This may not be hot off the press, but it was news to me, so I'm passing it on to all my fellow caffeine freaks out there...
Here's the coffee science bit: the best cappuccinos can only be made in small sizes because it is impossible to froth large quantities of milk properly. To get the best quality cappuccino, you need to make it small.
Starbucks know their coffee - and their business. Small is not something they really want to do. They want us to buy larger drinks, so they do not list all the drinks they'll sell you on their menu.
If you ask your local barista for a "Short Cappuccino", they'll know what you mean and make you the better tasting 8oz. coffee, with properly frothed milk - and charge you a bit less into the bargain.
Go on - I dare you to ask! (I would, but I like my coffee too much to put milk in it...).
Check out Tim Harford's full article on Slate.com
Friday 13 July 2007
Monday 11 June 2007
Raced for Life
Yesterday, a friend and I ran the Cambridge Race for Life in aid of Cancer Research UK.
3 months ago of us were particularly good runners (especially me - I *hated* the idea of running, if I'm honest), but we badgered each other into some semi-regular training sessions, and surprised ourselves at how quickly we improved. We could only run for about 2 minutes at a time when we started.
On the day, we managed to run about 2 miles out of the three, and even kept some in reserve for a sprint finish (woohoo!), completing the course in 35 minutes. OK, so that doesn't make us Paula Radcliffe, but we were chuffed. I spent the rest of the day sleeping off my achievement on the sofa...
More importantly, I raised over £130 for Cancer Research, so thank you VERY much to everyone who sponsored me.
I have to admit, I actually really enjoyed it, and have been converted to the benefits of running, so I'll try to keep it up. Who knows, maybe I'll even run the whole thing next year.
3 months ago of us were particularly good runners (especially me - I *hated* the idea of running, if I'm honest), but we badgered each other into some semi-regular training sessions, and surprised ourselves at how quickly we improved. We could only run for about 2 minutes at a time when we started.
On the day, we managed to run about 2 miles out of the three, and even kept some in reserve for a sprint finish (woohoo!), completing the course in 35 minutes. OK, so that doesn't make us Paula Radcliffe, but we were chuffed. I spent the rest of the day sleeping off my achievement on the sofa...
More importantly, I raised over £130 for Cancer Research, so thank you VERY much to everyone who sponsored me.
I have to admit, I actually really enjoyed it, and have been converted to the benefits of running, so I'll try to keep it up. Who knows, maybe I'll even run the whole thing next year.
Wednesday 6 June 2007
“I have vomited better logos"
I have to admit that this blunt, heart-felt expression of disgust towards the London 2012 Olympic logo pretty much summed it up for me, too.
Let's face it, when presented with the options below (all except one having been designed by the public) and told to pick which you thought would be the next Olympic logo, how many of us would have picked correctly?
"Ugh!" was my first reaction on seeing this selection, before realising what I was looking at. "I don't think much to any of them - that orange one's hideous!". Then I realised I was looking at the "reader's entries" as it were, and not the official designs and my angst subsided. Enticed by the invitation to vote for my favourite, I clicked through the entries to examine them further. I was absolutely astounded to find that the hideous orange PowerPoint clip art effort WAS the official logo:
Still not having quite got over the shock, I stared in disbelief, trying to work out what it actually was. After a while I decided it was supposed to be England and maybe some of mainland Europe. Why Europe, I didn't know. Then all I could see was a pair of legs doing a jig. Turns out I was wrong, anyway.
Allegedly it reads "2012". Took me a while to see how, but I can just about make it out if I concentrate hard enough. I am reminded of the immortal words of Rolf Harris - "Can you tell what it is yet?". Actually, the whole thing bears a passing resemblance to Rolf Harris' work.
So why is this logo causing so much controversy? Well, maybe it's because the design is such a break from tradition of Olympic logo design, if there can be said to be one. As the readers' logo designs above reveal, there are some elements that when combined, automatically evoke "the Olympics" - a quick straw poll anywhere in the world would show we all recognise which amongst these examples is in sympathy with our perception of the Olympic brand, and which aren't. Designers are free to play around with these 'expected' elements, but to totally abandon them all leaves us feeling alienated and excluded from what should be a unifying experience.
A truly brilliant logo often possesses that extra something that makes you take a second glance, or reveals something new on its hundredth viewing - like that easily overlooked, but once discovered, never forgotten arrow in the FedEx logo (below). The 2012 logo does have an element of surprise; unfortunately, it's been too well hidden for most of us ever to spot it.
For my money, the London 2012 logo is a measurably poor piece of design because it completely fails to find the right visual language for the occasion. Form and colour are very evocative elements within a design. The bold, unsophisticated colour palette, the child-like script and primal, block-like shapes used here scream "brash" and, ultimately, "cheap ". No wonder such colours and design elements are usually reserved for fast food joints and comic books.
My point is that it doesn't take a designer to work this out. We all respond to visual cues in much the same way, and pick up on the emotional effects conveyed by them more subtly than we could ever articulate.
Look no further for evidence of this than the 3,500 visitor comments on the BBC Sport site. Everyone seems to be inferring similarly negative associations from it: "It looked like something a child had scribbled", " it appeared to be something split, broken apart, disengaged, disunited and separated", "It is vibrant, but it suggests ... vibrancy for its own sake", "Looks just like a window I recently kicked a ball through". In short, "What a mess!".
So if we've all spotted it, how come no-one on the client's team managed to pick up on these negative visual connotations and question the designers? I'm sure "disengaged", "disunited" and "messy" didn't feature on the creative brief.
Actually, I'm wondering what did make it into the brief? Thank goodness that there was someone at the launch to explain to us mere mortals what it was all about.
So to finish, here it is - your moment of Zen . Hope that clears it up for you.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel another Millennium Dome coming on ..?
Let's face it, when presented with the options below (all except one having been designed by the public) and told to pick which you thought would be the next Olympic logo, how many of us would have picked correctly?
"Ugh!" was my first reaction on seeing this selection, before realising what I was looking at. "I don't think much to any of them - that orange one's hideous!". Then I realised I was looking at the "reader's entries" as it were, and not the official designs and my angst subsided. Enticed by the invitation to vote for my favourite, I clicked through the entries to examine them further. I was absolutely astounded to find that the hideous orange PowerPoint clip art effort WAS the official logo:
Still not having quite got over the shock, I stared in disbelief, trying to work out what it actually was. After a while I decided it was supposed to be England and maybe some of mainland Europe. Why Europe, I didn't know. Then all I could see was a pair of legs doing a jig. Turns out I was wrong, anyway.
Allegedly it reads "2012". Took me a while to see how, but I can just about make it out if I concentrate hard enough. I am reminded of the immortal words of Rolf Harris - "Can you tell what it is yet?". Actually, the whole thing bears a passing resemblance to Rolf Harris' work.
So why is this logo causing so much controversy? Well, maybe it's because the design is such a break from tradition of Olympic logo design, if there can be said to be one. As the readers' logo designs above reveal, there are some elements that when combined, automatically evoke "the Olympics" - a quick straw poll anywhere in the world would show we all recognise which amongst these examples is in sympathy with our perception of the Olympic brand, and which aren't. Designers are free to play around with these 'expected' elements, but to totally abandon them all leaves us feeling alienated and excluded from what should be a unifying experience.
A truly brilliant logo often possesses that extra something that makes you take a second glance, or reveals something new on its hundredth viewing - like that easily overlooked, but once discovered, never forgotten arrow in the FedEx logo (below). The 2012 logo does have an element of surprise; unfortunately, it's been too well hidden for most of us ever to spot it.
For my money, the London 2012 logo is a measurably poor piece of design because it completely fails to find the right visual language for the occasion. Form and colour are very evocative elements within a design. The bold, unsophisticated colour palette, the child-like script and primal, block-like shapes used here scream "brash" and, ultimately, "cheap ". No wonder such colours and design elements are usually reserved for fast food joints and comic books.
My point is that it doesn't take a designer to work this out. We all respond to visual cues in much the same way, and pick up on the emotional effects conveyed by them more subtly than we could ever articulate.
Look no further for evidence of this than the 3,500 visitor comments on the BBC Sport site. Everyone seems to be inferring similarly negative associations from it: "It looked like something a child had scribbled", " it appeared to be something split, broken apart, disengaged, disunited and separated", "It is vibrant, but it suggests ... vibrancy for its own sake", "Looks just like a window I recently kicked a ball through". In short, "What a mess!".
So if we've all spotted it, how come no-one on the client's team managed to pick up on these negative visual connotations and question the designers? I'm sure "disengaged", "disunited" and "messy" didn't feature on the creative brief.
Actually, I'm wondering what did make it into the brief? Thank goodness that there was someone at the launch to explain to us mere mortals what it was all about.
So to finish, here it is - your moment of Zen . Hope that clears it up for you.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel another Millennium Dome coming on ..?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
