This last week I had the opportunity to experiment with and compare two JavaScript libraries/frameworks, jQuery and Prototype. I’m familiar with Prototype (and the Prototype/ Scriptacolous combo) - I used it for projects in the past - but jQuery was new to me. I was looking for a library/framework to add some spice to my personal website, ryanpeterson.net.

Both offer great features and are simply outstanding. I enjoy how Prototype feels more like an extension of JavaScript. Any developer with JavaScript experience would probably - at least initially - have an easier time learning the Prototype/Scriptacolous combo than jQuery.

But I get the impression when playing with jQuery that it may be a bit more revolutionary, mature, and powerful. jQuery is inspired by Prototype - its author, John Resig, gives credit for this inspiration at jQuery.com - and has the advantage of building upon the ideas of Prototype. jQuery also has outstanding documentation.

But Prototype (and the Prototype/Scriptacolous combo) is older - and having been baked into Ruby-On-Rails - has received considerable attention. This has given it a large community.

For ryanpeterson.net I decided to use Prototype/Scriptacolous, for now at least. Its effects libraries had one key feature I needed, so I decided to go with it. I’ll be keeping a close eye on jQuery, however. I’m super excited about its potential and may switch to it at any time…

Edward Tufte has been a great leader in the field of data visualization. His ability to break down the complicated into the simple visual messages has been his trademark for years. Tufte’s two greatest examples of the benefit of data visualization (in my opinion) has been his work on describing the events of the Challenger disaster before lift-off and his work on visualizing Napoleon’s march to Moscow.

To learn more about Edward Tufte, visit his website.

Lately, my favorite podcasts are increasingly utilizing commercials to subsidize their expenses and maybe earn a bit of cash. While I’m 100% behind this, I’ve been increasingly frustrated with podcasters lack of audience understanding.

Podcast listeners are different from radio listeners in the following ways:

1. We listen on our own time, when it is convenient for us.
2. We are usually listening on our iPod, with headphones on.
3. We have the ability to fast forward commercials.

On of my favorite podcasts is the Daily Search Cast, and they are a great example of how not to implement podcast advertising.

1. The opening 1:45 of the show is loud, car dealership-ish commercials. Topically, I might listen to them if only the audio levels didn’t blast out my eardrums.
2. There is no interim commercials to interject a brief 10-15 second commercial.
3. The end of the show is followed by more commercials. Once the show is over, why should I continue to listen.

Now, let’s look at This Week in Tech (TWiT). TWiT does the best job at inserting advertising into the podcast.

1. In the opener they casually mention the advertiser.
2. During the show they mention the advertiser(s) again.
3. They end the show with a brief commercial which I may listen to.

The bottom line, commercials shouldn’t be more then 10-15 seconds. Be sensitive to audio levels, we are wearing headphones or earbuds. Randomly place the commercials throughout the podcast, mix it up a bit.

Hopefully podcasters begin integrating commercials in a more listener-friendly way.

Can you quantitfy your creativity? The people over at CREAX seem to think so. They offer a 40 minute self-test to determine your level of creativity. It took me less then 10 minutes to complete and I feel it was fairly accurate to my understanding of my own creativity.

But here is the question. Can a test objectivitly detemine creativity just from 40 questions?

http://www.creax.com/csa/

At one time or another most Interactive Agencies are asked to provide comps prior to signing a proposal, usually during the client’s evaluation period. For those unfamiliar, comp work relates to any tangible deliverables you are willing to show the client prior to receiving a signature. In this case I’m referring specifically to design and creatives.

Advertising agencies make their money from media buys, and the creatives used to wow potential clients are part of the prospecting process. Ad agencies will place hundreds of hours into creatives with the hopes the prospective client likes their idea. This process does not translate to interactive work.

In our industry, money is made by delivering the resulting work, creative or code. To offer up creatives to a potential client without receiving payment first ultimately devalues the creative process.