I read in one of my magazines that Madonna is getting involved with relieving suffering in the African nation of Malawi–raising and contributing money, and promoting awareness of the needs in Malawi. This is a good thing. However, the article said Madonna has never actually been to Malawi, and suggested cynically that maybe this was some celebrity good-cause stunt. I don’t think it is. But it’s interesting that Madonna is drawn to a place she’s never been.

But then–how different is that from a lot of missions promotion? Across our churches you’ll find people who have a special burden for a particular part of the world that they, personally, have never visited. Might be Africa. Might be China. Might be Latin America. Might be India. The interest could have been sparked by any number of things–a missionary they know who serves there, an article or book they read as children that sparked an enduring fascination, a family member who once visited there, or even just purely a God-prompting.

You can be genuinely concerned about a place, even highly knowledgeable about it, without having actually visited. Though visiting certainly helps.

So, I guess I’m on Madonna’s side. If you have a burden for Malawi and want to help‚Äîyou go, girl!

Additional Note: After posting the above, I remembered hearing a few days ago that part of Madonna’s standard contract is that her accommodations include a brand new toilet seat, which must be unwrapped in her presence. Yeah, I doubt she’s going to Malawi anytime soon.

Every time I pass an H2 Hummer on the road, I chuckle inside. What were they thinking! Somebody needs to buy them a copy of Gas Mileage for Dummies.

But then, people driving Mini-Coopers probably say the same thing when I drive past them in my Dodge Dakota pickup. But that’s okay. Who’s laughing when they need to haul a load of mulch?

A while back, I read an article about why people buy SUVs. One salesman told of a woman in southern California who said she really needed four-wheel-drive on her SUV, because when she goes to parties at people’s houses, she often has to park on the grass. What a riot.

This morning after getting the stitches removed from my gums, I went to Scott’s grocery store to get some donuts and other culinary supplies. I gave the checkout girl a $20 bill, and then watched her pick up a black Sharpie and put a little tick-mark just to the right of Andrew Jackson’s head.

“Why did you make that mark?” I asked her.

She said, “Some of the other Scott’s stores were having trouble with their twenties, so we’re all doing this.”

“Oh,” I said. As if that answered my question, which it most certainly didn’t. But being unduly polite and not wanting to embarrass her, I didn’t question further. I just accepted her answer like a lemming, collected my change, and left to enjoy creamy vanilla filling.

But ever since, I’ve been wondering, “So what kind of a problem can a store have with a $20 bill? And why does defacing the bill with a black mark solve that problem? And why was I too timid to ask this question of vital concern to our national currency?”

One of my seminars at the Church Media conference last week dealt with web design. Frankly, I didn’t learn a whole lot; after all, this is something I do professionally. But I did get a kick out of the leader’s “Six Things Never To Use in Web Design.” I agreed with all six, and added three of my own. So that’s nine items. I’ve been trying, hard, to come up with a tenth thing, but though I’ve had some good candidates, nothing has surfaced as a rock solid “definitely don’t do this.”

So, I’ll run with the nine. Most of these were popular in the 1990s, and should have died in the 1990s, the early days of the web. And most of these are very common on local church websites, a fact of life which pains me greatly.

1. Frames. Don’t design web pages with frames. It is so 1990s. Some browsers have trouble with frames. And if you care about Google rankings, definitely avoid frames. (I’ve never designed with frames.)

2. Scrolling banner text. This comes under the heading “Don’t do it just because you can.” Designers see that their program enables them to scroll text, so they do it. It’s just annoying. Like the similar FX in Powerpoint, where letters come flying across one at a time to form words. Don’t do it just because you can.

3. Animated GIFS. I hate sites that are plastered with cutesy animations that the designer stole from somewhere else.

4. Hit counters. Don’t put these on your website. They look amateurish (from a design standpoint), and “hits” are not like the more accurate “visits” (by accessing my blog homepage, I got probably a dozen “hits” as you accessed pieces of artwork, plus my javascript and CSS pages).

5. Patterned backgrounds. You can download gobs of square patterns to use as backgrounds for your pages. In general, avoid them. They look cheap.

6. Template buttons and art. You can buy a CD with thousands of graphic buttons; you just add your words to it. Plus lines, shapes, stars, symbols, and all kinds of other things. All of which look cheap. They also take extra time to load, as opposed to using textual links and buttons, which is the current standard (in tandem with Cascading Style Sheets).

7. Midi music. If I come across a site with music playing on it‚Äîthat’s the quickest way to get me to close the page. Especially if I’m at work. Music is especially annoying on ebay.

8. Splash screens. This is a page you’re forced to endure before getting to the actual page you want. You certainly don’t want to see it every time you visit that site. Instead of directly entering the store, it’s like being forced to come through another entrance with a special waiting room. Splash screens kill you on Google rankings, and studies show that up to a third of people never go beyond the splash screen. I click out of them as fast as possible.

9. Under Construction pages. I constantly have pages under construction‚Äîbut I don’t advertise that fact. I only link to a page or a section when it’s done. Nobody wants to be taken to an “under construction” page. It just wastes your time. When you have something there, then give me a link. I’m not interested in your master plan or good intentions.

Any candidates for a 10th item?

I stop at Starbucks most mornings on my way to work. I did today. They always have three coffees available–a medium or mild roast, a bold roast, and decaf. The three selections are scribbled on a chalkboard with brief descriptions. And the descriptions contain words like these: bold, smooth, soft, well-balanced, nutty, herbal, fruity, earthy notes, spicy, sparkling, acidic, light, robust, citrusy. And my favorite: complex.

I don’t know what those mean. I’ve never sensed any nuttiness in coffee. No hints of oranges or mangoes or any other kind of fruit. To me, there are two types of coffee: strong, and not-so-strong. And decaf versions of each. Okay, I should add a third type, the kind grandpa always had sitting on the stove in the farmhouse, a roast which I call Terminal Stomach Radiation. Starbucks has nothing similar, beyond stuffing a handful of Komodo Dragon beans into your mouth.

Life needs to be kept simple pre-coffee. I don’t want to enter Starbucks and be confronted with difficult decisions: “Do I feel like nutty, or smooth? How many earthy notes can I handle today?” Before coffee, I can barely locate my truck in the garage. I just want to say, “Gimme coffee,” and leave. Then, having consumed my morning brew, I’m empowered to make decisions during the rest of the day. Never mind that I usually get decaf. There’s a psychological thing going on which still perks me up, enlivens my senses, as though I’m still mainlining caffeine. Let nothing jeopardize that illusion.

Anyway, I certainly don’t want “complex” coffee first thing in the morning. I want it strong or not-so-strong, and I don’t want to put any further thought into the purchase. Thank you.