and good, two adjectives that haven’t applied to the Clinton campaign since day one.

So, super Tuesday is upon us. I can’t think of a better way to not only begin Black History Month but the next eight years of American democracy than for people in primary states to cast their votes for Barack Obama. The more I see from and about him, the more I’m convinced that his presidency would be a defining moment for the US and the world; not only that, but his hopeful message—one of the first of its kind in the darkness of the last 7 years—brings to mind the finest moments of figures who defined their generations: John and Robert Kennedy, Bill Clinton, even Paul Wellstone.

I urge you to visit his website to learn a bit more about why Obama is the only clear choice for us right now, and to watch Lawrence Lessig’s elucidating talk on why he’s choosing Obama over Hillary Clinton. Now, go vote!

On January 11th, Starbucks–the ubiquitous coffee giant–announced a restructuring plan. The initiative includes recalling former executive Harry Roberts back to the company as senior VP and replacing Chief Executive Jim Donald with Chairman Howard Schultz in an effort to save flagging sales. Starbucks will also close some of its 15,000 stores and slow further plans for expansion. The obvious question to the casual observer is ‘why?’ It seems as though Starbucks is everywhere: in movies, on TV and even in small town malls and grocery stores. How could a company this omnipresent be hurting for a foothold? The clearest reason is that it is everywhere, and that consumers are finally Starbucked out. There was a time when the chain had only a handful of stores compared to the staggering number it has now, and that glut has made the company’s offering of a fancy cup of coffee seem less like something special and more like ho hum.

Another reason for the downturn is the feeling among many consumers that four dollars spent on a latte may be better spent on a gallon of gas, or that enough of those lattes could add up to a chunk of a mortgage payment in these tough economic times. Still others say Starbucks has lost the “coffeehouse” charm it once had, and feels more like McDonalds (who, along with Dunkin Donuts has launched its own line of fancy coffee drinks). The simplest answer to Starbucks’ woes is that they have glutted the market: their product is no longer different and their ability to respond to customer needs has been compromised.

Apple, on the other hand, just posted its best quarter ever. Buried in the good news is the fact that Apple is showing just 5% growth in iPod sales year-over-year, despite a 17% revenue jump. In other words, lots of people are buying a second or third iPod, but not as many people are buying their first. The iPod Touch–while unique–is pricey, and hasn’t compelled many first time users to jump on board. The “gateway” iPods like the Shuffle are in need of a serious refresh in order to speed up sales.

But more than anything, Apple needs to find a way to avoid the glut that Starbucks is facing. If we use the growth of Starbucks as a yardstick, plotted on an eight year trend with 2007 being the final year, it would be fair to say that Apple is in the middle of a huge growth spurt. Part of what it needs to do now is find some sustainability for itself. The iPhone, MacBook and MacBook Pro are all excellent products whose lifecycles will see Apple well into the next decade; the iPod Touch and MacBook Air, however, are not the stuff that futures are built on. They are the “drinkable chocolate” and “blended creme frappé” in Apple’s lineup, the sorts of things meant to glow in the window and attract passersby who may never return, no matter how cool they are. Updates to the iPod line will help, including a revamping of the higher capacity iPod Classic. But prices of solid state drives may make them impractical for use in the product.

Over the last two years Apple has been essentially unchallenged in its (re)rise to prominence. A small slow down in one segment is not the end of the world, and it may just be the chance Apple needs to set the world on its ear again. Sales of iPhones and iMacs are brisk, and more and more people discover life on the Mac side every day. Whatever the second quarter may bring, everyone is excited to see what’s next from the house of Steve.

 Littlerobothead Video Blog from littlerobothead on Vimeo

When I started blogging almost ten years ago, there were hosted services like LiveJournal and there was Movable Type. MT was the king of the hill as far as features and mindshare went; it found its way into most hosting accounts and it became ubiquitous.

When I moved to Media Temple I did so in part because my account could include, for a paltry $5 extra per month, a Movable Type installation. For several years my sites ran on MT, and I cursed it constantly. Nothing was easy; almost any plugin (if you can call them that) required template edits by hand. Linking templates to files meant static content finding its way into my carefully redesigned pages. When my domains were hacked about three weeks ago, all of these factors compounded to make recovery almost impossible. All my domains, even the minor ones, had been severely compromised and would need endless handwork—even with backups—to work again because of the draconian way you do everything in MT.

Yesterday I started to read a little bit about WordPress, a CMS package that I had been brainwashed to think was “oversimplified” and “childish”. I, after all, was used to having to do sitewide rebuilds after changing errant punctuation with MT. I was a power user! But somewhere I saw a screenshot of nothing more than the WordPress login page. I understood then what I had been missing. WP was to MT what OS X is to Windows Vista. Endless simple customization, powerful editing, no rebuilds, a common-sense template engine. I’ve been all over the system and I’ve not seen a single table yet. WP is semantic, easy and rewarding. MT, on the other hand, was the only piece of software in 14 years of computer use that still made me bang my hands on my desk in frustration.

WordPress has made blogging an immersive experience again, not something I do rarely and with trepidation. Besides, I have to blog just to see the admin interface and all its Ajaxified goodness.

The set up—including creating a user and moving my MT database—took about half an hour thanks to Media Temple’s “One Click Apps”. I’m thinking that even on a non-managed machine this would be a trivial, forty-five minute thing. If you’re languishing in MT hell, or still use Blogger or another managed system I urge you to convert. If you’re half as glad as I am you’ll be dancing in the aisles.

Google to censor Chinese search results. I was in a strategy meeting just today talking about how much I admire Google for their firm stand on free speech for the internet at large, and not just the US. Let’s hope they come to their senses.

Disney to buy Pixar for $7.4 billion. Disney 2004: “We don’t need you anyway.” Disney 2006: “Hey, can you call us back? We’d love to talk…”

I’ve been messing about with Movable Type 3.2 a lot today, courtesy of a free upgrade performed by these nice folks. I’ve had a bear of a time getting some features to work though, but not because of the MT upgrade. StyleCatcher just does not work as advertised, plain and simple. But the new icons and swanky new interface are welcome changes from the boring old days of 3.15.

Give it up, turn it loose

For a few weeks now I’ve been brainstorming a new way to organize all the online assets I’ve acquired. I use Flickr, del.icio.us and digg. I also use backpack and basecamp. I love all of these things very much but there is a problem: it’s just too damn many websites. When I thought of how many places have just one portion of my stuff it made me want to make something better. Enter Longing.
Longing is a system for organizing all your stuff–bookmarks, wishlists items, pictures and more–in one place. I’m really excited about it and I need your help. If you’d like to beta test when the time comes, or you have some great suggestions about how such a system could make your life easier, please sign up! Longing will launch incrementally over the coming months but it can only be the best website of its kind with your suggestions, because it’s made with bloggers and other smart folks in mind. Let the Longing begin!

Remember segregation. When I arrived in Greensboro at the end of my train trip last week it was at the restored 1920’s train depot. Originally built by the Southern Railway Corp. and turned over to the city upon Southern’s dissolution. It had fallen into a state of severe disrepair in 40 years. It was essentially rebuilt a few years ago at a cost of millions. Almost every detail has been restored, including the hand painted map of the eastern seaboard rail lines and the chalk board for arrivals and departures. There are blank spaces on the walls here and there, though, and I asked my dad later on what had been in those spots. Dad had taken a lot of trains in his youth and remembered the depot’s former glory. I knew that answer before he said it. “Colored water fountains.”

Judge: In Order To Teach Two Opposing Scientific Theories, You Need To Have Two Opposing Scientific Theories

“To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions[…]”

Also from the 139 page finding:

“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals,
who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy.[…]”

For bonus points see also: Lemon Test, Establishment Clause (*)

Taking the pulse Google style.