After posting my thoughts on Google Docs versus Word, I got caught up wondering how many other players were in the game.

Richard MacManus put together a great rundown that shows there is more to the world of document creation than Google and Microsoft. Digging through his article and following some of links, I found that some folks are liking specific apps from some of the lesser-known players more than the comprehensive suite offered by Google. Right there is power of brand, eh?

Clearly I aligned myself with the Google tribe, and by doing so went straight to their offerings in whole. So I’m basically no different than the folks I chided for aligning with Word simply because it’s the biggest and most familiar—also brand power. Well, what’s different is that my brand of choice happens to be innovating in ways that appear more forward-thinking.

The website best-practices watchdogs at A List Apart published an interesting article on the improvements of HTML 5, discussing new controls, structure, and a host of other changes. As explained by author Lachlan Hunt:

“To give authors more flexibility and interoperability, and enable more interactive and exciting websites and applications, HTML 5 introduces and enhances a wide range of features including form controls, APIs, multimedia, structure, and semantics.”

But really, this is just a description of a draft. Work on HTML 5 actually began about three years ago, and even though it may start being used within the next few years, it probably won’t be complete for another 15 years! That’s right—a decade and a half. That’s an absolute eternity for an “upgrade,” especially in an industry that is basically in a constant state of accelerated evolution.

Work on HTML 5 is being carried out as a joint effort from many key players, the W3C HTML WG, the WHATWG, and representatives from the four major browser vendors: Apple, Mozilla, Opera, and Microsoft.

I’m all for advancements in HTML, but I can’t help but think there are bigger problems that this high-powered group could be tackling. Instead of giving us new markup for structuring, such as header and footer tags, how about focusing on standards compliance, rendering differences, and overall cross-browser incompatibilities? Truth is, Web developers aren’t being held back by HTML 4. They are being held back because of Internet Explorer; Microsoft doesn’t follow any rules and renders differently from all other browsers.

Even though we’ve seen many improvements in IE7, IE6 is still the browser of choice by over 60% of the population, including all major federal agencies. Like the article states, Web developers “seeking new techniques to provide enhanced functionality are being held back by the constraints of the language and browsers.”

These problems, however, are not in the structuring and layout of the HTML code. They’re on scripting and styling (JavaScript and CSS), and the incompatibility of old and new browsers.

If this group really wants to produce something new that will “give authors more flexibility and interoperability, and enable more interactive and exciting websites and applications,” they should throw out this draft, force Microsoft to play by the rules, and figure out how to get users up-to-speed on what’s current.

Everyone’s favorite humpback has a new handle, and Greenpeace has thanked us all for falling for the name hook, line, and sinker (badda-bing).

(Here’s a recap if you missed the initial story.)

Now they’re calling for us to show as much support protecting the big guy as we did naming him. Again, a tip of the captain’s cap to Greenpeace for surfing, rather than fighting, the overwhelming community sentiment.

Why is it that folks simply don’t know about Google Docs?

Last night my wife was grinding away at a school project, specifically a collaboratively written 37-page paper. Sounds like a blast, eh? As the deadline loomed she and her two collaborators were taking turns frantically making edits and then emailing the doc to the others for their turns in order. So while one person was working, the other two sat idle. In other words, at any given time, roughly 36 of the 37 pages were not being touched, and two-thirds of the brain power were checking their email every 30 seconds. That’s crazy talk! Enter Google Docs. It might still technically be in beta, but Wes dug up some sweet stats on its soaring popularity.

Money quotes from blogger Becky Blitzenhofer:

Lately, I seem to be getting more invites to view a Google document (rather than a Word document). I guess I’m not surprised though. It has been just over a year since Google Docs and Spreadsheets was officially released, and it has been just under a year since Microsoft released Office 2007. As many know, Office 2007 includes a whole new interface that is unfamiliar, and potentially frustrating, to the veteran Office user.

Google Docs and Spreadsheets are free and easy to use. In addition, they offer online sharing and collaboration, which is becoming a complete necessity in today’s workplace. The more people share links to their documents, the more people will be exposed to Google Docs and Spreadsheets. Google doesn’t have to do much, as Docs and Spreadsheets are viral by nature and should continue to spread. Google can move on to saving the world (such as with this project), while users continue to spread the news about a possible alternative to Office 2007.

Check the charts. There were roughly 200,000 unique visitors in October 2006 and over 1.4 million a year later. Nice jump indeed, but compared to computer users overall (or even just Microsoft Office users), that number isn’t much.

Google Docs is to documents what content management systems are to websites. What? That analogy isn’t razor sharp and crystal clear? I just like to insert “content management system” into everything I write these days.

What I mean is that in the old days of 2005, most organizations had to shepherd any and all website changes through the almighty webmaster. If two revisions showed up at once, one request sat idle while the first revision was made. Now we have content management system websites that allow multiple layperson contributors to edit multiple pages at will.

Further that, the editing takes place on a Web server, so you’re never without your latest content or development tools, like Dreamweaver. If you can hit the website, you can edit the content. That’s how Google Docs works. The documents live on a Google Web server, so if you have Internet access you can get your doc. No more, “Oh crap, I left the Fitzbergensimmons report on my C drive!”

AND here’s the kicker: multiple users can access and edit the same doc in real time. And all edits are tracked and recorded, so if some bossy wanker deletes your brilliant phrase, you can bring it right back. In short, once you use, and collaborate on, a web-based doc, the limits of desktop applications will simply glare into your eyeballs like those annoying halogen headlights.

So we’re back to the question of why don’t folks know about Google Docs? It’s been around, in one form or another, since the summer of 2005. This free, web-based, collaborative word processor has been available for over two years, and three well-educated graduate students had no inclination to use it, and at least one had never heard of it. Why not? I don’t know if it’s lack of promotion or lack of understanding, or if it’s simply because the large majority of computer users are Microsoft lemmings. We don’t know what we’re not missing, right?

Well now my wonderful wife knows what she was missing, and I hope she gets her teammates on board. I know I won’t miss the late-night panic attacks she’s been suffering.

Monday evening, Gmail announced the latest evolution of their Gmail labeling system: color coding. The prior labeling system was just a black font with whatever label you came up with. The problem was that since the label went right next to the subject, it got lost when scanning through the inbox.

I’ve craved something to help organize the crush of emails—personal, professional, list-serve, automated calendar reminders (courtesy of Google Calendar), etc.—that flood my inbox. Help has arrived in the form two types of labels: colored text and colored boxes. To the hyper-organized, Google has taken the weakest Gmail feature and converted it into its best! I’ll be using the the Red-Yellow-Green method, with red being time-sensitive and green being “get-to-later” with a mix of various one-word labels. Dave Cohen, Google software engineer, has a much more exotic approach:

I get so much mail from my lists, I filter and archive most of it right away but I add labels just in case I need to find it again later. Those labels are my chameleons draped in subtle tones of green and blue. They’re there doing their job, but I barely notice them. Every once in a while I get mail that’s really important. These emails get my monarch butterfly labels, sporting bright red and yellow.

Dave Cohen summed up why this is now the most important Gmail feature: “Thanks to colored labels, it’s easy to scan my inbox and immediately find all the emails that are really important to me.”

No doubt the increasingly dominant Internet impulse.

I recently read in a health magazine that the carambola, or star fruit, has one of the highest concentrations of vitamin C. With the winter season fast upon us, I grabbed a handful of them at my local grocer and confidently paid for my exotic cure for winter maladies.

However, when it came time to enjoy the star fruit, I was at a loss on how to consume it. Do I eat the skin? How should I cut it?

I turned to the Internet, and About.com had the answers I sought—plus pictures for all 5 steps. In a matter of minutes I was enjoying my new star fruit.

After the star fruit was finished, I reflected on the path I chose.

I had two chances to ask for advice from another person. The first was at the grocery store where I could have asked a clerk. The second was to call my aunt, who served us star fruit on her Thanksgiving salad, for advice. Yet I opted for immediate feedback via the cold, indifferent Internet.

Is that wrong? Is the Internet truly replacing the verbal passing of knowledge from generation to generation? In this case, I doubt it. I doubt the produce clerk, or any clerk at my grocery, was familiar with preparing a star fruit. Since my aunt was at work, the question would have to wait until the evening when she returned home. And I wanted my star fruit now.

So what if I was influenced by a lifeless publication and sought the advice of the soulless Internet—at least I ate something healthy.

The whale-naming competition launched by Greenpeace provides a perfect example of how the participatory nature of today’s Internet is coming full circle, redefining appropriate organizational communications.

The as-yet-unnamed whale, a South Pacific humpback, is going to be named Mr. Splashy Pants—man, it’s as fun to type as it is to say—and Greenpeace has citizen-driven media to thank for it.

The name is on a list of thirty candidates that includes plenty of wholesome, heartfelt, inclusive appellations from myriad cultures and literary traditions. The overall tenor of these names is very much in the Greenpeace wheelhouse; they’re warm, reassuring and guilt-free—like an organic-wool pullover.

But some of those Rainbow Warriors must have a sense of humor, because they allowed Mr. Splashy Pants to make the list—and make it it did. It’s good to know the organization knows how to lighten up, but I’m willing to bet that they thought they were merely indulging in a good inside joke.

Then the citizen-driven Web found out about Mr. Splashy Pants. The ballot page was posted on BoingBoing, Digg, and Reddit. Those content-aggregator communities spread the word faster than you can say, “Call me Ishmael,” and everybody got to voting.

The results? Mr. Splashy Pants is out front with 71 percent support; Humphrey, a comfortably wry choice, is a very distant second with only 3 percent. The rest, from Aiko to Mira to Shanti, might as well hit the showers.

What’s the point? The people, when aligned behind a common cause, are frighteningly powerful. And this weight is not merely influencing the options organizations offer to audiences; it is changing the very way organizations communicate. Greenpeace has no choice but to respect the intent of these communities. Of deeper significance: They are tempering a relatively intense mission with a modicum of humor. And this is hardly hurting its message.

Other organizations, regardless of their political leanings or industry, should pay attention. There’s something Mr. Splashy Pants is trying to teach us.

EARTHTimes.org is reporting that the nation of Scotland shelled out $250,000 to develop a new tourism slogan. It will soon adorn posters throughout Glasgow’s airport, and doubtless inspire visitors to immerse themselves in the country’s rich history, culture, and diversion.

And what evocative, provocative combination of words did a quarter million buy for those clever Caledonians?

[cue bagpipes and drums]

“Welcome to Scotland.”

Did I just hear William Wallace smack his forehead?

Singapore is so intent on being a world leader in the media industry that the government has created the Media Development Authority, which is determined to put “Singapore at the forefront of the media age.”

How serious is Singapore about fostering a creative economy and a connected society? You just have to see for yourself…