Yeah, Geeks!
AKA a regular day at the office.
iPads have overtaken computers as the 2nd-most popular way to watch TV.
(via emergentfutures)
So I did a redesign of this chart about Canada’s least liked cities and I think I did really well.
I like the final product.
(via sunfoundation)
There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it’s only a hundred billion. It’s less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.
This is actually the craziest chart about Apple following their insane earnings today.
There is exactly one company on that entire list that is not an oil and gas company. And they’re not that far from the top.
Creating Data Visualizations for the CBC
I recently started using Processing (processing.org) at the CBC to visualize the dependencies of the content areas on projects being built by Media Ops & Technology (MO&T). Roughly speaking, MO&T builds out platform related projects and the content areas leverage the functionality of those projects to build out their sites. The previous post here was a first sketch in chalk of how a tool to visualize these dependencies might end up looking. Turns out I wasn’t too far off.
These screenshots below show the hightlighted and un-highlighted views. What isn’t shown is the interactive component that enables users to pick which content areas they want to see and then the ability to select individual projects and highlight their dependencies.
The next visualization focused on displaying the content area’s over all dependency on each Media Ops project and then normalizing the relative impact based on audience or revenue. Below is the baseline view before audience and revenue adjustments are applied. One of the benefits of this view is that it makes it easy to see where the content areas aligned in their dependence on different Media Ops projects.
There are more projects underway to help inform discussions about where and how we expend our resources.
A big thanks goes out to everyone involved in the Processing project!
Prototyping
First ones out on the course this morning. One if the few things I get up early for. #golf (Taken with picplz at Huntsville Downs in Muskoka.)
Slider puzzles of a few of the very cool personalities on CBC + me = procrastination to the extreme.
“If I don’t get Peter Mansbridge, Sook-Yin Lee, or Jian Ghomeshi unjumbled, they’ll never forgive me!”
(via fuckyeahcbc)
End of the week. (Taken with picplz at Texas Nationals Ski Camp for Champs in Muskoka.)
Deciding which photos ‘make the cut’ (and how many don’t)
I looked at my Lightroom catalog for the last month and realized I’ve taken a lot of shots, 723 in total. Most of these will never see the light of day but a few will end up visible on Flickr. Here’s a rough breakdown of how they are categorized.
Photos labeled “Rejected” in Lightroom: 179, 25%
Some of these photos are rejected because they’re blurry, poor composition, or just not quite as good as other photos of the same thing.
Example of a rejected shot:
Photos labeled at 2 stars or less: 116, 16%
These photos won’t get uploaded to Flickr. They should probably get deleted but I’m a pack rat and hard drive space is cheap…
Photos lablel at 3 stars: 299, 40%
These are ok photos and will be uploaded to Flickr but not made public to anyone. There are exceptions where 3 star photos will have family or friends in them and in that case I’ll make them visible to those people since they may be more interested in seeing people even if the photos aren’t the greatest.
Photos labeled at 4 stars: 47, 7%
These are photos I like but I’m on the fence if they’re ‘good enough’ to make public. They’ll be looked again and one or two might be bumped up to 5 and a few more will get bumped down to 3. Any remaining 4 star photos will uploaded as private photos to flickr.
Photos labeled at 5 stars: 37, 5%
These are the photos I like and will be uploaded to Flickr as public photos. After a couple months or longer I usually cut back on the number of public photos I have on Flickr. I am more critical of the images as time passes.
Photos taken as reference shots: 15, 2%
I have a lot of photos of my left arm holding a grey card. They are white balance reference shots which aren’t uploaded to Flickr. I only take a reference shot if I think the light is tricky for the camera or if I don’t think I will remember the look of the shot later.
Examples of reference shots:
These totals don’t all add up to 100%. Some shots fall through the cracks and aren’t starred, labeled or tagged. I could be more attentive but I’d rather take more photos.
Here’s a couple of 5 star shots of from last month:
CBC Logos, 1940 - 2011.
The current red logo is coming close to be the longest running logo for the CBC.
Great idea, and execution.
Do You Think Most People Try to Take Advantage of You?
Live Demo: http://chartsbin.com/view/1866
