Categories
Review Websites

Omegle.com: What’s Old Is New Again

logo I’m actually a little surprised that the podcast/nerd-media hasn’t jumped on top of this site yet. Omegle.com is 100% anonymous, 100% random one-on-one instant messaging service – the brainchild of 18-yr old “Lief K-Brooks” (if that’s really his name). The site presents you with a simple IRC-like chat window that connects you with a random stranger. You are not allowed to assign yourself a witty username and you are not given any identifying information about the strange at all. You are identified as “You” and they are identified as “Stranger.” It is a truly anonymous conversation.

I spent a few hours this week trolling random strangers, just to see how this type of conversation could possibly work. I was surprised to find myself getting a major feeling of deja vu. Omegle reminds me a lot of my early days on the internet in the late 90s. It reminds of random conversations on ICQ before spam bots forced me to lock down my profile; or IRC conversations. Even though you technically had to identify yourself with at least a nickname or email address; back in those days social networks really didn’t exist and ever major search engines weren’t that great. A search for someone’s nickname or email address was not likely to turn up any results.

On to the review:
A lot of the strangers I bumped into were outright trolls. I’d say a good 70-80% of the people on there are teenage boys (in spirit) trying really hard to offend random strangers, with stupid ASCII art, gross-out links, stupid phrases/memes, request to “cyber,” random gibberish, the usual. It’s worth mentioning that there are no reporting mechanisms, you cannot flag or ban a user – that, after all, would make the service seem less anonymous. It’s the perfect breeding ground for trolls.

The interface makes it easy enough to shutdown a conversation and start a new random chat. So despite the rampent troll population, I found it possible to have a normal/serious/civilized converation. The key seemed to be to start the conversation by saying something to the affect of “please be normal.” It was when I had these (few and far between) “normal” conversations that the deja vu really set in. I had conversations about the weather, what I ate for lunch, the strange customs of far away lands, faux debates about religion, politics, websites…I got the feeling that I’d had every one of those conversations 10 years ago.

What was old is new again.

It’s hard to say whether the site is going anywhere, or if it’s creator even wants more out of it. In it’s current state, it’s nothing more than a moderately amusing time wastes. But I thought the same thing about twitter when it first launch.

Categories
Review Websites

Facebook Does It Again

I feel compelled to comment on the new Facebook layout. Based on status updates, I was one of the last people on my friends list to receive the new layout. Every single one of their status updates were negative, all of my Facebook friends universally hated the new layout. It seems like that last redesign only came out a 3 or 4 months ago, I wonder if this might been partially responsible for the backlash. It’s human nature to hate change.

I must say, when I first saw the screenshots of the new layout posted on the official Facebook blog a few weeks ago I was rather optimistic. The FB crew seemed to be embracing the new “real-time” web that’s become popular with the rise of Twitter. I really like the way that all your friends’ updates just appear in one big long list. It’s a major improvement over the old “news feed” which was entirely broken! There would be times when I’d see a “story” 2 times on the same day, or the story would appear one day, then re-appear the next for no apparent reason. It was frustrating.

I haven’t run across it yet, but I imagine they the real-time feed could easily become incredibly busy and equally unusable. The filters along the left-hand side should help to alleviate this problem. But it’s possible that at certain times of the day, for heavy users, there is going to be too much junk to weed through.

I’m really not sure how I feel about the overal design itself. They left the header and (floating) footer alone. Those two elements have have always been the least useful, most confusing elements of the site (like why does the “Inbox” drop down menu have a link to “view message inbox” that takes you to the same place as clicking “inbox” – baffling!). It’s lacking something I can’t quite put my finger on. It’s empty and busy at the same time, if that’s possible.

Categories
Review Websites

Canadian Policty Party Websites Report Card

With the looming Canadian federal election, I thought I’d take a look at the federal party websites. I’ll be rating them on 5 characteristics, on a 5 point scale:

  • Design: How much I like the look and feel.
  • User Interface: How well does the site layout work
  • Candidate Info: How good is the info on the candidate in my riding. 
  • Web 2.0: How well are they pimping themselves on the social networks, are they including a lot of media, etc. 
  • Ease of contributing: Online donations have been a major part of the current US Presidential election. I took a quick look at their contribution processes to see if there were any obvious problems. I didn’t actually donate.

 

NDP – 92%

  • Design: 5. My favorite site. Nice and tidy, good use of orange. Cute icons.
  • UI: 4.5. The index page is really well organized. The drop down menus are a little redundant, since most of them only contain 1 elements. The use of flash on the for the candidate finder is unfortunate that page should really be accessible to everyone.
  • Candidate Info: 4.5. The bio is a little sparse.
  • Web2.0: 4. Twitter, facebook. Their site looks the most web 2.0.
  • Donation: 5. The most straightforward process of them all.

 

Conservatives – 90%

  • Design: 4. Decent overall. Some weird layout and graphic choices. 
  • UI: 4.5. Dropdown menus are familiar, nice series of quicklinks on the right nav. 
  • Candidate Info: 4.5. Has everything I could want except for his mailing address.
  • Web2.0: 5. They’re on the ball, flickr account, friend feed, twitter, myspace, facebook. And all their ads are online. 
  • Contributions: 4.5. Giant donation buttons everywhere. They’re already required to collect a lot of info already, they could have at least made it a one step process. 

 

Green – 76%

  • Design: 4. Pretty good. Albeit a little uninspired and sloppy. Probably designed by a volunteer.
  • UI: 4.5. Bonus marks for using a drilldown information structure and NOT using dropdown menus.
  • Candidate Info: 4. Long Bio. No mailing address.
  • Web2.0: 2.5. They have blogs and a youtube channel.
  • Contributions: 4. Nice and easy.

 

Liberal – 52%

  • Design: 3.5. Simple. Just a little too simple. Too much white. 
  • UI: 3. Use of flash on the index for something that could’ve been easily done in javascript was a bad choice. Other than that, it’s pretty run of the mill. 
  • Candidate Info: 0! No picture! No personal contact info! No permalink. Unacceptable. 
  • Web2.0: 3.5. Facebook, youtube, some video and pictures. Seems like an afterthought. 
  • Contributions: 3. The page is quite cluttered and a little confusing. The page contains elements outside of the secured site, causing a certificate error that will probably scare of some potential contributors. 

 

Bloc Québécois – 47.5%

  • Design: 2.5. Looks like puke, but it could be worse.
  • UI: 3. Mediocre. 
  • Candidate Info: N/A. They only run candidates in Quebec.
  • Web2.0: 1. They have a “blogue” I guess that’s worth something.
  • Contributions: 3. The online form is only available in french (isn’t that against some law?!). It appears to be pretty straightforward.

 

Libertarian – 23%

  • Design: 0. My 7 month old son could design a better site. 
  • UI: 3. It’s oldschool, but effective.
  • Candidate Info: N/A. None in my riding.
  • Web2.0: 0.5. They have a forum *shrug*.
  • Contributions: N/A. I think they’re still too small to be accepting donations on a large scale. 

 
There you have it, if you want to vote based on my opinion of the party’s website, you’ll have to vote NDP.
I took a look at the rest of the minor parties for any standouts. The Canadian Action Party has a surprisingly good website. The West Block Party‘s site is easily the worst, it has an under construction diggerman.

Categories
Review Websites

Podcaster.fm: the best iphone podcatcher

Podcaster.fm is a iphone optimized website that aggregates a tonne of popular podcasts, so you don’t have to. Basically, it gives you a very iPhone friendly interface for finding and listening to podcasts.

A common complaint of cranky geeks everywhere, is the iPhone’s inability to sync with iTunes over the air. With podcaster.fm – as long as I’m planning on staying in 3G range – I don’t think I’ll ever worry about syncing my podcasts again. We’ll see.

The first time I used the site I accidentally discovered that when you load an mp3 file directly from a website iPhone’s version of quicktime actually continues to run in the background! I’m not sure if it’s a bug or a feature, but I like it!

The only thing I don’t like about the website is the interface. Switching between pages is really quirky. I don’t know exactly how to describe it… it’s kind of like the destination page loads twice. The navigation itself could be improved somewhat, it’s 4 or 5 taps to find and play a podcast, that’s 2 taps too many.

Categories
Websites

Digg Launches Firefox 3 Toolbar

This might actually get me using digg again. We’ll see.
Install link here.


Digg Firefox 3 Extension from Kevin Rose on Vimeo.