Mule Design Weblog

A good discussion arose on this question a while back - it might be worth checking out http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1714184 and the original article that spawned the discussion -> http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/06/unsuck_it_special_byebye_my.php I tend to prefer using the 2nd person, if I have to choose one over the other. [edit] - Sorry, should also add the link to the Yahoo patterns article, which also recommends the 2nd person http://developer.yahoo.com/ypatterns/social/core/yourvmy.html.

It’s worth rereading what Mike Montiero wrote about the new Gap Logo. http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/10/dear_gap_i_have_your_new_logo.php

Fuck you! ... Pay me. http://weblog.muledesign.com/2011/04/creative_mornings.php It's the one time I've seen it work well.

Though I am a dreaded project manager, I agree mostly to what you are saying. But in the field I work in, advertising, I do think that its necessary and that my value is additive. My responsibility is mainly to be a shit umbrella, so my creative and developers can do work, especially when we're all working on multiple clients. I'm not doing my job when I have to have them in meetings, in fact we don't meet save for face-to-face discussions. That and of course dealing with the rowdiness of clients, hammering out scope, keeping things to scope, and being the bad guy when necessary with the client. (This is actually harder then people realize, our default human reaction is to help people, and it requires taking abuse in the extremes that is simply part of your job) This article sums up my views nicely: http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/10/project_managers_not_calendar.php

+1. But there are also people with track records at getting it right first time. Eventually the check signers (or the check signers bosses) work that out. (Hopefully before all the talented designers go broke.) Reminds me a lot of this: http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/10/dear_gap_i_have_your_new_logo.php

I try to avoid them altogether. Gun to my head, I'd go with "Your". See also: http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/06/unsuck_it_special_byebye_my.php

It strikes me as a study of depth vs. breadth. FB (and RSS) offer depth, i.e. deeper, longer content, where Twitter offers breadth, i.e. more potential sources. http://weblog.muledesign.com/2011/07/density_and_difference.php But I feel like these are not mutually exclusive, and also not optimal to be separated/siloed onto different services. Esp. considering the fact that, for me at least, Twitter is often, or even largely, just another feed. The in-message text serves as a subject line and there's a link to a post where the real content is. This bothers me because it's just a crappier version of rss. Seems to me that a service like Google+ can do everything twitter does, without the limitations, given the right UI and some sort of filter system. For example, imagine Google+, with everything collapsed except a subject line. For posts without subject lines, substitute the first n characters with an ellipsis. Add a little arrow for posts that have body texts. Now you have twitter, except you can open links in-line by hitting the arrow. Simple tweets are just subject lines. Now imagine a filter option so you can see simple tweets in one stream and linked tweets (i.e. longer posts) in another. The tweetstream is for real-time messaging and brief quips. The full post stream is for what I still use RSS for. That's just my top-of-the-head first take on the problem. Ideally, this would all be service-agnostic/interoperable. But maybe that would just be RSS. So maybe I'm just…