Smart boss + smart employee = profit
Smart boss + dumb employee = production
Dumb boss + smart employee = promotion
Dumb boss + dumb employee = overtime

A study conducted by NewMediaMetrics found a significant difference in the types of digital behavior embraced by the X and Y generations when it comes to child raising.  Gen Y is much more attached to media that connects them to other moms (online communities, blogs, video-sharing sites, etc.), while Gen X moms are more likely to embrace the web for task-oriented activities like shopping online and uploading photos. The study concludes that this might signify a shift in the way that marketers should be targeting the next new generation of moms online.

Both groups X and Y share similar objectives of exploring mom-related issues online, Gen Y moms tend to have much higher attachment to interactive tools that allow them to connect directly with other moms.

The findings show that Gen Y moms make use of digital tools and activities that allow them to create
and own content (i.e., online profiles, blogs), as well as connect and interact with other moms
(i.e., text messages, photos and video, online community).

These behaviors demonstrate Gen Y moms’ confidence in their use of these technologies as forms
of communication and self-expression. It also reveals a trend among the younger Gen Y moms
of relying on the common experience of members of their cohort to help them navigate their journey
through parenthood.

Gen X moms use online technologies very differently.

They tend to engage in more task-oriented activities, such as online shopping, researching and
reviewing products, and organizing photos. This illustrates a significant generational shift in
how they behave in comparison to their Gen Y successors when it comes to the use of digital tools.

Source: Center for Media Research; NewMediaMetrix August, 2008

I heard an interesting comparison today.

During a video conference with our corporate brethren, someone compared the use of mobile technology to the use of internet in 1998. While I think that’s accurate, I think that there’s an important distinction to make.

Namely, the speed by which the landscape changed in the last ten years is not a constant. The users are not going to continue to evolve at the same rate. The general acceptance of the internet into daily life, combined with the rapid advances of technology/infrastructure guarantee that things will change at a different pace.

So when do I think “Mobile 1998″ penetration will catch up to current traffic patterns/usage of traditional web sites? Realistically, I’d say about 24 months.

What that means is that we’d better get off our collective asses and start developing a real strategy for all of our web sites and applications that take full advantage of the mobile platform now.

Seriously, 24 months. Now that says a lot when you consider that my current traditional sites generate roughly 40 million page views per month and over 2 million unique visitors, while our mobile footprint is a fraction of that.

It doesn’t matter whether we can quantify the development resources needed at this juncture in time or not - it’s about protecting the future of our businesses and organizations.

Either we embrace mobile now, or be undercut by others who will have less to gain by relying on existing technology. Really, it’s the same argument that we made with print media 10 years ago - evolve or risk losing your market share to someone else.

In 24 months were going to be looking at digital devices that can deliver high speed video, perform every function of current web sites, and maintain advanced social networking - in the hands of more than half of the people in the United States, and more than that in Europe/Japan.

Better get started, because we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.

Question: Who spends an entire afternoon working on a coverletter, only to notice AFTER sending, that he’s mislabeled the opening as proJECT manager, rather than proDUCT manager?

Answer: Yours truly.

However, that brings to mind an important point; we ALL need an editor. Whether it’s writing code, designing interfaces, or scripting a storyline, collaborating with others will result in a stronger product.

I think that we have a tendency to try and do everything on our own, in order to prove just how talented we are. The problem with that line of thinking is that you could miss an obvious problem.

Let’s use IndyMoms.com as an example. When I first designed the look for that site, the color scheme was based around the color orange, which I liked a lot. However, when I showed it to my wife, she had a very different reaction and I was a bit miffed at that. She suggested an alternative, violet/tan scheme.

As much as I wanted to be right, it was more important that the site be perfect, so we asked several people in the targeted demographic which they preferred. The purple design won 8-0.

The point is that we must encourage a culture of interdependency, where we can bounce ideas off of others.

Our Innovation and Development group uses Basecamp for just that purpose. We set up projects in it and then use writeboards to shape the requirements. For the visuals, we post jpegs and then use the commenting feature as a way for team members to suggest improvements. We also utilize Basecamp to track todos, milestones and documentation for all projects. Y

Basecamp takes a fresh, novel approach to project collaboration. Projects don’t fail from a lack of charts, graphs, stats, or reports, they fail from a lack of clear communication. Basecamp solves this problem by providing tools tailored to improve the communication between people working together on a project.

You can also give people outside your organization access to as much - or as little - of the project as you need. For example, Basecamp features a simple permissions system that allows you to specify who can see which projects. For example, if you want Employee-X to see only 5 of your 13 projects, just uncheck a single checkbox on the projects you don’t want them to see.

My favorite feature is that it saves me time in the note-keeping and meeting-holding departments. People can access the files at the leisure and they document their comments themselves - saving me time.

Now if only I’d posted that cover letter on Basecamp, first.

I was doing some surfing today, and I realized that Flash - which is a great tool - is often more annoying than it is useful. The reason for that is simple - the developers that utilize it tend to be one trick ponies. Many of them are masters of the tween and the art of action scripting, but couldn’t do a simple ajax affect if their lives depended on it.

To best utilize Flash, you need to understand that it is just another tool in what should be a comprehensive toolbox. If you really want to serve your clients and users interests, you should build everything simply and economically. Use Flash where you need to use it, but don’t force it to accomplish every little task.

The end result of over-Flashifying a site is that you end up with something that is incredibly difficult to maintain over time - thus driving up production time and costs. It becomes even more complicated once the original designer has handed off the Flash piece to someone else. There’s nothing as frustrating as trying to fix a Flash file that was build incorrectly in the first place.

One thing that I find frustrating is the overused Flash intro. It’s great to see a cool intro on my first visit to a site, but when I come back I should never have to sit through it again. It’s just a waste of my time. Since an intro - which I’m not a fan of anyway - is used to introduce your brand/product/message to the users, do you really want that brand/product/message to be irritating? The answer is a resounding no.

Flash works best as a user-initiated method within an established web 2.0, css framework, so let’s use it that way. To all the Flash designers out there that can’t cascade a stylesheet, it’s time to join learn.

Digital designer Matthew Rogers sent me a link for a site that you can use to create background patterns. I kicked the tires and it’s fairly intuitive. Try it the next time you need to create a pattern for one of your clients.

Click here to go to the site

Outpost (coming from Morfunk) promises to let you manage your Basecamp projects on your iPhone.

Take notes away from the office. Delegate tasks from the train. Check on deadlines. Upload photos to projects. Anywhere.

Click to sign up to get notified when it launches.

Here’s another excellent example of thinking like a user - rather than a developer - from the folks at 37signals.

Previously, if you wanted to change the color scheme within their Basecamp app, you either needed to select from a predetermined list, or have rudimentary knowledge of how colors are displayed on the Web.

With their new tool, you just select the color you want from a “colorpicker” and the change is instantly displayed on the page.

Nicely done. See it here: http://37signals.blogs.com/products/2008/07/new-in-baseca-2.html

Here’s a list of web 2.0 galleries, courtesy of Vandelay Design. The galleries are listed in order of Alexa rank.

1. CSS Drive, 23,116
2. CSS Beauty, 25,112
3. Web Creme, 25,559
4. Favorite Website Awards, 27,391
5. Best Web Gallery, 28,102
6. CSS Remix, 29,858
7. Stylegala, 38,743
8. Cool Homepages, 38,783
9. CSS Elite, 42,846
10. CSS Vault, 48,978
11. FaveUp, 54,894
12. CSS Creme, 57,050
13. Design Shack, 62,139
14. The Best Designs, 65,228
15. W3C Sites, 65,953
16. Unmatched Style, 77,871
17. CSS Based, 82,349
18. Screenfluent, 90,287
19. Screenalicious, 93,621
20. CSS Heaven, 96,061
21. CSS Import, 117,396
22. CSS Clip, 118,313
23. Styleboost, 118,431
24. Web Digity, 125,485
25. CSS Gallery 2.0, 137,614
26. Boxed CSS, 142,164
27. CSS Website, 142,373
28. Design Snack, 144,613
29. CSS Artillery, 158,827
30. CSS Glance, 167,939
31. The Daily Slurp, 182,358
32. CSS Website Gallery, 196,126
33. CSS Collection, 199,695
34. CSS Reboot, 202,730
35. Professional on the Web, 211,584
36. CSS Star, 220,491
37. CSS Tux, 235,692
38. CSS Bloom, 237,028
39. CSSHive, 238,990
40. DesignFlavr, 242,301
41. Design by Grid, 257,249
42. CSS Daddy, 268,324
43. No Resolution, 272,482
44. CSS Impress, 290,353
45. CSS Princess, 314,182
46. CSS Leak, 319,340
47. Web Design Gallery, 337,963
48. My3W, 385,465
49. Inspiration King, 391,490
50. Pro Web Art, 396,603
51. CSS Flavor, 397,298
52. CSS Container, 417,117
53. The Horizontal Way, 417,158
54. CSS Burst, 439,050
55. Hotwebber, 442,827
56. CSS Zone, 456,876
57. CSS Hazard, 475,108
58. CSS Gallery, 502,992
59. design|snips, 522,013
60. Designer Source, 553,625
61. CSS Love, 573,271
62. Design Grabs, 585,085
63. Design Creme, 615,345
64. CSSEM, 615,507
65. The Designed Tree, 625,271
66. Lookum, 635,229
67. CSS Moon, 731,776
68. Designs Creme, 767,905
69. NiceStylesheet, 780,609
70. CSS Snap, 797,809
71. Carted Up, 831,381
72. Genuine Style, 838,273
73. CSS Smooth Operator, 871,589
74. One Star Gallery, 890,050
75. Plastic Pilots, 894,329
76. CSS Band, 1,151,978
77. CSS Warfare, 1,166,983
78. CSS Fuel, 1,298,931
79. Refresh, 1,490,008

Sigh. I lost my old blog database. See, this is why it’s never a good idea to talk to the kids and update a blog installation at the same time. I could try and recover it, but it wasn’t that interesting to begin with.

Most of the posts were two years old. I wonder how some bloggers find the time to contribute long thoughtful topics on a regular basis. I think the cool thing about Twitter, as opposed to a real blog, is that you only have to think of a sentence or two, as opposed to a longer diatribe.

And that’s really all I have to say about that.