Words « Black Marks on Wood Pulp / by Corey Vilhauer

Category: Words

Boolean: a rambled definition

December 2nd, 2010

After finishing Peter Morville’s Search Patterns, I hopped online to search for the word “Boolean,” which I think is such a phenomenal word, and discovered that it’s saddled with one of the most boring etymologies: the “create a word from the creator’s last name” origin.

Specifically, “Boolean” comes from its creator, George Boole, an English dude who, according to Wikipedia, was a sporadically published mathematician who (unbeknownst to him) just so happened to help create the field of computer science and, in death, appeared in a stained glass window at Lincoln Cathedral.

In fact, Wikipedia has several entries for Boolean, most of which I quickly became bored with. I’m more interested in how Boolean affects search – the AND/OR/NOT functions that expand and/or contract search results – and how Boolean standards have become almost second nature.

We now assume, without thinking, that double quotes mean “exact match,” a space means “AND,” and a negative sign (-) means “NOT.” The only literal Boolean phrase we use anymore is “OR.” We’ve replaced words with symbols, which is fascinating, but even more so is the fact that we have replaced one word (AND) with NOTHING AT ALL – just whitespace.

The whole mess led me to discovering two new words (NAND and XOR) and finding clarification for a third (NOR), for which I am thankful. It also led me to wish I had never made the search in the first place, as it will take me more time to learn than I am willing to invest.

I know this, though: Boolean – what a great word.

Plain writing: why stop with tax forms?

October 26th, 2010

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 was signed by the President just a few weeks ago. It’s goal: “To enhance citizen access to Government information and services by establishing that Government documents issued to the public must be written clearly.”

In other words, our tax returns will use the same language that we use in our everyday lives, free from governmental and legal platitudes. What a concept.

Understanding that over-technical and legal-ridden verbiage is harmful to both simplicity and comprehension, and armed with governmental action on behalf of the Plain Writing movement, shouldn’t we take a cue from this new law?

Shouldn’t we, within our power, enact our own version of this act?

The Plain and Practical Mission Statement Act.

The Understandable Utility Contract Act.

The Explaining Physics Act.

The Frequently Asked Questions that Actually Answer Frequently Asked Questions Act.

The Cut Pretentiousness From Your “About Us” Section Act.

The Filling Out Health Insurance Forms Without Screaming Act.

If we write, we’re culpable. We’re the ones who can push this change even further, until we’ve stripped away the clutter and cleave the bond between “Important” and “Overwritten.”

So it is written.

Comments: 3

Issues Considered: Politics, Words, Writing

Your mission? Keep it to yourself.

October 6th, 2010

“…And we’d like to put our mission statement on the home page.”

No.

No, you wouldn’t.

Your mission statement is for you. It’s for your board of directors, your senior vice presidents, your employees, your partners, your backers. It’s for your company, and your company alone.

Your mission is not for your customers. Your mission is not for your customers because your goal IS NOT TO GET YOUR CUSTOMERS TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU.

I don’t hate mission statements. I’ve written them. I believe in a few. I understand their place in corporate culture.

A mission statement is a framework for a company’s spirit. It’s a line or two upon which a company can balance new endeavors. Some of those new endeavors won’t stick, and that’s the point – a mission statement helps filter out the ideas that are off-brand and unnecessary. A mission statement rallies your employees and drives internal brainstorming and carves out a niche.

It’s a statement of future work.

For the most part, your audience doesn’t want methods and statements. They want answers. How will this product/service/widget affect them?

Your mission statement is not for your packaging. It’s not for your brochures and it sure as hell isn’t for your Web site.

It’s for you.

Don’t throw it on the backs of your audience.

Comments: 2

Issues Considered: Annoyances, Content Strategy, Marketing, Words

A quick note on children’s brands

August 15th, 2010

Proper spellings of children’s brands that I’ve encountered today.

Play-doh
Crayola
Fisher-Price
MB Games

Outside of Crayola, I’d have spelled every one of these wrong. The last is the most surprising to me. Not Milton Bradley, which was a staple of my childhood, but MB Games. Flip the box over, and you’ll see a link to Hasbro.com. A quick Wikipedia search confirms that Milton Bradley was taken over by Hasbro.

In 1984.

My peanut butter is in my chocolate and all of that, right?

In other spelling foibles, Fisher-Price has a hyphen. I had no idea. Also, I swore Play-doh was spelled without the “y.” Funny – I’m convinced it’s spelled EVEN MORE wrong than it actually is.

This is all without mentioning the brand-less watercolors I wiped up yesterday.

Searching for a new SearchTest

June 29th, 2010

With search testing comes the need for original, unrelated words.

The goal, of course, is to make sure a Web site’s search function works. You throw unrelated words in, of course, so you can search for them. And while the standard “SearchTest” will bring up a series of specifically coded pages, that word is boring.

A total yawnfest, you guys. And predictable, which, apparently, my former ad agency self won’t allow.

So I apparently go for the angular. A recent set of test search words: “Waldo.” “Kraken.” “Yeti.” “Kilroy’s Revenge.” Sharp corners. Weird combinations.

Look at that. It’s like a Styx album threw up on your computer, right? I contend it could be part of a new phonetic alphabet.

Either way, I’m not far away from assigning search terms to the more memorable Final Fantasy elementals, or John Tenta wrestling aliases, and when I get to that point I fear I’ll have gone too far. Please keep me in your thoughts.

Comments: 1

Issues Considered: Career, Words

Killing hyperbole: or, a lesson learned from the “Lebacle” overreaction

May 12th, 2010

Last night, Lebron James had a bad game.

One bad game. Against a very good team. In a pressure-filled playoff atmosphere.

And, from the sound of it, the world is coming to an end.

Henry Abbott expertly covers the “sky is falling” aspect of this one bad game in a recent post on his blog, TrueHoop:

The “LeBacle” may soon prove to have been one of the darkest moments in Cleveland’s miserable sports history.

But please, spare us the assertion that after one bad night we know James has always had a permanent flaw. It’s just absurd, and amazingly some of it’s coming from the faithful in Cleveland. Twitter, Internet comments, my e-mail inbox, Facebook, all are loaded to the gills with talk that he’s doomed to mediocrity, psychologically deficient or was intentionally tanking.

As if those 69 playoff contests and 548 regular-season games were the aberration, and this one horrible night was the truth. As if the guy who scored 25 straight against the Pistons in a similar situation needs a lecture, from Twitter, on embracing the challenge.

Somebody should make a big list of all those people who think they now know James is a doomed player, and we’ll revisit in a decade.

He’s talking about basketball writers. But there’s a tone to this that reaches across all subjects, one that draws a sharp line showing the difference between writing WITH passion and writing FROM passion.

The first is all about embracing what you do and attacking it with gusto: cherishing each word, taking your shoes off and splashing around in the subject matter, laughing and waving your arms, delirious with happiness because – damn it – you love this.

The second is allowing the moment to cloud your judgment, letting hyperbole set in, overreacting and ACTING THE FOOL, as the more street-worthy performers might say.

The first leads to emotional prose. The second leads to 24-hour news channel hype.

We’re all guilty of the second.

Admitting we’re guilty helps us focus on the first, by identifying our own overreaction and acting accordingly. With grace. With all sides measured. Without filtering common sense in search of a sensational stance.

Comments: 1

Issues Considered: Basketball, Boston Celtics, Soccer, Words, Writing

Web sites need scripts, too

April 7th, 2010

It’s old (well, SIX MONTHS old, which is, like, a BILLION YEARS in Web time) but I stumbled across a great quote from the illustrious Karen McGrane that sort of sums up why I’m so goofy excited about the idea of words – and other content – getting some real mainstream attention on the Web (and why I’m so surprised it hasn’t happened sooner).

“We’ve spent the last 5-10 years on the web just figuring out how to build a printing press….great…now, look at any other great media property and what goes into making that great media property. The same thing has to happen online.”

-Karen McGrane, speaking at Atlanta Showcase, September 2009

And upon reading that, I remembered my own thought – something that came to light in MY OWN HEAD. It’s one thing to say “let’s do this, because it’s obvious you guys,” but, let’s face it, there are still a lot of people – people in a position of budget allocation – who don’t get why we need to worry about Web words and content.

In other words, when put into a position where we’re forced to explain the importance of content strategy to a Web client who just doesn’t “get it,” we need to develop real world examples and comparisons that resonate with a traditional marketing mindset.

Because these people probably aren’t Web people. They’re marketing people. They’ve taken a class, you know, and they’ve been raised on television and print and direct mail and why do they need a Web content strategy when all the words they could possibly require are already on this brochure that their niece designed seven years ago.

Put it in their terms.

Compare it to television.

Every Web site is like a major television commercial shoot. There’s a director who drives production – the programmer – and there’s a videographer who can make everything look beautiful – the designer. And on equal level, there’s the writer who penned the script and set the initial mood.

This script writer? That’s your content strategy team.

Would you spend $100,000 – or even $1,000! – on a television commercial, but skip the script?

Of course not.

So why do it with a Web site?

And suddenly, things begin getting a little clearer.

—

(McGrane quote via Leen Jones, who is also illustrious when it comes to that content strategy biz-ness.)