Coachella day 2, like day 1, was filled with music and more music. Day 2 was the day of panoramic photos; I took tons of photos and stitched them together into panoramas with some software. Red Hot Chili Peppers was the big act this day, though The Decemberists put on a good show as did Arcade Fire.

• The gates of Coachella
• The Decemberists on video
• !!! on video
• The Arcade Fire on video
• Red Hot Chili Peppers on vide
• The Rapture on video
• electricity and more electricity
• the parking lots of Coachella

See all my videos and photos from Coachella 2007 Day 2

I went to Coachella, the mega music (and arts) festival held in Indio, California. It was three days of baking in the sun, drinking insane amounts of liquids, and watching some of the best bands ever perform for tens of thousands in the desert. It was awesome.

Day one of Coachella featured Bjork and lots of other bands I wasn't so psyched about seeing. And since it was my first day, I spent plenty of time taking pictures of the grounds to capture the moment. I also caught the last few minutes of DJ Shadow's act.

• Bjork on video
• DJ Shadow on video
• Welcome to Coachella
• lovely sunset pic
• spider, he is our hero
• train powered
• fire burning
• scenes from the techno tent
• blinky lights

See all my photos and videos from Coachella 2007 Day 1

Two San Francisco traditions -- Critical Mass, the monthly street-clogging bike ride through the city, and Zombie Mob, a flash mob of zombies infesting San Francisco -- occurred on the same day a little while ago. Fortunately, yours truly was there among the dozens of other photographers and videographers to archive the event for the ages.

• Zombies ATTACK!!!
• Don't trust the living
• Critical Mass
• Zombies ATTACK AGAIN!!!
• Zombie dog
• Thriller
• braiiins...
• Blood flows red on the sidewalk
• Zombie Versache

See all of my photos from SF Zombie Mob 2007

It's taken me a while to dig through the several hundred photos and dozens of videos I've taken over the past few months. I even took the (laborious) step of converting all the videos to flash so it should work for most of y'all without trouble.

In February and between jobs, I went on vacation in central Florida to visit a good friend and stop thinking for a few days. While I was there, I went to Cocoa Beach for an afternoon of sun and relaxing. Here's a few highlights

• birds on the beach
• gone fishin
• take a two minute vacation
• my shadow
• me after a day on the beach

See all the photos from my trip to Florida

I hate what happened to Kathy Sierra as much as anyone. However, I'm not in a rush to solve an unsolvable problem -- online anti-social behavior. So I'm throwing my website in front of the runaway Internet locomotive that is the Blogger's Code of Conduct, supported by Internet stars Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales.

If I don't call this out as bullshit, who will?

It's nothing personal. In fact, I'd be the first one to buy them a round of drinks if I ever get the chance. But the issue is serious enough that I can't ignore it. These rules are poorly thought out and ineffective against the problem that they're hoping to resolve. And the spotlight given to this by the BBC and the New York Times will only accelerate the terrible resolution we're headed towards.

History is our guide here. After reading Tim's article, I immediately thought of the Patriot Act written in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the internment of Japanese people during World War II. I don't mean that this code of conduct is on the same level as those other events, or that it carries the same weight as a law.

What I mean is that humans have a tendency to overreact, and in retrospect acts like these are unnecessary. Need some modern examples? Look at the reactions to Gmail or RFID. It's human nature to overreact in the midst of fear and uncertainty, just like setting the shower to the right temperature -- too hot, too cold, too hot, too cold.

Can we work on these rules a year from now, after our tempers have cooled off? After we've really put some thought into this and created some good solutions to the problem? That would make me feel a little better about this.

When did we leave behind discussion and cut straight into codification? Some Internet elites making this decision over a beer followed someone putting it on a wiki for everyone to edit is no substitute for a serious talk about what's the right course of action from here. I'm just trying to be a little more thoughtful about this problem before this potential blunder.

I could go through and pick apart their list of points one by one, but I don't want this to be a nitpicking fight over intent or terminology; I'm certain these people had the best intent behind their actions. Instead I'd rather have a nice, intelligent chat about the goals of what you're doing and how it will fix the underlying problem, whatever that is. That's why I want to invoke rule 4 against you:

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

You've unfairly attacked me and the millions of other Internet citizens who don't live in your ideal world, who will be affected by this. Please take action before jumping to conclusions and putting these terrible rules into place, because I certainly will take action if you don't.

Overreacting is the first step towards getting scalded by the shower.

PC World announced their list of the Top 50 Best Tech Products of All Time yesterday. I have to say I was shocked at their number 1 pick -- Netscape Navigator. Really, I was shocked at the whole list. Why wasn't the iPod number one on the list? That single item has transformed entertainment as we know it. Hell, if Netscape was so important, why wasn't the original IBM personal computer at the top of the list?

I know why. It must be because we as consumers (and the editorial staff at PC World) have lowered our expectations to ridiculous depths. That phrase -- "Lower your expectations" -- was my mantra at the first job I took out of college. It summarized everything I was aiming for in the output of my work -- little effort, acceptable results. I should have put it on my office door, right next to my "Bang Head HERE" sign and the occasional notice from the American Cookie Council.

Really - have our expectations of computer technology gotten so bad that Napster is the fourth best tech product we as humans have ever created? Napster SUCKED. Sure, you could download all the music you wanted. But don't you remember how crappy it was? It only showed 100 search results, the search results were never what you wanted, and if you did find something it took forever to download. "Best" technology my ass.

What about magnetic resonance imaging -- MRI in the vernacular. It has countless applications including viewing blood flow issues, brain activity, bones and ligaments, and more -- all non-invasive and it's pretty safe. Now you tell me which technology is better -- Napster, a miserable piece of software used largely by poor college students to commit copyright infringement, or MRI, which has helped doctors diagnose health conditions and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. PC World editors -- I hope the next time you get an MRI, the computer they use gets infected with a virus that was downloaded when someone used Napster.

On the subject of consumer technologies, based on this list we still have a long way to go. We can develop kick-ass technologies, but we don't. Apple has done a pretty decent job of it. But let me be clear about this -- Apple is not the end-all, be-all of great technology. We've been conditioned in the Windows/Office paradigm for so long that we've forgotten what good technology experiences should be like. Apple is a breath of fresh air, but certainly not the best that technology can be.

For you people out there in charge of making the technologies that we humans use throughout our lives, raise your expectations about how great those technologies can be. "It's good enough" is the last thought that should be on your mind. What if the person who buys your product knew you gave up on making it better -- gave up on giving them a better experience when using your product? You should march down to the nearest store that sells your product and personally apologize to each person that buys it. "I'm sorry. I gave up. It could have been better. It wasn't good enough."

And really -- who is it good enough for? Is it good enough for you? For your coworkers? For some ideal of a user that you imagine in your mind? For your parents? For a real person using it? Is there anybody who it's good enough for? Or is that an excuse to cover up for something else -- not enough developers, too many bugs, not willing to put in the work, pressure from the executives, satisfaction with what's already there, disagreement about the features...

I've got plenty of time to talk about all of those issues. But for now, your goal is to start ratcheting up your level of expectations. The next time you get frustrated when using a piece of software ask yourself, "how would I make this better?" and go see if that better thing is out there. Then go to the Apple Store, play with an iPod and PowerBook, and talk to their salespeople. If you don't leave with a new computer and music player, you either have a tight budget or haven't raised your expectations nearly enough.

In response to Kathy's note...

I've been a fan of Kathy Sierra ever since I saw her speak at South by Southwest Interactive in 2006. For a long time, I had been struggling with my identity as a professional; a masters degree from UC Berkeley goes a long way towards advancing a career, but it wasn't until I heard Kathy speak and read her blog that I found my own voice to describe what I had learned, to describe my feelings about digital design.

In a way, she changed my life.

That's why I'm saddened and distraught to no end about what happened to her. I've seen terrible things happen to good people, and in that moment all you can do is react and empathize. So Kathy -- if you end up in or near San Francisco again, let me know and I'll happily lend my imposing visage to scare off the Internet scum when you're out and about. It's the least I can offer.

Also, I have to commend her on her willingness to write publicly about the ordeal. Others would be afraid to even speak of this, but she came forward with poise and clarity to describe the events and her feelings. I can't imagine how hard that must have been, and I hope that it's the first step towards living a normal life again.

I'm usually more verbose than this, but anything else I could say about how the Internet breeds malcontents or how humans interpret text communications has been said before (probably by Kathy, and certainly much better than I could state it). Kathy's writings have meant a lot to me, but whether or not she returns to speaking and writing isn't nearly as important as her health and safety.

Corey had the line of the day at SXSW:

"User-generated content. Can we come up with a better name for that sometime over the next week?"

I couldn't agree more. It's a phrase whose time has come to an end, just like "user-centered design." I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was called "Dave-centered design" but first I'd have to get over my self-consciousness as researchers follow me 24-7, observing my showering habits to help them create a better bathroom clock/radio

The problem isn't either of those phrases; the problem is the word "user". Yes, I busted out the quotes -- the word tongs as my former prof Geoffrey Nunberg calls them -- because I'm keeping that word as far away from me as possible. I don't want anything to do with that word ever again.

It is the most de-humanizing word that you can use to describe activities that are done by humans -- humans viewing and interacting with your own website. These people are devoting their time and attention to your site. Calling them "users" takes away the fact that there is a person sitting in front of her computer, reading my text, reading five other web pages, updating her MySpace profile, carrying on ten instant messenger conversations, listening to music, and watching the TV all at the same time.

I'm a human being, and the last thing that I want to be thought of is a person spending all of his time on MySpace. I want you to know that there's more to me than blogging and commenting and watching YouTube videos. You hide my complexity as a person when you call me a "user" and contextualize my activities solely in terms of your website. Disregarding that complexity is the first step in the downward spiral of bad user research, feature development and prioritization, bad user experiences, and ultimately the kind of thing that I want to keep you away from as you read my future digressions.

So what should we call "users" instead?

Great question. I'm glad you asked.

Metonymy

Metonymy is a figure of speech where you substitute the name of one thing for something else. For example, you could refer to the British royalty as "the crown". If you have a video site, instead of using the word "users" you could just as well call them "play button pushers" or "eyeballs" or "lazy". Well, maybe not lazy. Maybe not eyeballs either. Obviously my imagination is broken tonight. But don't let that prevent you from getting creative with your names; metonymy is a great place to start.

Call them what they call themselves

This is my favorite strategy. If you have a site for people who produce video clips distributed on the Internet, you probably shouldn't call them vidiots (and you certainly shouldn't call them "stupid"). They most likely call themselves vloggers. Calling them by the name they call themselves shows that you respect and understand them. And in case you hold that label in low regard, it's best to hold back your laughter until after you have some privacy (vloggers *hee hee*).

Give them a name, individually

Persona development is one of the best techniques for getting everyone to understand who makes up your target audience. A persona is an imaginary person who idealizes the typical person using your product. The number of personas you need depends on your audience, but a two or three is usually enough to focus your discussions. Instead of asking whether or not your "users" would like some new idea, instead ask if Bob, Laura, and John -- your personas -- would like it. I'll write more about personas in a future post.

Brand them

Yeah, "branding" sounds like an evil marketing word, but damned if I wasn't a proud member of the Nintendo Fun Club back in the day. A brand is fine as long as they adopt it too. Green Bay Packers fans happily accept the moniker "cheeseheads", but you would never call them "Green Bay Packers users" (and the eerie connotation that phrase has). Branding the people on your site gives them an automatic identity -- something to share with the other people on the site and a way to know whether you're "in" with the group already or "out" and need some enlightenment.

Call them what you call them

What do you call your friends? Your former schoolmates? The people on your co-ed soccer team? Call them something real like "humans" or "people" or "friends" or "buddies" or "teammates" or "those people we talked to at the conference" or "that chick I woke up next to after that night we got really shitfaced". Something like that. But if you're homophobic, you should watch what you say around fans of Gay.com. Just a friendly warning.

Last words on the word

Give them a name that you would be willing to say to their face, that they wouldn't be upset or embarrassed about if you said it with them standing right next to you. They'll appreciate the attention and identity you give them, and you'll have a friendlier word to use when you talk about them

And remember - these terms are shibboleths; if you don't use them or use them incorrectly, the people you're referring to will know you're an outsider. Incorrectly calling a blogger a "web logger" is a bad idea. Also, there are some times you can't use the word that these groups call themselves. The "n*****" word comes to mind as an example, so always be careful that you're not inadvertently hurting their feelings by the name you choose.

Finally, you need to do the legwork to figure out the best term to use when talking about the people on your site. You'll be amazed at what you discover. For example in my final project at Berkeley, Megan and I studied Berkeley freshmen and their technology habits and histories. Even though the students we interviewed were 17 or 18 years old, they sometimes referred to their friends and schoolmates as "kids". Megan and I could use that word when asking our questions to them too (despite the fact that we weren't much older than they were).

Good luck finding your own term to replace the word "user". Hopefully the last days of the phrase "user-generated content" are finally at hand...

I quit my job.

Ok, I didn't quit like this guy quit or this guy quit. I did the standard two-weeks-I'm-outta-here routine. It's never easy to leave a job, no matter what the circumstances. I know where I'm headed next, but there's plenty of time to talk about that in the future.

But this is more than a turning point in my career. It's also going to be a turning point for this little web site. I've been repeating my user-centered design daily affirmations -- such as "Do it for your users" "You are not a user" "You have to find out their needs" -- every day for the last couple of months, taking it with me to my job interviews and talks with friends.

From these experiences and others I've learned that it's a very powerful philosophy that not enough people understand. I also haven't given it enough attention on this site. That's why I'm going to start writing more about it from here on out. It's a change you'll notice very quickly, so stick around for the fun new things I have planned.

But I'm not the only one wrapped up in change, and before I depart to my user-centered state-of-mind I'm going to linger in the music world for a moment longer. Apparently lots of folks out there think this year will be a turning point for the use of DRM in digital music stores. I'm not so certain. Let's look at two big music stories of late.

First, negotiations with EMI (one of the big four music labels) to sell DRM-free music have collaped. Why was EMI looking to sell their music DRM free? Money. This has nothing to do with appeasing music buyers or Steve Jobs. EMI has made some other headlines lately, including:

• A big drop in revenues, shifting their projections down 5 to 10%
• Replacing the CEO and vice-chairman of the board
• All of this news drove EMI stock down 12%
• EMI rebuffed a Warner Music offer to purchase the company

EMI has been going down for the last few years, facing many of these same profit and restructuring problems before just to face them again. So why pick now to sell the music as MP3s? The cynic in me thought that EMI was doing the MP3 negotiations to boost their stock value, making them some more money in any potential buyout. However, checking their stock performance over the last few months it seems that the market is more interested in the buyouts themselves rather than selling MP3s.

Negotiations ended when, as "unnamed sources" said, the digital retailers wouldn't pay a big enough advance (that is, money upfront) for EMI's catalog as MP3s. If they had paid, those retailers would likely need to raise the prices on those tracks to make up for the loss, something they're not eager to do because of the impact on sales. And if EMI isn't gonna go MP3, you can be certain the other big labels (Sony BMG, Warner, and Universal) won't go either.

This just leaves the question about EMI's fate, if they really are struggling so badly. I don't know the exact future, but I have a feeling Warner won't be so forthcoming with an offer now that EMI isn't going to sell MP3s. That is, a major reason Warner made the offers right now was to stop EMI from selling their music without DRM. The big labels like DRM the way it is, and a DRM-free EMI catalog would force them into MP3 territory as well.

This brings us to the other turning point of late. Steve Jobs wrote an open letter trying to convince the big labels to sell their music DRM free. This is, of course, bullshit. Yahoo, eMusic, and others have been way ahead of iTunes in selling MP3s and in calling for big music to sell their tunes without DRM. (Why? To level the playing field versus Apple, of course.) Jobs -- like Apple did with the iPod, iMac, and all things Apple -- came out after everyone else did but suddenly made it cool.

I've written before about why Apple uses DRM -- because the big labels want them to, and there's no iTunes Store or digital music market without the big labels' content. But Apple is equally at fault; they have never licensed their DRM to other companies (and the major labels didn't insist on interoperability when they had the chance). The indie labels have never cared about DRM; most of them already sell their content as MP3s on eMusic (the #2 digital music retailer) among other DRM-free outlets. This debacle is solely about the big four labels and DRM.

So why is Jobs calling for the end of DRM? Things are a bit different now that France and Denmark and Germany and Sweden and Norway have all opened investigations into Apple, their DRM, and anticompetitive practices. Steve Jobs is covering his ass, saying it's not his fault there's DRM in the music (true) and it's out of his hands -- and up to the big four -- to fix it (bullshit).

Of course, in situations like these you can always expect the market to come up with a solution. DVD Jon, who famously cracked DVD encryption, apparently is pitching a system compatible with Apple's DRM for anyone who wants to buy it. And in response to Jobs, the big four have shot back that DRM is necessary in light of their declining revenues (due to declining CD sales), challenging Jobs to nix the DRM on the Disney/Pixar movies sold in the iTunes Store if he believes in interoperability so badly.

When it was just France who was considering a bill to eliminate DRM last year, that was no problem for Apple because they could stop selling in France with little impact on their bottom line. Now that Europe has ganged up on Apple, Apple is gonna have to do something to fix this. Not even the combined forces of all the digital music retailers will be enough to convince the big four to sell their music without DRM. It's Apple's move if they want to be the ones to decide the resolution to this turning point. Otherwise the EU has it's own plans for the future of the iPod and the iTunes Music Store, and Apple certainly won't like that.

What better way to get the stress out than whacking a stranger with a pillow? This question was answered when several hundred (a thousand?) people gathered by the Ferry Building for Pillow Fight Club. Personally, I can't think of a better or more appropriate way to spend Valentine's Day. Pictures and videos are below.

Videos: 1 2 3