BlogmyQuery – BMQ

One of the advantages of having 2 billion people on the Internet is that every so often one of them sends you something for free. In this case, the kind people at Hopscotch sent me a couple of passes to a preview screening of Source Code. (And only briefly mentioned, in a passing, fleeting manner that I might -- if the right mood struck me -- want to blog about it)

When I sat down in the cinema last week to watch the movie, I was immediately on the back foot when trying to objectively assess it. For the past 6 months I've pretty much compared every movie I've seen to Inception and found them all wanting. It's certainly one of my favourite movies of the last 5 years. The reason it so affected my objectivity in this case is because Source Code has been labelled as "Inception, but better". Now that's pretty much sacrilege in my books, so I naturally wanted it to suck.

Although the two movies have some similar themes -- alternate realities, immersion in technology, subjective perceptions -- they are quite different films. For me, Inception felt like a brilliant idea that was taken to its furthest extreme, each scene taking you further down the rabbit hole. In Source Code I feel like a brilliant idea has been treated in a shallow manner. It's like Inception was a cult film that had been carefully crafted for mainstream appeal; whereas Source Code felt like a cult film that had been compromised for mainstream appeal.

Other comparisons that sprang to mind as I was watching Source Code included Groundhog Day and Quantum Leap (which got a cheeky nod in the movie via the inclusion of Scott Bakula as a voice actor), and there's definitely elements of Cyberpunk in there -- the digital environments of Neuromancer and Snowcrash spring to mind.

Aside from my bias towards Inception, there's also another admission I'll make that will get 50% of you readers offside. It is this: I didn't really like Moon. (The director -- Duncan Jones' -- previous film) The problem I have with Moon is the same one I have with Source Code, namely that it peaks too early. Key points of the plot are made aware to you halfway through the movie and from there on out it feels like you're just watching a tired story play out to its inevitable conclusion. Great idea. Poor structure.

My final conclusion on this film (based on my own experience and from observing others) is that if you liked Inception you'll probably like this less, and if you didn't like Inception then you'll probably like this more. Either way, it's still worth seeing, but depending on which camp you sit in you might want to save it for the couch.

See @replies visualised in realtime

Back on September 15, 2010, it was "R U OK?" Day. This is a national day of action which is designed to raise awareness of suicide by encouraging people to reach out and make contact with others by asking "Are you OK?"

We were commissioned by the R U OK? organisation to create a visualisation that highlighted the connections people were making throughout the day, and after a number of rounds of brainstorming (and budget cuts) we chose to highlight the connections that were being made over Twitter.

Because of fears about subject matter we weren't allowed to highlight content contained in any tweets, so to gather our data we performed a search for all tweets in Australia that are directed at someone (@replies), geocoded both ends of the conversation, recorded the timestamp of the message, and map this connection in time and space. For each location we also perform frequency analysis on the tweets and provide a tag cloud of the most used words (available if you hover over a city).

All of this is done in realtime, so you can see actual conversations as they are formed. Beyond the realtime aspect, we also give you two weeks worth of historical data so that you can see the rise and fall of activity throughout the day and across weeks. Each of these hourly periods also has a unique pattern of replies that crisscross the country, showing up when people from other cities strike up conversation with one another.

It's interesting to see the times of day when people are on Twitter the most, and also see the days of the week when activity is high. On the actual R U OK? Day we saw a dramatic (~2x) spike in @reply activity which we could hopefully attribute to the spread of R U OK? Day.

The Achilles heel of this visualisation, however, is the amount of processing that it has to do. Firstly, it fetches a search from the Twitter API several times a minute (you have to be careful to stay within the rate limits), then for each tweet it has to check whether the sender and receiver have location data, and if they do, geocode both locations.

Geocoding is an expensive operation and because I'm geocoding roughly 200 points a minute, we quickly fall afoul of hourly geocoding rate limits. To counteract this, I have it setup to try geocoding via Google Maps, and than fail over to Yahoo! once we hit the limit. Somewhere along the way I implemented caching of geocoding results and we now have a pretty handy database of geocoded strings.

The price for daisy chaining all these APIs is fragility. It's a lot of work to keep this system up, and as a result I'll be taking the whole thing offline in about a week. (Also, it's costing me a fair bit in App Engine hosting charges.)

Still, if you want to check it out, you can for now. Thereafter, I'll replace it with a video of what it once was.

Update 2011-04-19: I've replaced it with a video of what it once was.

See the in-browser opening titles

Another year and another great Web Directions. Of course, for me, Web Directions isn't complete without frantic late-night coding sessions in aid of completing a madly inspired conference-related project.

Last year I created the Web Directions 2010 opening titles in 3 days from start to finish. This year I gave myself a little more time but made it no less ambitious by expanding the production onto 2 screens; thereby requiring it to run on two laptops simultaneously. (And stay in sync!)

With the number of things that could fall over -- browsers crashing, projections being out of sync, people hating it -- my nerves were ringing right up until I hit "play". Luckily it came off without a hitch, and you can see the results in the video of the performance below. (Or if your computer's feeling adventurous you can check it out in your browser.)

See the neon-spinny-3D-globe experiment

The third dimension isn't my strong suit; I'm fine with pixels but not with voxels. To start combatting this I thought I'd have a play around with the 3D CSS transforms that are available in the latest Webkit browsers (Chrome & Safari; sorry Firefox!)

What I set out to achieve was a neon-spinny-globe thing and I pretty much got there. I even managed to throw some Max Headroom aesthetic into the mix.

This experiment comes as-is, with all sorts of browser exclusions (and is best viewed in Chrome), so don't bug me if it doesn't work for you. Otherwise, enjoy the neon spinnyness.

I'm a big fan of a black desktop. It's easy on the eyes and icons are highly visible. But you have to have a dash of colour to add personality, so it's a fine balance between style and stark.

A few years ago, when I was heavily into Processing I wrote a program that dynamically generated spacey looking spectrum wallpapers, with the aim of offering it to the public so that 6 billion people could each have their own unique desktop wallpaper. Didn't work out. (But I used one of its outputs as my own wallpaper for the last 4 years).

A bout of recent procrastination made me realise that I hadn't changed my wallpaper in far too long and this time instead of breaking open some code I headed to Illustrator to make some jaunty little geometrics.

Now, I've got a new wallpaper and you can have one too! I'm calling it Space Frames and you can download it by clicking on the image below. Bon appetit!