Writing this partly when watching the live broadcast by Zuckerberg from the F8 conference.
First thing that came to mind (and I wasn't the only one) when seeing the new Timeline was MySpace. Many boxes, long pages and lot of images. Quoting myself, it might be awesome or confusing, or both, but the advertisers will love the data. According to Zuckerberg you can put your while life there - no word on what data will be shared with who. The Timeline will make your profile long. I remember that being a problem some years ago, when there was just too much stuff there.
One thing I also started wondering, how many people really want to check their friends' profiles daily, and how many do? Most just check the front page and only go to profiles when they need specific information.
The big theme on these new features seems to be sorting data, patterns on what you do and finding the highlights. Mostly of course done automatically by Facebook with Graph Rank. It will be interesting to see how much control the user will actually have. All this data will be turned into yearly reports on your life. Facebook will also let you see more about what you have done in the past.That will be interesting.
Spotify is getting a big shout out. What they show of how Facebook and Spotify work together looks pretty good. Not sure though if I really want everyone to see what I listen to (or watch, if the Netflix part will work the same way). I'm not sure if I really want to use the catalog Spotify has either, which is pretty limited for my taste, but that's another matter.
Will all the features server international customers? I know Hulu doesn't like non-US customers. Same goes for the new texts like "X is listening to Y". Those will be very difficult to translate to all languages. Then again Facebook has a record of not thinking of international users who don't use the English interface....
The social news might be interesting. It's how Fark.com got big.
And the more I see, the more stalkerish the new Facebook looks. They will know what you are listening, what you are watching, what games you are playing, what news you are reading, what you are eating, where and how long you ran... It still seems like they just can't grasp the idea that not everyone will want to share everything they do, and even less share it with strangers.
Graph Rank seems too good to be true. Will it really understand what I think is important? And how long until it will find Sarah Connor?
New features will launch between now and next two weeks.
For more info, check out the official Facebook page
Sep 22, 2011
Sep 21, 2011
How (not) to manage changes
Facebook is yet again making changes to its frontpage. They notified users of it in their official blog, which is here. The main change this time is that the users will see "Top Stories" on the top of their newsfeed, and that a live newsticker will be located on the right side.
Facebook is doing this redesign the same way it has done them before: throwing out stuff without asking the users. One big problem with this one, is that it (apparently, haven't been able to test it) takes away the ability to see all items in the feed chronologically. Only the posts that Facebook thinks are important (not you or your friends) will be on top. I don't like the feature either, but that's not the topic now. This post is about how Facebook keeps thinking they know better what we users want.
This is the second change in a week to Facebook's functionality. Last week they introduced lists (Google+) and subscribing posts (Twitter). Most of the users haven't had the time or the need to learn what these features do or how they work. Lists and subscribing also just appeared without any real notification or instructions. Last Spring Facebook changed how groups work. With this they gave some notice - and made it impossible to change the group to the new format unless the language was set to English and didn't tell anyone about it. At the same time people wondered why their newsfeed was so empty. Some change in the frontpage caused it to show posts from "top friends", not all friends. Again, no notification or instructions how to change it. Facebook likes to keep re-inventing itself and trying to improve things, even the things don't need a total re-design in a big scale.
These type of changes go against nearly everything I've learned about software design and considering users. New features don't have to be added once a week, especially when the features are considered major and the service is already in heavy use. Everything should come with a notification and proper instructions. Those who login to Facebook once a week will not read the official blog or check out the help files, because they don't care that much. Not that the help section even had anything on the language issues with the groups... New features should be tested on actual users (which Facebook has done to some extents) and you should ask feedback from the testers. Those on Facebook who have seen the new features beforehand haven't been asked for any feedback. Most importantly, listening to users will help your business. Of course, if you don't ask for feedback you don't hear the negative comments and you can keep thinking everything is well. This leads us back to the official blog in Facebook...
At the time I'm writing this, the blog post has over 1000 comments. I've skimmed through most of them. Nearly all posts are strictly against the redesign. Those that aren't, are apparently made by people who get some benefits from Facebook. They don't represent the average user. There are no official comments or discussion by Facebook, because that's not their style. They just throw features at you and go plan their next new thing. We can probably read their official reply in two or three weeks.
Facebook is doing this redesign the same way it has done them before: throwing out stuff without asking the users. One big problem with this one, is that it (apparently, haven't been able to test it) takes away the ability to see all items in the feed chronologically. Only the posts that Facebook thinks are important (not you or your friends) will be on top. I don't like the feature either, but that's not the topic now. This post is about how Facebook keeps thinking they know better what we users want.
This is the second change in a week to Facebook's functionality. Last week they introduced lists (Google+) and subscribing posts (Twitter). Most of the users haven't had the time or the need to learn what these features do or how they work. Lists and subscribing also just appeared without any real notification or instructions. Last Spring Facebook changed how groups work. With this they gave some notice - and made it impossible to change the group to the new format unless the language was set to English and didn't tell anyone about it. At the same time people wondered why their newsfeed was so empty. Some change in the frontpage caused it to show posts from "top friends", not all friends. Again, no notification or instructions how to change it. Facebook likes to keep re-inventing itself and trying to improve things, even the things don't need a total re-design in a big scale.
These type of changes go against nearly everything I've learned about software design and considering users. New features don't have to be added once a week, especially when the features are considered major and the service is already in heavy use. Everything should come with a notification and proper instructions. Those who login to Facebook once a week will not read the official blog or check out the help files, because they don't care that much. Not that the help section even had anything on the language issues with the groups... New features should be tested on actual users (which Facebook has done to some extents) and you should ask feedback from the testers. Those on Facebook who have seen the new features beforehand haven't been asked for any feedback. Most importantly, listening to users will help your business. Of course, if you don't ask for feedback you don't hear the negative comments and you can keep thinking everything is well. This leads us back to the official blog in Facebook...
At the time I'm writing this, the blog post has over 1000 comments. I've skimmed through most of them. Nearly all posts are strictly against the redesign. Those that aren't, are apparently made by people who get some benefits from Facebook. They don't represent the average user. There are no official comments or discussion by Facebook, because that's not their style. They just throw features at you and go plan their next new thing. We can probably read their official reply in two or three weeks.
Feb 10, 2011
Re-inventing the social media wheel
Yesterday I read VentureBeat's story about Convore (article here), and it reminded me how most of "new and innovative" social media applications are just recycled versions of older ideas. Some get it right (Facebook and Skype), some don't (Convore, Diaspora and Google's Buzz).
Convore is apparently meant to be an improved version of IRC (Internet Relay Chat) with public and private chatrooms. Instead it seems like another version of a traditional online discussion forum, only more confusing. The basis of IRC is the ability to create chatrooms (channels) by just joining them and the real-time discussions either in the channel or in private. In most discussion forums the admins have created a few areas, where users can post their discussions. In Convore, the users can create these areas by themselves resulting in a mess with many similar areas. The users also create chatrooms in each area, so finding an appropriate place for discussion can be difficult. There is also no private messaging system in place, which exists in some form in almost all discussion forums. Convore does offer message archives, which IRC doesn't include as default, but which discussion forums have. In short, Convore takes features from IRC and discussion forums, smashes them up, and creates a mess.
Diaspora and Buzz try to copy the success of Facebook. Buzz came around first, and the whole idea is to share links with friends and then comment on them. It came around a year ago, and it still hasn't caught on even it's available to everyone with a Google account. The friend-system has had a lot of problems (connecting you automatically to nearly everyone, want it or not) and the whole thing has been complicated to use, even it has gotten better from the first few weeks. Diaspora on the other hand is supposed to be the real alternative to Facebook, and it promises not to share your information with anyone without your permission. It is still work in progress, but at least now it seems to lack the fun part of Facebook. Not just the (usually annoying) games and apps, but also the groups, pages and photo albums. I have a few friends there, all social media pros, and most have just stopped using it after a day.
Of those who have recycled old ideas and got them to work, Facebook is one of the obvious ones. It's just a step up from Friendster and MySpace. Another success is Skype. Voice-chats are nothing new, since we did it with friends in 1998, but the technology behind it has changed. Webcams have also been available long before Skype. One can argue though if plain chatting is considered social media...
Convore
Buzz
Diaspora
Convore is apparently meant to be an improved version of IRC (Internet Relay Chat) with public and private chatrooms. Instead it seems like another version of a traditional online discussion forum, only more confusing. The basis of IRC is the ability to create chatrooms (channels) by just joining them and the real-time discussions either in the channel or in private. In most discussion forums the admins have created a few areas, where users can post their discussions. In Convore, the users can create these areas by themselves resulting in a mess with many similar areas. The users also create chatrooms in each area, so finding an appropriate place for discussion can be difficult. There is also no private messaging system in place, which exists in some form in almost all discussion forums. Convore does offer message archives, which IRC doesn't include as default, but which discussion forums have. In short, Convore takes features from IRC and discussion forums, smashes them up, and creates a mess.
Diaspora and Buzz try to copy the success of Facebook. Buzz came around first, and the whole idea is to share links with friends and then comment on them. It came around a year ago, and it still hasn't caught on even it's available to everyone with a Google account. The friend-system has had a lot of problems (connecting you automatically to nearly everyone, want it or not) and the whole thing has been complicated to use, even it has gotten better from the first few weeks. Diaspora on the other hand is supposed to be the real alternative to Facebook, and it promises not to share your information with anyone without your permission. It is still work in progress, but at least now it seems to lack the fun part of Facebook. Not just the (usually annoying) games and apps, but also the groups, pages and photo albums. I have a few friends there, all social media pros, and most have just stopped using it after a day.
Of those who have recycled old ideas and got them to work, Facebook is one of the obvious ones. It's just a step up from Friendster and MySpace. Another success is Skype. Voice-chats are nothing new, since we did it with friends in 1998, but the technology behind it has changed. Webcams have also been available long before Skype. One can argue though if plain chatting is considered social media...
Convore
Buzz
Diaspora
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)