StumbleUpon launched a total overhaul of their site back in December 2011 with an all-new UI and identity. Here’s few reasons why they’ve converted me into a user.

First and foremost, thanks HUGE.

Admittedly, I’ve never really spent a lot of time using StumbleUpon for discovering anything. My first brush with their service began a few years ago, when working closely with SEO specialists and link farmers. They raved about the site’s benefits towards social-media networking and how simple it was to add content into their recommendation engine. But, as being one of those “I don’t usually search for content, content usually finds me” users, my exposure to all that’s hidden on the web comes through the form of blog posts, e-mails, links via IM, or of course – the ubiquitous Facebook status update.

Then I went to check out what the big deal was.

I used to compare the likeness of StumbleUpon to Digg, on a much more automated scale. There’s a certain stigma that comes with content discovery, suffice it to say most of us are adept to typing into a search field and finding what we want, when we want it. A niche market of users on the other hand, enjoy their content aggregated, tailored, and delivered on a silver platter – without browsing through endless search result pages. Enter StumbleUpon “3.0″.

According to some Internet experts Web 3.0 will allow the user to sit back and let the Internet do all of the work for them. Rather than having search engines gear towards your keywords, the search engines will gear towards the user. Keywords will be searched based on your culture, region, and jargon. [Source]

While StumbleUpon is no Google Personal Results, I’m impressed by its finesse. Here’s why:

1. The focus on user experience is staggering.

Log in, pick a category, go! The improved StumbleUpon is unabashedly pleasant to use – there’s nothing better than a site you can see yourself spending quality time on without being clouded by obscure features or content feeds. Everything is about you and your sense of discovery. While browser-managed bookmarks usually stack up never to be seen again, StumbleUpon constantly reminds you why you’re using their service instead of hitting CMD+D everywhere you go.

From ‘Home’ to ‘Discover’, the goal is to get you to randomized content, and you’re never more than one click away from something you might just love, or hate. Minimalist thumbnails for category choosing and an ever-apparent search field now greets the user before diving into the goods – refined, intuitive.

Even their intercepts are awesome.

2. The mobile app still looks great.

As someone who firmly believes that everything on a mobile device these days should be a web app vs. native app, I gave the iOS variety a try and was pleased to find that my browsing experience mirrored its desktop counterpart. Built on a rock-solid UX foundation, there was no surprise that the app offered the same discovery process, and preference capabilities. Though, the only downfall to using a utility like StumbleUpon in the mobile world is the fact that the content I’m stumbling is more than likely to be not optimized for mobile. Tech irony. But of course, we can’t shoot the messenger here.

3. ‘Stumbling’ is front and center – proves that iframe still has practical use.

Forever docked to the top of your browser after logging in, the well-designed, non-invasive StumbleBar is as lean as it gets: simple controls allow you to Stumble from page to page, filter by category (user-defined of course), like/dislike, share, comment, etc. Overall, the toolbar is nothing revolutionary, it works because we love our utility out of sight, but not out of mind – just ask Twitter and even good ol’ WordPress /shamelessplug. They’ve nailed the art of browsing-within-the-browser down, which is why every Stumble click feels like Christmas (with random presents you wish you had the gift receipt for, but don’t – it’s okay just keep Stumbling).

4. Content First, Networking Second.

I appreciate the fact that StumbleUpon doesn’t deviate completely from its core focus, and although it’s great to have the ability to share with other users, the new UI elegantly integrates social networking in a few ways:

1. ‘Connections’ can only be viewed within the sidebar of a user’s profile
2. When Stumbling a new page, the ‘Stumbler’ who sourced it is displayed within the StumbleBar (wow too much)
3. There is no searchable user database, anywhere – so in essence, you ‘stumble upon’ other users and their likes as well

It’s a bit refreshing knowing that user-based sites still exist where survival is not relient on its social networking prowess, rather it serves more as an optional extension without compromising the main feature – a.k.a. having your cake and eating it too…on the internet.

5. The identity makeover simply works.

Nothing says “we’ve evolved!” more than a revamped identity, and there has already been plenty of discussion over StumbleUpon ditching it’s line of dishwashing soap for something a little more contemporary. Call the stylized “SU” what you will: “a worm that’s been cut in half”, or even “a rip on the Juju logo” – contrary to the criticism, I applaud the folks at HUGE and StumbleUpon for doing what any self-respecting design firm would do before touching anything: research.

“The process for defining a brand for an interactive product like StumbleUpon is the opposite to the typical branding experience where companies seek to create or define meaning for users. For StumbleUpon’s users, that meaning already exists because they’re using the site for a particular purpose in a particular way each day. We’d ask them about the product and they would say “It’s addictive and it’s awesome and it’s surprising and I laugh out loud at work at it and that’s why I love it” – so that’s what we sought to reflect and reinforce in the redesign.”

- Peter Wolfgang, Engagement Director, HUGE Los Angeles

The new burnt-orange marque seems to be garnering the most criticism for its lack of ‘visual continuity’, when compared to its predecessor. Some argue that the message of infinitely stumbling your way through the Web – isn’t being delivered upon with the new letterforms and directional arrows, versus letterform that runs completely off the surface. But contrary to the naysayers, we still have what seems to be a proper, modern evolution of a web service identity that seemed to be stuck somewhere in the late 90′s/early 00′s. Accompanied by a complete palette switch-up, I couldn’t be happier with the new design direction.

So all of this StumbleUpon business sounds great in theory, but will I really use it? Given its niche appeal, the success of StumbleUpon has always been based on how inquisitive its user-base is. In October 2011, the site surpassed 20 million members and seems to be on a steady growth pattern towards 30m by 2013.

StumbleUpon will probably never replace the average user’s default homepage (which let’s be honest, is usually Google or Zuckerberg’s crown jewel), but it does however join several blogs and user-aggregated feeds I read on a daily basis – for when I’m feeling a bit haphazard by putting my trust into a little button and hoping to get back something worth its weight in Internet gold.

Quite frankly, if you’re sick and tired of riding off the coattails of recycled content we’ve all seen and heard before – give StumbleUpon a try and see if you can become a local hero in unique link sharing. ♠

Image Credit: StumbleUpon, StumbleUpon Mobile, stumbleupon.com

A review of Angels and Airwaves’ art house feature film “Love”, with commentary on plot, production design, and cinematography.

Described as “a multimedia experience”, this film is the accompaniment to the double-album entitled Love by Los Angeles alternative band Angels & Airwaves.

After losing contact with Earth, Astronaut Lee Miller becomes stranded in orbit alone aboard the International Space Station. As time passes and life support systems dwindle, Lee battles to maintain his sanity – and simply stay alive. His world is a claustrophobic and lonely existence, until he makes a strange discovery aboard the ship.” [Source]

I first viewed the [original] teaser trailer for Love almost two years ago and was instantly intrigued. Marketed with a beautiful display of imagery (and otherwise vague plot line), I had very high expectations going into the screening. I was also convinced that I would not be disappointed – given that the privately funded budget for the film was estimated at $500,000, most sets and props were hand-built, and that all principal photography took place in a backyard in San Diego, California. A pretty tall order for any film maker striving to carve out a “cinematic masterpiece”.

“What is that, Apollo 13?” No, but kind of, not really. While I can say that sitting through the 83-minutes of footage was nothing short of visual splendor, the story on the other hand suffers from lack of continuity, plot holes, and timid connections between Lee, the stranded ISS astronaut and his historical counterpart – an American Civil War captain from 1864. How’s that for a stretch?

Without diving into tremendous detail about the plot, what you need to know is this: Love begins and ends in two very different places, and its up to the viewer to interpret the core message behind everything that is presented on screen. It is a story that attempts to capture the importance of human connection, relative to the psychological effects of isolation. Director William Eubank – whose body of work includes Honda and Adidas – does a fantastic job of illustrating this concept, though the screenplay could have been retooled in one way or the other. Or, maybe this is exactly how the film is meant be perceived; ambiguous, contemplative. And if this isn’t enough to paint a picture, our friends at Wikipedia put it best with this awesome, yet accurate summary:

There’s a couple of different storylines…a guy gets sent up to the International Space Station, and he gets abandoned up there. He doesn’t know why. So throughout his years of being stuck up there, he sees the Earth starting to collapse below. He ends up basically becoming the last person alive. And then decades later, he wakes up one day and there’s something outside of his spaceship, in low Earth orbit with him.”

Levity aside, the first redeeming quality to Love is the cinematography. Clearly designed for 1080p lovers, the SFX will keep you questioning “wow, how much did they have to work with again?” The production quality is simply top notch, and the artistic vision for the film is met with high regard. There are a few recurring motifs that the director has chosen, and they are all tastefully executed. From the signature J.J. Abrams lens flare, to concentrated depth of field changes, all in perfect contrast ratio (of course). I applaud the attention to detail in every scene and hope to see more work of this caliber from Eubank & Co.

The second aspect worth mentioning is the score. Derived from their own body of work, Angels and Airwaves contribute instrumental versions of tracks from Love: Part I & Part 2. The background ambiance throughout the film is [to no surprise], meticulously crafted and well-integrated.

Love has received a number of accolades in the international film circuit, including twelve official selections and Best Director (Eubank) at the 2011 Athens International Film Festival.

“No band has really done this in a very long time. So we’re hoping that we catch some people off guard and we’re also hoping that we do something that is very credible as far its artistic acumen goes.”

- Tom DeLonge, Angels & Airwaves

After years of hype the intrigue and wonder is over, and whether or not this film’s message compels its audience to reflect on life and relationships, one thing is certain: it looks absolutely stunning in HD. (But if HD isn’t your thing, you can still check out the film in its entirety right below.) Enjoy! ♠

My Rating: 6.5/10

Image Credit: IMDb.com, angelsandairwaves.com

A short design study of the Ford brand and conceptual renderings of what its evolution could look like on paper, in production.

Under any normal circumstance, I wouldn’t have the desire to spend so much time writing about an automaker that bores me as much as Ford does. That is, until they caught my attention with the unveiling of the 2013 Ford Fusion at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit last week.

Slated to challenge the mid-size market, Ford claims that this all-new incarnation — albeit influenced by Aston Martin’s front fascia — marks a new era in design for models across the lineup:

Our vision for Fusion was clear…we brought our global teams together around a blank slate with the charge to develop a midsize car with groundbreaking design…this car is the result.”

- Derrick Kuzak,Group VP, Global Product Development, Ford

Ambitious? While Ford has been implementing major overhauls in hybrid engineering and user technology, one can only applaud the turn around this brand has experienced within the last decade. But where do they go from here? In its 108-year history, Ford has seen its ups and downs – and it’s absolutely no secret that our favorite acronym speaks more of the truth than it does myths: Found On Road Dead, Failure Of Research & Development, and for the super sensitive cry babies, For Only Retarded Drivers.

Formerly riddled with haunting comparisons to Hyundai and Kia (two automakers that now have the entire industry bending over and saying “I guess we were wrong”),  how does an automaker rise from the ashes of obscurity in innovation and equity? The answer is simple: build a car that is better in every conceivable way for your market. Oh, and if it looks great and gets 200 mi/gal., you may just have a winning combination. Ford has done an impeccable job at tightening the reigns over their product, but perhaps they are ready to make another stride.

It takes monumental things order to sway negative consumer opinion, and luckily Ford has gotten many things rights by addressing form and function. Additionally, a single groundbreaking, eye-candied model can set forth a new era in automotive design. But, I firmly believe that there is a point in which every company produces a product that surpasses its brand image, rendering it as a haphazard attempt at innovation and reinvention.

The 2013 Ford Fusion is that product. Agressive lines, LED taillights, laser-cut projector headlamps, active grille shutters, they’ve pulled out of all the stops – I was even shocked to hear The XX’s Intro, on the Fusion’s development website.

Now that this “baby Aston” has been unleashed upon the world, what happens now? Personally, there is something off about a mid-sized Ford that looks attractive and continues to sport the same nameplate (or maybe I’m just delusional). Comparisons have flooded the new Fusion from the moment it debuted on stage. Perhaps the industry as a whole is lacking in originality, or maybe it’s a larger issue – we just cannot accept Ford messing with our heads (in a good way). Amongst stiff competition, surely the designers saw an opportunity and I say it’s time to take it one step further – it’s time to modernize!

Starbucks, Audi, Walmart, Comedy Central, even the infamous Gap rebranding incident - are just a few big name brands that have been challenged with the test of time, and PR/marketing departments everywhere are investing millions into converting our favorite marques into our favorite marques with a modern twist.

Where to begin. The “blue oval” has suffered through a number of variations, and as cars become more appealing, the marque associated with it continues to plague the intrinsic value of owning one. Meanwhile, as Henry Ford begins to roll over in his grave as I attempt the task of modernizing the Ford brand, it’s important to note that the odds of this happening in a real-world global marketing strategy is absolutely laughable. But I intend to humor those laughs. 

Let’s examine what we all know and love-to-hate. “Ford”, is written in a custom hand-script and has only been altered slightly since 1912. It is currently embossed within a fixed multi-layered oval on a blue gradation. In terms of physical appearance on a vehicle, there are several limitations as to where and how this badging can be positioned on any given body design. However, the Ford logo has an immediate impression of “please free me” as the scale increases to push forth the Ford name, unfortunately the shape of the oval container must remain in proportion as well. There is only so much the eye can take. One solution would be to remove all containment, allowing the type of float freely. But, it is not by coincidental design that by doing this, we are effectively removing any leverage the “Ford” nameplate has to survive on its own when slapped onto the front or rear of a car. Bold and minimal has been the name of the game for decades, which lends to why nothing has been structurally changed in the last 100 years.

But what about history? Ford Motor Company retains the abbreviated “Ford”, versus “Ford Motor Co.” or even the ambiguous “FMC” for one reason: family legacy. In effect, any massive change to the marketing and presentation of the Ford name is in the company’s very last interest – although in a hypothetical world, if it was worth the investment and given the green light – how could they execute it?

Let’s zero in on the “F”[ord]. The exaggerated overshoot spans more than 50% of the remaining characters in the logo form, which I beg to ask: why the intended emphasis? Besides the cardinal rule of sentence casing, this has been a driving force to the legibility of the brand. The leading character is domineering and unmistakably unique, so why not make that the central focus of a rebrand initiative? Paying homage to this April Fools version I saw a few years back, this is not an entirely new concept – but instead of reinventing from the wheels up, let’s maintain at least one aspect of the original design, the script “F”.

It’s time to drop the “ord” from Ford.

I’ve created a few renderings that demonstrate how this rebranded logo could be applied to future vehicles. You be the judge. Some might suggest that a) the new integrated “F” placement interrupts the functional design of the active grille shutters, or b) the standalone marque looks pretty feminine. Sexism isn’t the issue here. It is quite remarkable that by isolating this character, the body design now has an implied sense of luxury and maturity – a la European sensibilities. (Keep in mind that Ford’s business model isn’t to sell luxury cars, that’s what Lincoln is for – although it has been in popular demand that consumers want luxury styling and features at affordable pricing).

 

1. Are consumers ready and willing to identify with a new, simplified Ford logo against its predecessor, even if it utilizes the same exact elements as before? (ie: T-Mobile dropping the “Mobile” and keeping the “T”, AT&T dropping the text and keeping the globe, etc.)
2. Is rebranding more detrimental than influential to Ford’s future success?
3. Do we (the non-Ford owning consumers) really want to see giant “F’s” on trucks and cars everywhere? Imagine the masculinity of an F-350 challenged by that script emblem. Oh, we can only dream.

It is anyones guess if Ford will ever pursue the [costly] idea of rebranding. As Japanese, German – and now Korean – manufacturers continue to push the envelope in design and engineering, modernizing may just be one avenue to keep a competitive edge.

Then again if all else fails, they could always use this idea for a dedicated line of premium models. Mustang owners everywhere have rejoiced. ♠

Image Credit: Ford Motor Company, ford.com