Blue Mouse Monkey Blog

Audit sketch of an existing website

All websites require planning—that’s so true it’s almost a tautology. But some websites require more planning than others. Blue Mouse Monkey is enjoying an influx of opportunities to overhaul large complex websites, and I’ve been in super-planning mode the last couple of weeks.

As Steve Jobs says, design is often mistakenly ascribed to how something looks, but it’s really about how it works. It’s my job as a web designer to integrate the “how it looks” and the “how it works” according to many factors. There are several useful terms to describe this type of thinking, such as information architecture, interaction design, user experience design, and website architecture.

Historically the term “information architect” is attributed to Richard Saul Wurman, who saw it as the “creating of systemic, structural, and orderly principles to make something work”.

INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE is the categorization of information into a coherent structure, preferably one that the most people can understand quickly, if not inherently.

Understanding how a typical user will experience a decision a website asks them to make (e.g. click on link ‘X’ to access information ‘Y’) takes empathy. It’s the ability to put oneself in the user’s shoes — the user being someone who isn’t nearly as familiar with the website’s content or purpose as my client or I are.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

INTERACTION DESIGN attempts to improve the usability and experience of the product, by first researching and understanding certain users’ needs and then designing to meet and exceed them.

The first conversation I have with clients is always begins with, “Who are your audiences, and what do you ideally want them to do on your site?”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

USER EXPERIENCE DESIGN most frequently defines a sequence of interactions between a user (individual person) and a system, virtual or physical, designed to meet or support user needs and goals, primarily, while also satisfying systems requirements and organizational objectives.
Typical outputs include:

• Site Audit (usability study of existing assets)
• Flows and Navigation Maps
• User stories or Scenarios
• Persona (Fictitious users to act out the scenarios)
• Site Maps and Content Inventory
• Wireframes (screen blueprints or storyboards)
• Prototypes (For interactive or in-the-mind simulation)
• Written specifications (describing the behavior or design)
• Graphic mockups (Precise visual of the expected end result)

When I plan a website I do all these things, except the Persona one, because that’s more applicable to game design. However, we bring in a focus group to give feedback on nearly-completed websites, so in a sense we have real users acting out the experience of the site.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

WEBSITE ARCHITECTURE is an approach to the design and planning of websites which, like architecture itself, involves technical, aesthetic and functional criteria. As in traditional architecture, the focus is properly on the user and on user requirements. This requires particular attention to web content, a business plan, usability, interaction design, information architecture and web design. For effective search engine optimization it is necessary to have an appreciation of how a single website relates to the World Wide Web.

Since web content planning, design and management come within the scope of design methods, the traditional vitruvian aims of commodity, firmness and delight can guide the architecture of websites, as they do physical architecture and other design disciplines. Website architecture is coming within the scope of aesthetics and critical theory and this trend may accelerate with the advent of the semantic web and web 2.0. Both ideas emphasise the structural aspects of information. Structuralism is an approach to knowledge which has influenced a number of academic disciplines including aesthetics, critical theory and postmodernism. Web 2.0, because it involves user-generated content, directs the website architect’s attention to the structural aspects of information.

Then there’s the issue of users with different levels of familiarity with the Web. Unlike printed forms of communication such as books, newspapers, magazines and brochures, the Web is not something the majority of the population grew up with. Kids today are “digital natives“, but there are plenty of us still around who are “digital immigrants”.

An analogy is our knowledge of The Book. We all know how to read a book, so much so we barely register it as a type of knowledge. We understand the heirarchy of cover, title, table of contents, parts, chapters, appendices, index. We don’t have to consciously remember where to begin, or in what order to experience the content, because we learned that stuff on our mother’s knee. Well, maybe not appendices and indices, but by the time we’re reading those kinds of books, we have a solid framework to slot those categories into. But the Web? We’ve had to learn that as adults. And it’s so new it’s barely been standardized. No wonder many people find websites (and computers in general) frustrating. Humankind has been tossed into a new way of organizing and accessing information, and our brains, accustomed to one method, have had to adapt to another. Not unlike like the Mediaeval monk who has to be taught how to transition from scrolls to a bound book in this comedy sketch.

Not that I’m complaining. Much like how the invention of the printing press led to the spread of liberalism, the Internet communications revolution challenges many traditional structures of knowledge and information by removing gatekeepers to access and expression.

Time for me to get back planning more website architecture. There’s information to organize!

It’s a cliche that the solo business owner does everything because they have to do everything. What also goes with that territory is our difficulty with letting go of that. The thought of delegating causes more anxiety than the reality of being overworked — or so it seems. When it’s your baby, and you’re used to doing things your way, and all your systems and structures are organized idiosyncratically, it does seem hard to let someone in, even if it’s to help.

Now I’ve worked with subcontractors for years, and I even share an office with developer Jimmy Thomas of Acts of Good, for we do most of our projects together. But it became clear during 2009 that if I didn’t make changes, I was looking at a lifetime of switching gears between strategizing for clients, creating brands, taking care of all aspects of design, updating legacy client sites (the ones built before I was using content management systems), handling inquiries, facilitating team meetings, managing projects from soup to nuts, networking, and keeping on top of administrative tasks like scheduling, planning, bookkeeping, budgeting, invoicing, updating the business plan, talking with lawyers, CPAs, and so on.

So I should hire some help, right? Unfortunately, it wasn’t that simple. For starters, help with what? I do a million different things—which several hundred thousand would the help help with? “Get a junior designer” was the frequently offered advice. But it’s my design sensibilities that make Blue Mouse Monkey’s work unique. And besides, the design is the funnest part. How sad would that be to give it up.

What I needed help with was the administrative tasks. So it became a matter of figuring out which parts of my workload I could “peel off” and give to someone else. Preferably someone who is better at them than I. Then designing a job description around that, then designing a want-ad around that, then designing interview questions, then posting the ad…
…Craigslist. Part-time. No benefits. The only draw was a non-standard workplace, seeing as we’re creative types and all…
…165 applications. I read every single one. I filled out a matrix that assigned scores of 1-5 to several criteria for each applicant, plus I wrote notes. Then I averaged out the scores, telling myself I’d revisit all the ‘4’s and ‘5’s. There were a dozen or so complete duds, but there were also so many ‘5’s I had to cut some of those out in the first round. Then I interviewed the remaining ‘5’s. Seventeen in all. Jimmy participated, even though this wasn’t his hire, he’d be sharing space and projects with whomever I chose. Plus, it was good to have his company while a parade of talent passed through our office.

Part of me was thrilled that so many over-qualified people were interested. But another part of me was heartbroken to see so much smarts and creativity and talent so dreadfully unemployed. Brilliant resumes that ended in 2008 or 2009. One woman who wrote me an apologetic email after firing off an angry one (I had rejected her in the first round) had me in tears. There is no reason why good people who have done all the “right” things should be set adrift so cruelly by an economic system that doesn’t give a rat’s ass about them and considers them nothing but a “human resource.” It’s unfair, and undignified. This is not the way it should be, I kept thinking. This is not the way it should be.

But, it’s the way it is, and I had to keep going through the process. And it’s true I was grateful that “too many to choose from” was my biggest problem.

For the second round of interviews I got it down to five applicants. The “final five” I called them. Every one of them was excellent. As I said to Jimmy, “I’ll hire them all, and we’ll take over the world!” But the budget was for one, and part-time at that. So after the second round of interviews I spent a weekend in agony, going back and forth, considering every variable I could.

Funnily enough, after considering all the variables, I offered the job to the person who I had instinctively thought “This is the one” right after her interview. I kept trying to ignore that instinctive response, telling myself that I should take all the variables into consideration. But after that weekend of agonizing, Shelise Gieseke really was the one, and I offered her the job the following week. She is settling in to her role as Studio Manager and I remain thrilled to have her at Blue Mouse Monkey.

Oddly, Shelise doesn’t come from a design background. I say oddly, because many design industry folks applied. Shelise’s background includes communications and being a legal assistant, so I knew she’d be great at client care and staying on top of detailed tasks. But what distinguished her in the end was a combination of good humor, critical thinking skills, and an interest in social justice issues. Shelise splits her time with Adoption Mosaic, a local non-profit that provides information and resources to address the unique needs of the adoption community, particularly around international adoptions. Shelise is a Korean adoptee and she is interested in the way society shapes the adoptee experience through language. I didn’t know much about international adoption until I met Shelise, but apparently the complexities and risks are numerous.

I’m not adopted, international or otherwise, but I am an ex-pat who didn’t live in her native country till the age of 10, then spent a total of only 13 years there. Perhaps it’s the “outsider’s edge” that I can relate to, the faint background hum of being “not from here”. And the knowledge that there is nowhere in the world where that hum would fall completely silent.

But this isn’t a problem, because it’s the edge that give us outsiders a inbuilt appreciation of cultural relativity, great observation skills, awareness of the shaping powers of culture, and makes us take extra care with communications. All excellent skills for brand creators and web designers!

It keeps us nimble and resourceful, too, for navigating the ups and downs of entrepreneurship.

My name is Julia, and I’m a recovering solopreneuraholic.

2009 was a particularly busy year at Blue Mouse Monkey. It was all I could do to focus on my clients and make sure the work got done and on time. One of the casualties of remaining in reactive mode for so long was the Blue Mouse Monkey Occasional Newsletter.

But it wasn’t just busyness that caused the newsletter’s downfall. Last spring my database got big enough that it was time to move to an actual newsletter system. I tried one that was opt-in only. It sounded fine at the time, but it turned out to be really easy for people to miss the crucial step of clicking on the ‘opt-in’ link inside the invitation email. I got a lot of “Yes, sign me up!” replies instead. Seeing as it was an opt-in only system, I wasn’t able to oblige. Plus there were the messages that straggled into my inbox about finding the invitation in trash folders. Then there were the folks who clicked on the ‘opt-in’ link only to find it didn’t work.

All up, it was a fiasco. And I was too busy to figure out a solution.

Compounding the confusion was a disassociation between my mailing list and my address book. As in, they barely matched. Then there was the new list of people who HAD successfully subscribed to the opt-in system. So I had folks in my address book who hadn’t been invited to opt-in, the folks on my mailing list who had chosen to opt in, the folks who did not choose to opt in (a pox on them, but, whatever), and the folks on that same mailing list who would have chosen to opt-in if 1. they’d known about it, and/or 2. they followed the right steps, and/or 3. it worked when they did.

What’s a busy business owner to do?

Okay, it’s my fault for not starting with a clean database. I lack the ruthless tracking gene. It used to be if I obtained an address it would go into my mailing list. Or address book. Or both. Or neither. Database? More like datamess.

So I’ve learned my lesson and I now consistently hoard those little ‘@’ symbols like potatoes. No, I don’t really hoard potatoes, but they are round and storable and provide nourishment over the long term.

Anyhow, my point is it’s a whole year later and I’m starting a new mailing list! It will even have pictures!. But don’t worry, it will still come out about 3 times a year. I loathe being bombarded with e-newsletters, and I think I am not alone in that sentiment. But Blue Mouse Monkey makes extraordinary websites for extraordinary people, and it would be a shame not to showcase our clients and let others know the wonderful work they’re doing in the world.

   

With apologies to Thomas Cole

It probably doesn’t look like much from the outside, but it’s been a turbulent few months at Blue Mouse Monkey. So much has happened that my processing power got all taken up, and regular activities such as blogging got neglected. But now I’m able to stand back and review the changes from a little distance. This is the first in a series of entries about Blue Mouse Monkey’s recent evolution!

But first, some history: Since 2001 Blue Mouse Monkey grew successful making portfolio websites for creative professionals, such as musicians, visual artists, architects, jewelers, writers, and others. Those who know me know I’m not one to boast, but I must acknowledge that my educational, creative, and academic backgrounds enable a particular level of interpretation and sensitivity when it comes to presenting a fellow-creative’s work in the interactive space of the Web.

You see I didn’t come out of design school. Sure, I took plenty of digital multimedia courses to learn the technical side of web design, but what I bring to bear on every project is something no design course will teach you: A lifetime commitment to art, which includes a BFA, MFA, a career in galleries, and 15 years experience teaching in colleges in Auckland and Portland. Then there’s the BA in philosophy and linguistics, which gave me a grounding in the history of ideas, and was a unique enough combination with the art qualifications that it led me to design and teach a great deal of hybrid studio/liberal arts curriculum during my teaching career. It also means there’s a rich set of connections underpinning everything I do, along with a strong right-brain/left-brain integration.

But, as those who know me know, I’ve also had a long-standing interest in social justice. There are so many people doing such great work in non-profits, NGOs, and in the public sector, and I’ve been looking for ways for Blue Mouse Monkey to partner with them in their efforts.

In 2008 we were fortunate to be asked to create the Community Health Priorities website, whose mission is to engage Oregonians to weigh in on what it means to live in a healthy (or unhealthy) community. With an eye to the social determinants of public health, the site encourages Oregonians to participate in surveys, share feedback, read news, peruse resources, take action, and apply for grants. The opinions and other data that the site gathers helps the Northwest Health Foundation fund “upstream” solutions, develop policies, and do advocacy work.

As David Rebanal, Program Officer at the Northwest Health Foundation said, “Blue Mouse Monkey was instrumental in helping us achieve our goal of engaging Oregonians to articulate a vision of a healthier life for everyone. The CHP site has become a forum for intelligent discussion, and a trusted resource for the public and policy makers alike. Plus the data we get from the site helps us communicate public health priorities to policy makers.”

Then in 2009 we were asked to completely overhaul the Northwest Health Foundation’s main website, and it’s been an honor to continue working with those fine folks and help them do their good work even more effectively.

After these inspiring experiences I wanted to expand Blue Mouse Monkey’s range to include more organizations and groups working to create positive change in the world. At the same time, it was clear that we should continue working with creative professionals, for they do positive work, too. So after thinking about it for an hour or two or three hundred, I rewrote the Blue Mouse Monkey tagline: Ingenious websites for changemakers and cultural innovators. Ingenious because our websites are “characterized by…originality of invention or construction”, and are “cleverly inventive or resourceful”. And changemakers and cultural innovators because that’s where it all goes down.

I’ve also been getting more involved in the non-profit and civic sectors, both in the arts and social justice, by participating in Mackenzie River Gathering Foundation, City Club of Portland, and the Sustainable Business Network, and by sponsoring the Creative Advocacy Network, Illahee Lecture Series, and Orlo — just to name a few.

It’s been a great journey so far, and Blue Mouse Monkey is now partnering with some wonderful non-profits in 2010. Watch this space for a gaggle (Flock? Clutch? Slew?) of new websites to roll out during the year!

“What a stinker,” my friend said as we exited the theater, and I was relieved to know it wasn’t just orneriness or hormones that had turned me against Avatar. My friends and I spent the rest of  evening critiquing the film, but then the next day I opened my laptop to rave reviews. Were we the only three people in the world who found Avatar insulting? Apparently not, and I have gradually become aware of others out there who didn’t become instant Avatarphiles. Despite how gorgeous it is. But more about those other critics later.

Yes, it’s gorgeous. A technical and aesthetic marvel. The plants, the blue indigenous people, the textures, the colors, the light, the planet hanging in the sky of the moon Pandora. Sumptuous. Seamless. No pixel left unedited.

It’s been called “revolutionary.” I assume this adjective refers solely to the digital effects, because if we’re talking plot, memes, politics, or history, it’s not even close.

Ostensibly, the film’s message is anti-imperialist and anti-corporate. The army boss is the epitome of the ugly American invader, and the corporate boss is the epitome of the ugly American capitalist. They are clearly “baddies”: uninformed, insensitive, greedy to win. Their attitude evokes the Bush administration, even down to their use of phrases like “preemptive strike”. One dimensional characters, to be sure, but I get it that they stand for something bigger.

Ostensibly there is a “conversion”. The jarhead (Jake Sully) who is sent to infiltrate the indigenous people, comes to love and respect them. (He also happens to be a “wounded healer” - a new age cliché if ever there was one). Okay. Love and respect are good things.

Ostensibly the indigenous folks drive out the invaders. Now that’s a message I can get behind.

Except that it is undermined in so many ways.

That evening when my friends and I picked Avatar apart, I kept thinking about how it could have been soooo much better. For instance, imagine an Avatar in which it’s not a foreigner jarhead who unites the indigenous people and saves the day, because the indigenous people have the wherewithal to save themselves! Or, to be even more revolutionary, they save the stupid invaders and ALL of them “go native”. And imagine if they solved the problem of their invaders not through Massive Violence, but through cunning. Or playful trickery. Or even diplomacy!

And imagine an Avatar in which the hero doesn’t automatically get the girl. She was, after all, betrothed before her tribe and her god to another, and when she and jarhead hook up it’s really a massive violation when you think about it. Which sorta matters, because folks get mad for a bit, but they don’t have time to be permanently mad or banish her or anything, because they need the violator to save them from ones like himself. Even her formerly-betrothed conveniently comes around after about three minutes of speechifying by the jarhead, and the formerly-betrothed even obediently agrees to translate the jarhead’s further speechifying for the masses. Which struck me as odd because the jarhead by then had managed to pick up the language quite well, I thought.

The formerly-betrothed conveniently dies during the Massive Violence, as does his father, the chief. This leaves a power vacuum into which the jarhead will naturally step. And the indigenous people are down with that because they are in awe of him because he rode the red dragon. And up till then nobody had ridden the red dragon. So he is automatically awesomer than any of them. Even though he had to learn dragon-riding from them. And even tho’ he boinked the chief’s daughter. (Or maybe because — ?)

Which brings me to the dragon-riding. Which starts out with dragon-subduing, because those beasties do NOT want to be subdued and ridden, thank you very much. Like my friend said, it looked a lot like rape. This is how it works:

1. to prove your manhood, you have to subdue and ride a dragon.
2. you and the guys approach the dragon hangout.
3. the guys tell you to go in among the dragons and find the one that will become “yours”. As in “you choose it and it chooses you”. Mutual choosing. Very nice, okay. So you ask how you’ll know when one chooses you? “It will try to kill you,” you’re told. Not so nice after all, but here goes…
4. You go into the dragon hangout. The dragons are pissed. Some leave. One stays and tries to kill you. In a violent struggle you mount it and connect your hair filigree stuff to its hair filigree stuff. A jolt runs through you both, and there’s a glazed look, a grunt. The dragon falls quiet. You feel triumphant and you whisper, “You’re mine now.” to the dragon.
5. The guys, who have been watching, are proud of you. Even the one who is betrothed to the woman you’ll eventually steal from him is grudgingly proud. (Funny how he was right to be suspicious of you all along.) The guys tell you to fly the dragon. “The first flight seals the bond.”
6. You take flight. Awkwardly at first until you realize the dragon is relying on you to control it with your thoughts.
7. Then you and the dragon are flying around gloriously. Awesome. Who doesn’t want to fly a dragon by controlling it with their thoughts? (Well, maybe me, but I’m just generally scared of big animals.)

Now this dragon will be there for you whenever you need it. It’s yours. (Except when you ride the other dragon, the big red dragon - which makes me wonder, did the jarhead’s chosen dragon feel hurt when he abandoned it for the bigger, nastier one? So much for the lifetime bond…)

Anyhow, my point is that considering how beautifully connected the indigenous people are with every living thing around them, couldn’t James Cameron have come up with a way to get them flying dragons without all the struggle, dominance and subjection? Me, I’m tired of that shit. It is so time we moved on.

So why have a jarhead infiltrate a tribe, go native, then save them, anyhow? Avatar is a textbook example of what Robert Jewett and John Shelton Lawrence call the American Monomyth, a variation on the classical monomyth as proposed by Joseph Campbell.
Jewett and Lawrence define the American monomyth as:

A community in a harmonious paradise is threatened by evil; normal institutions fail to contend with this threat; a selfless superhero emerges to renounce temptations and carry out the redemptive task; aided by fate, his decisive victory restores the community to its paradisiacal condition; the superhero then recedes into obscurity.

Except jarhead hardly renounced temptations: he bagged the betrothed girl. But enough about that. Oh wait, I did want to say something more about that. About the indigenous bodies in general. The indigenous people were quite animal-like in some ways. They’d drop to all fours, hiss and spit, leap from branch to branch. But interestingly, they weren’t animal-like in any ways that might make the audience feel uncomfortable.

For instance, they had prehensile tails. Did they ever use them? No. That would make them too monkey-like. But if you watch animals with prehensile tails, they use them all the time, like a fifth limb. And the sex. When jarhead and betrothed-girl hook up it’s all tender and slow and gentle. Very human, actually. But I wish they did it more like bonobos - that would have been funny. Oh and what’s with the bits of necklace artfully stuck to betrothed-girl’s boobs no matter how much she moved? A la Brooke Shields in The Blue Lagoon, thanks to wardrobe tape there was glorious natural wild nakedness, but not really. Those noble savages have to seem decent, after all. No bouncy bits, please.

And as for the ending. Nice! The bad invaders slink away with their tails between their legs! (Wait, no, they’re not the ones with the tails.) But anyway, all chagrined, the human survivors of the Massive Violence get back on their space ship under the watchful eye of the indigenous people and the few humans who went native and gave up their human bodies for the tall blue bodies. They happen to be brandishing machine guns to make sure the bad humans don’t retaliate again. Peaceful living-in-harmony-with-nature beings still gotta have machine guns, JIC.

But there’s a 500 pound gorilla in this ending. The unobtanium. It’s still there. Under the destroyed home tree. As if the humans won’t be back for it, this time with massive firepower and reinforcements and the taste of vengeance in their throats. Because during the whole course of this movie, NOTHING REALLY CHANGED. NO ONE LEARNED A THING. HISTORY WILL REPEAT ITSELF, and the blue people will be toast when the humans get back. A few leftover machineguns and some fast obedient dragons will be no match for whatever weaponry the humans will unleash.

James Cameron, if you’re such a genius, surely you’re smarter than this?

How much more spectacular it would have been to take us to the fabulous moon Pandora, let us dwell among the fantastic flora and fauna till we fell in love with it, have our expectations of the inhabitants delightfully, inspiringly raised above the level of humdrum response of violent revenge, and watch them solve a massive problem, with multiple stakeholders with conflicting desires, in an ingeniously non-violent way. You could still do it with tension, danger, and excitement. It needn’t be Pollyannaish or preachy. It could be thrilling, with plot twists, shifting alliances, and surprises. It could still be truly entertaining. But, you fell back on the American Monomyth.

Is there software for that? Like you open up a template and do a find-and-replace so all the ‘hero’s become ‘Jake Sully’? And where it says ‘Rise Up In Revenge Speech’ it gives you ten lines to write it because there’s a time limit to what audiences will tolerate?

Making that film must have been enormously challenging. Hard, you could say. It must have been a hard film to make. But how hard would it have been to make it conceptually so much better? You already solved all the technical and aesthetic problems: a better plot should have been relatively easy. All you need for that is a pencil, some paper, and the will to be truly revolutionary.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What others say:

New Zealand blogger Tom Goulter’s series called The Week Of Trying To Say Anything In The Least Bit Interesting About Avatar.

Avatar…spends two hours talking about how beautiful it is to be peaceful and in tune with nature and what-all and then has a final hour in which the killing of people is fetishistically rendered up for our delectation even as elegiac choral music plays to provide the token suggestion that said killing might be a bad thing.

NYT Columnist David Brooks’ piece, The Messiah Complex,

[Avatar] rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace. It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration.

From British blogger Jon Brown’s 1000 Tiny Things I Hate

If there’s one thing we can be absolutely sure of the day we finally “make contact” it’s that the extraterrestrial civilisation we encounter will have developed its own uniquely shitty brand of world music.

Ever wondered what it would look like if you took a Mandelbrot set and made it 3D? Me neither, actually (see next paragraph about ugly-colored fractal art). However, apparently it’s harder than it sounds (to someone like me who knows little about such things.) Anyhow, Daniel White, David Makin, and some other mathematicians came up with a way to do it, and the result is a set of stunning images, some of which I’ll post here to whet your appetite, but more can be seen at Mandelbulb: The Unravelling of the Real 3D Mandelbrot Fractal. (Scroll down to get past the mathy stuff).

Besides their 3D magicality, these images are compelling to me as an artist because they’re colored so beautifully. Most ‘Fractal Art’ is made unattractive to this painter’s eye because of the garish, unsubtle colors applied to it. No offense, fractal mathematicians out there, and I respect your mad skills in math, but your sense of color tends to be gauche, unsophisticated, heavy-handed, inelegant…okay, I’ll stop. But these Mandelbulbs are different. They’re gorgeous. I want to climb inside these places and explore!

Images credit: Daniel White. Click thumbnails to view full size.

I’m telling myself that it’s art. Or could be, at a higher resolution. Whatever way you look at it, I spent the evening making these images using effects you can add to Mac’s Photo Booth application. Some of them are downright creepy. How to here. Thanks to Jimmy Thomas for the tip — and the one at the bottom is us at work today through the ‘compound eye’ effect. The rest are using the ‘kaleidoscope’ effect.

starteeth

chins

mouth quatrefoil

sauron's eyes

fingerstar

she who watches

chewie

pucker up

mouth quatrefoil 2

fingertip flower

gum wrapper blue

Gladly the cross-eyed bear

magic pink pen

inner glow

Julia and Jimmy

Check out this amazing stop-motion animation from the New Zealand Book Council.

(The Kiwi classic featured in the video, Maurice Gee’s 1993 “Going West,” hasn’t been published in the United States.)