My favorite Sesame Street character when I was little.   And tonight, we can say, “Thrrrrrrrrrreeeee, twwwwoooooo, onnnnnne.   Happy New Year. Ah ah ah ah ah.”

Have a healthy, happy, and safe new year!

Earlier this month, CNN launched new lower-third graphics for all of their shows.   On CNN, lower-third graphics (so named because they occupy the lower-third region of the television screen) display what story is being shown as well as the name and titles of anchors, reporters, interviewees, etc., the location of the report, and any other flags, such as breaking news, developing story, etc.   The new graphics on CNN give a unified look across each show, but while they are an improvement on the old look, they have faults of their own.

To start off, here are the old lower third graphics (via Media Matters):

One of my biggest issues with these graphics was when the story topic was long and would run into the show logo on the right there were visual proximity issues:

And here are the new graphics (all via Newscaststudio.com):

Here are the graphics in action:

As you can see, the CNN logo has moved to the bottom right corner to the left of the show logo, a story topic is now only one line, and, as you’ll see below, a story flag color change occurred.   What makes the new graphics partly successful is the simplicity a bordered, solid black rounded rectangle, and the animation is quick and simple, too.   What makes the new graphics undesirable, however, is much more.

(But before I list the faults of the new graphics, I first have to issue a disclaimer.   Anything I may say is wrong with the graphics could very well been proposed or discussed internally at CNN but shot down by the creative team or some higher-up-the-totem-pole executive.   A coworker of mine recently completed work on a major update to a popular weekly sports event, and there were some creative elements that were ridiculed in online forums.   What forum users suggested had internally been suggested to higher-ups by my coworker but were dismissed.   So, for all I know, anything I comment on here may very well have been discussed at CNN.)

First, the show logo and CNN logo bug is too huge.   Do we need to be constantly reminded what show were watching?   I’m assuming veteran watchers of Larry King Live or The Situation Room or Lou Dobbs Tonight know what show they’re watching by a) the host of the show and b) the time the show is airing.   Taking out the show logo would give story titles and other information more horizontal room to be displayed.   What happens now is any text is horizontally-scaled to fit inside the space allotted.   For example, in the Wolf Blitzer “Pres. Bush & Flying Shoes” image above, if president were spelled out instead of abbreviated, since the text would be longer, it would horizontally-scale to fit inside the same black rectangle.

Second, the CNN logo carrier (black, rounded rectangle) needs some work.   Here is the CNN logo with “Live”:

The left edge of the ‘L’ hangs slightly over the left edge of the ‘C.’   The discrepancy is hard to see in this image, but on TV, it’s definitely there.   And because of this hang-over, when the “Live” text disappears, there’s another discrepancy:

The CNN logo carrier shrinks down to the logo’s size (plus padding), but there is more padding on the left side of the logo than there is on the right side.   If you look at the previous image with the “Live” text and compare with the above image, you can see the padding on the left and right of the CNN logo is the same in both images.   If the “Live” text were scaled down to fit exactly over the CNN logo, the padding could be uniform on both sides whether or not the “Live” were there.

Third, the displaying of someone’s name and title, for example being interviewed for a story or for commentary, can be excessive. Here’s someone’s name and title displayed:

If the story caption is displayed, for instance the “Pres. Bush & Flying Shoes” text, and the next shot is a commentator, the story caption wipes off and the person’s name and title wipes on.   After a while, the name and title wipes off and the story caption wipes back on.   This part is fine.   Where the problem creeps in is when the person commenting has more than one title.   For instance, a show I was watching last week had someone on who was a “CNN Contributor,” “Republican Strategist,” and the author of some book (the YouTube clip above has this many-titles problem, too).   Well, the director of the show thought, rightfully, all three titles needed displaying.   So, the story caption wiped off, his name and the first title wiped on and off, his name and the second title wiped on and off, his name and the third title wiped on and off, and finally, the story caption wiped back on.   The amount of animation for the small change of text (the name was the same each time) was excessive.   Even just animating from the story caption to a commentator’s name and title back to the story caption is a bit much.   Adding one or two extra titles is way too much.

To fix this excessiveness, the carrier for the story caption and the name and title of a commentator should never fully wipe off if it merely is switching text inside of it.   Instead, text should wipe off like it currently does but the carrier should remain with the same dimensions.   Once the text is fully animated off, the carrier should morph to the size of the new text and then the new text should wipe on.   Let’s look at an example to make this clearer.   Let’s say our story caption is “Pres. Bush & Flying Shoes” and we want to then display “Brad Simon / Fmr. Fed. Prosecutor” next.   The name/title text is horizontally shorter than the story caption.   The caption text would wipe off, but the carrier would remain the same size.   When the caption text finished wiping off, the carrier would adjust its horizontal and vertical size to fit the invisible name/title text.   When this animation finishes, the name/title text would wipe on.   This approach would give greater fluidity to the transitions and eliminate the excessive animation that is currently in place.   This approach would also eliminate the noticeable hitch when a carrier wipes off and a new carrier of a different vertical size wipes on.

Because CNN uses the real-time 3D rendering program Viz Artist to create their graphics, these new graphics likely employ the Viz technology called Transition Logic.   Basically, Transition Logic allows certain elements to remain or animate into new elements when other elements change.   So, using Transition Logic, the approach outlined above could be accomplished with a Noggi geometrical shape adjusted to be a rounded rectangle and with a center point in the lower left corner.   The width and height properties of the Noggi plugin could be adjusted and animated using Viz scripts (I know this because I’ve done it before).

Finally, this isn’t really a problem but rather a curiosity:

The “Breaking News” text now receives a yellow background, changed from red in the older graphics.   I’m curious how the creative decision came to be to change the color.   Red is now for “Developing Story.”   Red seems like a more urgent color for a more urgent breaking story, not an ongoing, developing story.

In addition to the new lower-third graphics, the bottom of the screen received a major update.   Instead of the egregiously annoying news ticker that served to only distract viewers from watching, listening, and focusing on the story being aired, there is a “flipper” that displays more information on the current story and periodically switches to updates on top stories.   A fabulous and much needed change.

Overall, the new CNN lower-third graphics are an improvement on their predecessors.   The simplicity of the design and animations are excellent examples for other broadcast graphics developers.   But while they enjoy success in their simplicity, they have several faults that detract from an overall success.

JibJab’s annual report:

Here’s 2007.

Designed by: Picture Mill
Year: 2002

An update of the titles from North By Northwest.

A phenomenal video by Stefan Nadelman outlining the history of world-wide warfare from World War II to the present represented entirely by food.

A guide to the various food items.

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

From The Muppets Christmas Carol, “It Feels Like Christmas” by Paul Williams:

It’s in the singing of a street corner choir
It’s going home and getting warm by the fire
It’s true
Wherever you find love
It feels like Christmas
A cup of kindness that we share with another
A sweet reunion with a friend or a brother
In all the places you find love
It feels like Christmas
It is the season of the heart
A special time of caring
The ways of love made clear
It is the season of the sprit
The message if we hear it
Is make it last all year

Wishing you and yours a very joyous and safe holiday season and all the best in the new year!

From Shrek the Halls, here’s Puss in Boots’s tale of Santa Nicolas:

The Bible according to Legos:

The 2008 Beijing Olympics Games recreated with Legos, complete with the Bird’s Nest and the Water Cube:

Here is some other Lego coolness I posted a while back:

• Super Lego Mario
• USB Lego drive
• Lego Thriller

Designed by: Prologue Films
Year: 2004

…otherwise known as winter sucks.   Or happy first day of winter for me.

Winter Storm Austin yes, they name their winter storms in Connecticut like hurricanes and tropical storms; they even get special graphics on the news:

Anyway, Austin moved through New England on Friday dumping about 8.5 inches where I am.   Last night and today, Winter Storm Brooke is adding a few more inches.   And the snow may have some freezing rain mixed in later today and tonight.   Awesome.   I love winter.

I went to the grocery store earlier, but that probably wasn’t the best idea in the world given the road conditions.   But at least today I didn’t get stuck at two intersections like I did Friday evening returning from work.

I’m up to just over 10 inches of snow:

My footprint, err, leg print, I guess:

And here’s a play on my favorite beach/feet pictures, but not as fun for me.   I’d rather have my feet in the sand:

These cars haven’t moved in a few days.   Smart people:

Somewhere here, there’s a road:

Ahh winter, how I love thee:

So what if the summers in the desert were unbearable.   At least in the winter you don’t have to clean your car off several times a day because there’s no such thing as scraping sunshine off your car….

Designed by: Saul Bass
Year: 1965

CNN is reporting President Bush signed the bill cutting the salary of the secretary of state so Senator Clinton can get around Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution.   With that, Clinton’s Saxbe Fix is finalized.   Now we just need one for Senator Ken Salazar (nominated for Secretary of the Interior), Representative Ray LaHood (nominated for Secretary of Transportation), and Representative Hilda Solis (nominated for Secretary of Labor).   Whew.   Anyone else?

Election 2008 still isn’t over.   At least not for Minnesotans. Incumbent Senator Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken are battling each other in a recount that doesn’t seem to end.   In question now are absentee ballots that may or may not have been unfairly rejected on election night.   The Coleman campaign, citing the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause, says they shouldn’t be counted until there is a uniform process for counting them.   I absolutely agree.   One county shouldn’t be using a different set of standards to count ballots than another county is using.

Today, we received some more news. From CNN:

Minnesota’s Supreme Court Thursday barred officials from including rejected absentee ballots in the recount of the state’s hotly contested U.S. Senate race unless both of the candidates and elections officials agree the ballot was improperly rejected.

What are the odds both of the candidates agree on which ballot to count and which one not to?   And this question begs another.   How long will this last?   And will there be a victor come 3 January when the new Congress is sworn in?   One possibility in this mess: Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Emphasis mine.   So the Senate has the power to intervene in the Coleman/Franken race.   Will they?

Oh, and as an aside, a recount is one very strong reason why we shouldn’t popularly elect the president.   A national recount in a close election would be a nightmare.   But this is a discussion topic for a different day.

Watch this:

Seriously? I can (almost) understand a bid of $23,745 being an exact bid because it’s more of a round number (5s, 10s), but 43? It just seems too random to be real.   How does someone bid $23,743?   For the price to be that exactly right, seems pretty suspicious.   Thoughts?

The LA Times is reporting Colorado Senator Ken Salazar will be nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to be Secretary of the Interior (nod: FiveThirtyEight).   From the LA Times:

If confirmed, Salazar would head a department with a broad portfolio, including managing the troubled Bureau of Indian Affairs. Salazar, 53, would also oversee the nation’s national parks and other large swaths of public lands, making him the country’s foremost landlord. And he would be responsible for the Bureau of Land Management, which sets policy for oil and gas drilling, mining and other resource extraction on public land.

But guess what?   Senator Salazar will be another senator appointed to a civil office that received a pay raise while the senator was serving his or her term.   So, like Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Salazar is constitutionally ineligible from becoming a cabinet secretary.   But I imagine, also like Senator Clinton, Congress will issue a Saxbe Fix for him.

So isn’t it about time we discuss changing Article I, Section 6?   I’m not saying remove it, but at least add language to the effect of “unless Congress shall by law provide for a Senator or Represenatative to be appointed to the civil office” etc. so the Saxbe Fix isn’t so questionable any more.

Designed by: Unknown
Year: 2009

Logo Design Love writes about some of the Obama logo ideas that were part of the development process getting to the final logo.

The three finalists:

Finalist #1:

The masked imagery is interesting, but still weak, and that image reminds me of the default desktop on Windows XP.   Clearly, though, the designers smartly realized early on the ‘O’ would go a long way.

Finalist #2:

The bubbles are a very interesting concept but seem wildly out of place in a political campaign.   This reminds me of the Charles Schwab “Talk to Chuck” commercials with the big quote balloons.   I can imagine these Obama balloons animating in a similar fashion.

One of the problems with #1 and #2 is the lack of the strong symbolism that people can subconsciously buy into like any great marketing brand/logo (Nike’s swish, Apple’s apple, McDonald’s golden arches, etc.).   A strong symbol that transcends ordinary design in the field and becomes instantly recognizable without any supporting text.   That leads us to…

Finalist #3:

Designer Sol Sender notes:

Originally the stripes were kind of symmetrically expressed across the horizon, and as we went into final refinements we felt that giving it a little bit more dimension, a little bit more motion, ways to enter into it a little bit more for the viewer was a better way to go.

And, of course, the final design:

I can’t imagine an Obama campaign without that logo.   Like the campaign itself, the logo and graphic design of the campaign were a successful and remarkable exercise in discipline.   The logo skillfully symbolizes his theme (sunrise: a new day), America (flag allusion, rolling hills), and himself (the letter ‘O’).   Fantastic.

(Nod: Brand New)

Interesting article on CNN:

Up and down the East Coast, residents and naturalists alike have been scratching their heads this autumn over a simple question: Where are all the acorns?

Oak trees have shed their leaves, but the usual carpet of acorns is not crunching underfoot.

In far-flung pockets of northern Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and other states, scientists have found no acorns whatsoever.

The reason?

Virginia extension agent Adam Downing said acorn production runs in cycles, so a lean year is normal after a year with a big crop.

“It fits with the physiology of seed reproduction. The trees are exhausted, energy wise, from last year,” Downing said.

But even he is surprised at the complete absence of nuts in parts of Virginia.

“There are plenty of acorns in most of the state, but zero acorns in some pockets,” he said.

Downing said recovery from last year’s big crop, combined with a much wetter-than-usual spring, probably accounts for the acorn absence. Meteorologists say the Washington-Baltimore area saw about twice as much precipitation last May as normal.

Where are all the acorns? Perhaps in Nevada.

In regards to the constitutionality of Senator Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state, people on the left, I think, might be quick to dismiss this case as silly and simply politically-driven, and people on the right might be quick to dismiss this case because it would widely be viewed as politically driven if they (other Senators charged with confirming Clinton) challenged her nomination based on the constitutionality of it (not to mention having a past lack of concern with the Bush Administration’s, shall we say, cavalier attitude to certain parts of the Constitution).

For a recap, here’s Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office

So, no senator or representative can be appointed to a civil office (e.g. a cabinet position) during their current Congressional term if that office received a pay increase during their term in Congress.   As I wrote last month, the Office of the Secretary of State received a pay raise this year, during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term.   Thus, according to Article I, Section 6, she is ineligible.

Congress, however, has dealt with this problem before in what has been called “the Saxbe Fix.”   President Nixon appointed Ohio Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general, but the office received a pay increase while he was serving his Senate term.   In response, Congress lowered his pay to the level before he began his term.   This again happened in 1993 when President Clinton appointed Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen to be secretary of the treasury.   This past Wednesday, Congress took up the issue again and passed S.J. 46, a joint resolution lowering the salary of the secretary of state to the January 2007 level before Senator Clinton was sworn in to her current Senate term.   Here’s the text of the resolution, now in President Bush’s hands:

• (a) In General- The compensation and other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of State shall be those in effect January 1, 2007, notwithstanding any increase in such compensation or emoluments after that date under any provision of law, or provision which has the force and effect of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the period beginning at noon of January 3, 2007, and ending at noon of January 3, 2013.
• (b) Civil Action and Appeal-
  • (1) JURISDICTION- Any person aggrieved by an action of the Secretary of State may bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to contest the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State on the ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such a civil action, without regard to the sum or value of the matter in controversy.
  • (2) THREE JUDGE PANEL- Any claim challenging the constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State on the ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution, in an action brought under paragraph (1) shall be heard and determined by a panel of three judges in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. It shall be the duty of the district court to advance on the docket and to expedite the disposition of any matter brought under this subsection.
  • (3) APPEAL-
    • (A) DIRECT APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT- An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State under article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution, entered in any action brought under this subsection. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 20 days after such judgment, decree, or order is entered.
    • (B) JURISDICTION- The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question presented by an appeal taken under subparagraph (A), accept jurisdiction over the appeal, advance the appeal on the docket, and expedite the appeal.
• (c) Effective Date- This joint resolution shall take effect at 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2009.

To my point about people on the left blowing this situation off, Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, a branch of left-leaning Talking Points Memo, had this to say last week:

Is Hillary really Constitutionally ineligible to be Obama’s Secretary of State, as some right-wingers are claiming?

Well, as I wrote here and last month, yes, she really is constitutionally ineligible, but I’m hardly a right-winger.   And he called the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section VI) a “frivolous legal technicality.”   So I guess that would make the Constitution is a frivolous legal document as well?

For people on the left, complaining about the current president violating the Constitution while giving the president-elect a pass seems to make the former moot, no?   They’d argue that the former’s violations were detrimental to the rule of law, separation of powers, etc., but that the latter’s violation was okay because nobody got hurt from it and you’re willing to look the other way?

I’m not saying Senator Clinton shouldn’t be secretary of state.   Although I’m no fan of the Clintons, she’s an ambitious, smart person and has strong connections with and a strong rapport amongst world leaders.   But as I wrote last month, I’m fairly certain no one could argue Senator Clinton is receiving this appointment out of some corrupt practice, which the Emoluments Clause was to protect against.   Nor can anyone argue she’s taking this office for the money.   The Saxbe Fix ought to be enough to get her by the Emoluments Clause.

But the Saxbe Fix isn’t enough for the conservative no-fans-of-the-Clintons Judicial Watch.   Manu Raju at Politico reports Judicial Watch

is considering litigation to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming the next Secretary of State, saying Congress’ action Wednesday to clear a legal hurdle for her nomination runs counter to the Constitution.

I’m not sure what standing they would have to base their case on before the appointment and confirmation, but after is a different story.   Eugene Volokh quotes Michael Stokes Paulsen’s 1994 Is Lloyd Bentsen Unconstitutional? article:

A person adversely affected by a Treasury Department regulation promulgated by Secretary Bentsen say, for example, new Treasury or IRS regulations implementing President Clinton’s tax hikes would have standing to sue to have such regulations overturned on the ground that the Secretary of the Treasury was illegally appointed.

Likewise, someone could use this argument against a Secretary Clinton.   And I find it interesting that Congress built in a “Civil Action and Appeal” section to the joint resolution.

But before someone could bring a case against her appointment, she has to be appointed, and this week Congress cleared the way for said action.   We’ll see what comes next.   Again, though, this side-stepping of the Constitution is dangerous.   Adhere to the document or take the necessary steps to change it.   There shouldn’t be some dubiously-questionable middle ground like the Saxbe Fix.

Tilt-shift photography is a technique where the photographer manipulates the camera lens to make life-size objects appear miniature.   Here are a couple examples via Smashing Magazine:

If you don’t have the camera equipment or the know-how to create actual tilt-shift photographs, you can use the lens blur filter in Photoshop to create a faked-yet-realistic alternative.   TUAW walks you through the easy-to-do tutorial.   Warning: if you decided to try this out, prepare to be lost experimenting for hours!

I tried this on, umm, a LOT of my photos. :-)   The trick is to select the right photo.   Some work and some don’t.   I found that aerial shots worked the best, but many landscape photos work well also.   And to really see the effect, make sure you use a large photo.

Before tilt-shift fakery:

After (larger version):

And here are a bunch more.   Stonington, CT (larger version):

Place de Trocadéro, Paris (larger version):

Cimetière du Père-Lachaise, Paris (larger version):

Catalina Island, CA (larger version):

Chase Field, Phoenix, AZ (larger version):

NYC (larger version):

Petrified Forest, AZ (larger version):

Paris (larger version):

In most of these, if I really wanted to fake the effect, I should have tweaked some elements in each. For instance, in the NYC one, the light posts and a couple of the taller people shouldn’t have their tops blurred since they’re on the same depth plane, but for this exercise that’s okay.

Seriously, though, try this out. Turning your photos into miniatures is fun!

Not even Apple is immune from under-image reflection Photoshop disasters:

Side note: if you haven’t checked out the Photoshop Disasters blog, take a look.   That this sometimes subtle but sometimes egregiously awful Photoshop work actually gets published is astounding!

Wired yesterday had a cool brief history of GPS.   I learned a couple of cool things:

The GPS story starts with Sputnik, the first artificial satellite. The night after it was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957, researchers at MIT were able to track Sputnik’s orbit by its radio signal. And if you can track satellites from Earth, you can figure out how to locate objects on (or just above) Earth from the positions of satellites. […]

[Today,] GPS augmentation and precise monitoring techniques known as carrier-phase enhancement, differential GPS and relative kinematic positioning can now provide accuracy down to 4 inches.

4 inches! Incredible!   Hmm, if I were 4 inches to the right of where I’m sitting now, I’d fall off the couch.

(Photo: Wired article via NASA)

If you can’t afford to convert your home to use all solar power but want to, perhaps you can at least power your iPhone with solar power.   TUAW writes:

The case is essentially a lithium ion battery pack with a solar panel that doubles as a flip cover for the iPhone. The construction is said to be leather, however I cannot imagine this being very kind to Mother Nature. There is also an LED status indicator that informs you of the capacity of the case’s battery pack when charging and discharging.

The instruction manual notes that an empty iPhone battery can be re-charged in 3 hours when the included Li-Ion battery pack is full. When the battery pack is empty you can set the case to direct charge mode and get your iPhone recharge on straight from the power of the Sun itself!

This weekend, New Orleans Representative William Jefferson (D) lost a bid for a tenth term in Congress.   About time.   I wrote last month he was one of eleven Congressmen running for election while under investigation.   He’s now the second name to drop off that list, with Uncle Ted Stevens being the first.   Jefferson, of course, was found hiding $90,000 of cash in his freezer.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) list their report of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress.   Here they are:

• Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
• Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
• Rep. John T. Doolittle* (R-CA)
• Rep. Tom Feeney* (R-FL)
• Rep. Vito J. Fossella* (R-NY)
• Rep. William J. Jefferson* (D-LA)
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
• Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
• Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)
• Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV)
• Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA)
• Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA)
• Rep. Steve Pearce* (R-NM)
• Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY)
• Rep. Rick Renzi* (R-AZ)
• Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
• Sen. Ted Stevens* (R-AK)
• Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

*Doolittle, Fossella, and Renzi retired; Pearce lost a Senate bid; and Feeney, Jefferson, and Stevens were defeated in their reelection bids.

Looks like with these deletions, we’ll be adding some more names to this list (or could it be that these were the only corrupt Congressmembers and there are no more to add to the list? Yeah, right, sadly).   I was going to write we can now add NY Rep. Charlie Rangel to the list, but he’s already on there.