SwedFont

Sweden just got its own font! The typeface Sweden Sans was created by the advertising agency Söderhavet, along with Stefan Hatt Bach, as part of efforts to create a common visual identity abroad. The typeface is a pure sans serif with some details that make the font unique.

The font is to be used for official purposes to represent Sweden abroad. It is also to be used in official statements and gathering at home in Sweden, as well as in Sweden's official website launched in early November. Söderhavet was recently interview for Swedish online magazine Cap & Design.

"We wanted to make your own font when it comes to Sweden's visual identity, and to avoid the rights and ownerships of others, and partly because many countries have long worked with custom fonts and been strong in the market, and we have not been there in Sweden yet" says Jesper Robinell , design director at Söderhavet.

"Scandinavia 's known for its simple design when it comes to, for example furniture, and we took inspiration from that." Stefan fills in.

During the creation of the font there was much discussion about the specifics of the work. Stefan and Jesper had long email conversations about the font shape, such as discussed lowercase r, but after emailing back and forth the r was cut short with each email, and consequently changed.

It is not until recently that companies and organizations have begun to create their own fonts, but according to Jesper this is becoming a major trend. This is possibly an explosion of new fonts on the market, however if it beats out the traditional Absolut Vodka font remains to see.

Facebook Indecisive on Violent Content

It all started in May of this year when Facebook users found a video uploaded to the social network, depicting an actual beheading. A temporary ban on graphic content was then imposed in May following complaints regarding a huge number offensive materials. Facebook also removed the reported videos and said it was reviewing its policy on this type of graphic content.

Recently the company started to relax its stance. Last week Facebook announced that they will allow violent content such as beheading to be published, provided the intent is to raise awareness rather than celebrate violence. As an example, a graphic video of a woman's beheading that sparked outrage this spring was originally removed from Facebook under the May ban. This video was then allowed to return to the site as the ban was lifted.

As one may expect, this turn of events did not sit right with the public. The change in policy, first reported by the BBC, drew a wave of protest from Facebook users and others on Twitter, and Facebook was forced to again revise it. 

In a statement Facebook talked about how the site welcomes people sharing their experiences and promoting awareness of world issues. This they say sometimes means that graphic videos or content is shared which highlight subjects pertaining to human rights violations or terrorism.

A spokesperson for Facebook said it will allow users to post violent videos that appear to condemn the actions depicted. "If the video were being celebrated, or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different," a spokesperson told CNNMoney.

This means that Facebook is are not really sure themselves how to react to this. A very recent video depicts a man beating his two daughters with an electrical wire as punishment for them twerking. To my knowledge, this video is still live, however to Facebooks defense, most of the comments concerning this are negative. The up-loader has yet to comment on this which to me indicates that he is not taking a stand against it. 

Facebook is right (in theory anyhow) not to play the judge on whats right and wrong, whats inhumane and whats graphical information. I do think that a inappropriate flag needs to be installed, something that clearly indicates for the user that the material is graphic and should be viewed with caution. If it still turns out to be just sadistic, then please go ahead and remove it. 

X-stagram

In a funny twist of the geekier kind the first teaser for the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past was released yesterday. But before you start searching YouTube just yet, there is a twist to this; the video is (as of yet anyhow) still only available on Instagram. Close to 6 700 people have so far liked it, and it is spreading like wild fire.

Now why would 20th Century Fox decide to do this? My theory is as follows; more and more users today are accessing the Internet through mobile devices, actually is is pretty close to matching the regular desktop connections. With the young audience this is definitely true, where the smart phone is currently their number one source for Internet access.

Realizing this, 20th Century Fox looked at the different apps out there for making videos viral and found Instagram spearheading this specific task, something that is spot on. While YouTube do have an app, it is not nearly as simple or intuitive as Instagram when it comes to spreading and making videos viral.

The trailer will most likely make it on to YouTube and other video sharing sites soon (eat it Vine), but for now the only way to enjoy this teaser is on Instagram. Like it, share it, love it!

Google Misogyny?

A recent campaign by UN Women, has caused some controversy on the web. The campaign depicts women gagged by the Google auto-complete function, which then suggests what "women should ...". The results that the auto-complete function suggests are not really the results you would want women to do nor get subjected to. 

What the UN wanted to show with this campaign is that there still is a lot of misogynistic ideas circulating the web, and draw attention to this. However, this campaign has also raised the question; what blame is Google to carry in this debate?

To debunk this we first have to come clear concerning what the auto-complete function really does, and to do so we first need to understand how the search function is set up. Google's search does actually not return the most accurate answer, but rather the most popular one, in short the most frequently visited answer.

There is a lot more to this, but handling Google search parameters is a different story, so for now we will have to simplify this process and just set it as the most popular one. 

The effect this has on the auto-complete function is that it will also display the most commonly used search terms that starts with a specific search parameter; "women should ...". As a result of this programming method, if a large number of people search for "women should obey men" this will automatically yield a high position in the auto-complete function.
On a personal note: I use Google to find answers to questions, and in these examples above it seems to me that the asker already has the answer set. This is not as much a question as it is a statement. 

So, how much blame does Google have in this? While it is true that Google has developed a function for censoring this feature (searching for "bitch ..." will not yield any auto-complete suggestions) one cannot really blame them for what the users search for, and therefor how the system will continually be built up. If users, en mass, started searching for "women should be independent" then that would yield a totally different result. This may seem like a fruitless endeavor but it is worth noting since it underlines the fact that the system is built for the user, and the user also, to some extent, dictates how it is being used. 

Personally, I think this is a case of missed screening on Google's part. Everyday more than 5 billion searches are done using Google, and to demand Google to police all of them is asking to much. However, one must also ask oneself; is that really the way we want the system to work? 

I think what has happened here is a perfect example of the system actually working the way it is suppose to work. Google provides the tool for us to botanize an almost infinite amount of knowledge, and we, as the users, will then help Google to point out when this knowledge is flawed - or, as in this case, out right deprecatory. Google will then review the claim, and possibly remove or censor the input. 

Right now we just have to see how Google reacts to this information provided by the UN. Hopefully (most likely, anything else would be brand-suicide) they will censor these ill informed auto-complete suggestion. 

Ball is in your court Google, lets us see that you still want to play fair!

note: to read up more on this story I recommend this post by Jessica Lee. As always please let me know what you think in the comments below!

Mining the Bitcoin Innovation

There has been a lot of talk concerning Bitcoins lately. Nobody seems to know really what they are, whether they can be used as real payment, and why (in the case the latter is true) my local grocery stores still don't accept them. Perhaps the most pressing issue is how this even can be legal, since it for all intents and purposes are money being made in your own basement.

Inshort Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer digital currency that is not issued by a central authority. The concept was introduced in a 2008 paper by a pseudonymous developer known only as "Satoshi Nakamoto". Who he really is has not yet been unearthed.

In 2012, The Economist reasoned that Bitcoin has been popular due to "its role in dodgy online markets," and in 2013 the FBI shut down one such market, Silk Road, which allowed the sale of illegal drugs for Bitcoins. So far, seizing the funds have come at no or little success, since the FBI apparently just dont have the knowledge of how to seize electronic currency.

Bitcoins are increasingly also used as payment for legitimate products and services. Notable vendors include Wordpress, OkCupid, Reddit, and Chinese Internet giant Baidu.

The creation of Bitcoins are done by so called "miners". These are computers engaged in the upkeep of the Bitcoin transaction system. However, new Bitcoins are created at an ever-decreasing rate, and once this reaches zero, the number of Bitcoins will remain static. At this point the sole incentive for miners will be the transaction fees.

So why is this important? Well, at the current moment, judging by the rate of transactions and production, the Bitcoin will overtake the USD in amounts used by 2069. That is, by 2069 more people will be trading in BitCoins than in USD. In June of 2013 a single Bitcoin was worth approximately $128.

Still confused concerning Bitcoins? Luckily the Bitcoin community recently released a video explaining the whole situation. Watch and enjoy the birth of possibly the next gen currency.

Tablets taking over

In just a few short years the tablet has become a hugely popular second screen of choice for 33% of American adults, and while it may not be an essential item, its affordability means that it is within reach of an increasing number of users. New research from YuMe shows how we use our tablets and it's no surprise to see that a third of of us devote an hour a day to them, with the minimum of distraction. As for video consumption, 100% of those tablet users surveyed confirmed that they watch videos at home, 66% watch videos on holiday, 22% watch videos while commuting or at work and 13% will watch video content while out drinking or dining.

.

Apps in the Mornings

What do you do first in the morning? Take a shower, go for a jog or brew coffee? Chances are, you have your getting-ready ritual down to a science.

You wake up, you have a coffee, you turn to your smartphone to check emails, weather and Facebook updates. 84 percent of smartphone owners surveyed by app tester SOASTA admitted to using at least one app first thing in the morning.

Are you popular? Do you think?

You're the least popular among your gang on friends. You are, its true, it has even been proven.

Don’t believe it? Consider this: the average Facebook user has 245 friends, but the average friend on Facebook has 359 friends. That’s right. The average person on Facebook has fewer friends than their friends do, a phenomenon commonly known as the “Friendship Paradox”. It may be seem to odd to be true, but it is - for nearly everyone.

The friendship paradox as a phenomenon was first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991. One way to think about this is to remember when you first joined Facebook. When you first created a profile, you started out with 0 friends. The quickest way to get friends was to add people who were already on Facebook. And since these people were already using Facebook, they already had a huge lead in friend count. And each time you added a friend, those people got to increase their friend count too! So clearly, it’s not that hard to see why your friends would have more friends than you when you first joined.

Of course, as you invite more friends and make contacts you can certainly overtake people in the friend count. The friendship paradox is not about the time you joined. It’s about this: on average, you will tend to add friends of people who are popular because it’s a social game. This is not a complete explanation but it should give you the idea of why this happens. And in the end, the average Facebook user ends up having fewer friends than their friends do.

Now lets do a practical example: Imagine that A and B are friends, B is friends with everyone, C is friends with B and D, and D is friends with B and C. A has just 1 friend, B has 3 friends, C and D each has 2 friends. Now we will count the friends of friends. A is friends with B who has 3 friends. B is friends with everyone, which makes for 5 friends of friends. Similarly we will find C and D each has 5 friends of friends. If we do some quick calculations we find that the average person A has 2 friends but the average friend of A has 2.25 friends. This is the friendship paradox!

A good example of this is Twitter; users on Twitter in general follow more people than they have followers them selves. This is because people are more likely to follow those who are popular than those who are not.

Thus, over 98% of Twitter users are subject to the friendship paradox. Or are just not popular. Either or. 

Auction House closed by Gamers

Some time back i wrote about the troubles Blizzard were having with their virtual auction house tied in to their hit game Diablo 3. Back then the issue they were having was with prices sky-rocketing, players paying real-world money only to be drastically disappointing by the exchange rate in virtual gold, and suspicions brewing about evil, gold controlling oligopolies controlling the entire auction house (read the entire post here).

Now it seems the last straw finally broke the camels backs, and the auction house is being shut down. In a official statement, released on Blizzards Diablo 3 blog John Hight had this to say:

When we initially designed and implemented the auction houses, the driving goal was to provide a convenient and secure system for trades. But as we've mentioned on different occasions, it became increasingly clear that despite the benefits of the AH system and the fact that many players around the world use it, it ultimately undermines Diablo's core game play: kill monsters to get cool loot.

Everything is going to be shut down by March 18, 2014. While I think it is true that the auction house has taken away a lot from the core mechanic of the game, it cannot be understated that it was also a test product for Blizzard. With this I don't in any way mean that it wasn't finished, rather that Blizzard had an idea and wanted to test it out. 

The auction house has not broken in its system, but perhaps in the way it was implemented. It was way to easy for the market run amok, and a real hyper-inflation was created, something that naturally caused a huge backlash against the auction house and against Blizzard. I think Blizzard knows this, and will take this information back and reflect upon it for further releases down the line. However, I am confident this is not the last time we see the auction house. 

The main point of this story however is that Blizzard truly listened to the outcries of the community and corrected what many Diablo-players apparently saw as a fault in the game. Blizzard implemented something, the users tested it an didn't want it, and Blizzard subsequently rolled it back. Not many companies have the willingness to admit fault in this way, and Blizzard should have a great deal of credit for really listening to its gamers!

Login of Choice

It is almost universal now that we will be on a site wanting to comment on something and we are given the chance to login using our Facebook accounts. This avoids the need for creating a whole new account on this new website with all your details already stored. Well, many of us take that route and of course other social media sites have caught on and started to offer the same service.

Now that everyone else is in on the act Facebook is starting to lose its dominance as the Login site of choice with a very noticeable shift in the past year. Around this time last year Facebook accounted for 54% of the Login With activity, but just 12 months on that stat has dropped to 45%. This is a drop of almost 10% and it would appear that Google+ is the main site breathing down Facebook’s neck.

Google+ is the 2nd most popular site for Logging in with at 33% of the overall share at present. It would appear that Google+ picked up the vast majority of the 9% shift. However indicators do show that Google+ has stagnated a little over the past 3 months in terms of growth.

MaMaMarketing

A rapidly growing interest group among technology and social media today are women in the ages 30 and up. The next big thing within online marketing is (most likely according to trends) going to be an explosion within the older age groups (65+) using social media, and as a smaller introduction to this we are know seeing moms gathering their info online. 

Mom’s top two priorities are her relationship with her child and the quality of communications with her child. She values technology because it helps her with both of these priorities. Marketing strategies need to engage with the benefits mom gets from using technology (the benefits), rather than focusing exclusively on the features (the attributes) of the products.

Technology enables Mom in two ways:

1. It helps her communicate with her child, caregivers and significant others. As we all know, today’s technology allows for communicating in more ways than have been possible in the past—Skype, texting, Facebook, FaceTime, etc. Many moms feel that technology has allowed their family life to be as close or closer than their families were when they grew up themselves.
2. It helps her accomplish tasks more effectively, and makes her life easier. The iPhone’s turn-by-turn directions is a good example of this convenience, so Mom doesn’t have to locate directions before leaving her house.

Many moms also believe it is important for them to stay on top of technologies, both to communicate with their children in the way that is most effective, and as a tool to juggle their busy lives. Moms today are highly wired, using mobile and smart phones with texting and e-mail to communicate real-time information with their children and other caregiving adults. These technologies help moms navigate complicated family calendars with working parents, divorced parents, blended families and myriad extracurricular activities.

Marketing strategists need to keep in mind that Mom is tech-savvy, but she doesn’t necessarily care as much about tech specs or latest release schedules. She cares how technology can make life easier, improve communication quality and bring her family closer together.

goutube+

Like YouTube? Got Google+? If the answer to those questions is yes and no respectively then you have a slight problem. You see, the thing is that until recently, although it was convenient to have both a Google+ and YouTube account that are connected, it was not mandatory. However, now thanks to the new commenting system on YouTube you will now need a Google+ account.

Since its creation back in 2011 the social media arm of Google, Google+ has been steadily consolidating itself as vital to use other company products. It began when Google+ became essential to possess a Gmail account, then it unified Gchat with the social media site. Now obviously there are plenty of other E-mail providers out there and a whole host of messengers so there’s no big deal, you have options. However, how many other video sharing services match up to YouTube? Answer is simple, folks, let’s be honest there are none comparable. So, because you now will need a Google+ account to comment on YouTube videos you really have no other choice. You can of course still watch the videos but you just can’t have your say without a G+ account to do so from.

I have to say it’s a little bit unfair, but what the hell, you don’t have to actually use Google+, just sign up for an account. I have had mine for ages and really don’t use it for anything at all. It’s a small price to pay when you consider it to retain the ability to comment on YouTube videos. Remember, though, if you’re a complete jerkface, your comments will now be forced down the lists.