>> "When information is organized in a list, it’s trivially easy to scan it, but with Timeline your eye has to dart around and try to combine the layout into an understanding of what the person’s been up to. It induces cognitive strain" Well, the whole idea is to engage the user. They hang around a lot more when they engage. If you give somebody a list they will trivially take the head the second time onwards ( they…
I think Facebook timeline differs in a fundamental way from, lets say, newspapers. Newspapers work well with multiple columns because there's no inherent connecting features. Sure a page from the sports section will all have sports related items, but in general all the columns stand by themselves. Facebook timeline is united by time. As in, what I say at the top of my timeline might be directly related to what I said…
It's confusing when you focus on the columns. Focus on the line in the middle and read the branches. It becomes just as easy to read as before, and with greater information density.
That does seem to help, but I still feel it breaks two common usability notions: 1) Lines are used to divide content and guide our eyes to what is important. In this case, we have to travel "across the line" to see the next piece of content which may be related, which breaks common notions. 2) Our mind usually focuses on the largest items on a page and then goes to the smaller details afterwards (Like how magazine ar…
You do realize that reading in general you have to move you eyes 'all the way to the left' constantly.
That does seem to help, but I still feel it breaks two common usability notions: 1) Lines are used to divide content and guide our eyes to what is important. In this case, we have to travel "across the line" to see the next piece of content which may be related, which breaks common notions. 2) Our mind usually focuses on the largest items on a page and then goes to the smaller details afterwards (Like how magazine ar…
You do realize that reading in general you have to move you eyes 'all the way to the left' constantly.
Yes, but you don't read a book by looking at the spine first, then reading the left page, back to the spine, and then the right. We read everything to the left of the spine (the dividing line, if you will), then read all the content to the right of the spine.
The problem with timeline, for me, is lack of context. Scroll back to the beginning of my life on facebook and you see exchanges between me and my then girlfriend. Scrolling through 5 years worth of status updates gave you context for this (sortof), it was psychologically "far" away. Being able to just click "2006", and easily see that stuff is creepy . This is why I can't stand this timeline nonsense. So...do I dele…
This is also my main problem with it. The idea is nice to have some sort of diary where you log important events in your life so that you can scroll back in someone's history and see when important things happened. But sometime before Timeline, Facebook made a change so that each post has an individual visibility to give users more control or whatever, and when I switched over to Timeline, all my old posts that weren…
You can change the visibility of all the past posts easily; select " Limit the Audience for Past Posts" in Privacy Settings.
This is also my main problem with it. The idea is nice to have some sort of diary where you log important events in your life so that you can scroll back in someone's history and see when important things happened. But sometime before Timeline, Facebook made a change so that each post has an individual visibility to give users more control or whatever, and when I switched over to Timeline, all my old posts that weren…
You can change the visibility of all the past posts easily; select " Limit the Audience for Past Posts" in Privacy Settings.
Last time I checked that only allowed you to set it to 'friends', as opposed to 'public'. There was no option to set it to specific groups of friends.
>> "When information is organized in a list, it’s trivially easy to scan it, but with Timeline your eye has to dart around and try to combine the layout into an understanding of what the person’s been up to. It induces cognitive strain" Well, the whole idea is to engage the user. They hang around a lot more when they engage. If you give somebody a list they will trivially take the head the second time onwards ( they…
This describes the verge vs engadget, I like the content on the verge more but on engadget it's much easier to tell where I left off from my last visit. On the verge I always feel like stories have slipped through because the content is so non linear.
I think what you are describing works in certain mediums, but not well or at all in others.
>> "When information is organized in a list, it’s trivially easy to scan it, but with Timeline your eye has to dart around and try to combine the layout into an understanding of what the person’s been up to. It induces cognitive strain" Well, the whole idea is to engage the user. They hang around a lot more when they engage. If you give somebody a list they will trivially take the head the second time onwards ( they…
I think Facebook timeline differs in a fundamental way from, lets say, newspapers. Newspapers work well with multiple columns because there's no inherent connecting features. Sure a page from the sports section will all have sports related items, but in general all the columns stand by themselves. Facebook timeline is united by time. As in, what I say at the top of my timeline might be directly related to what I said…
imagine going to the movie and having two videos on the screen at once -- both showing different things. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be happy.
But some TV shows (Burn Notice, for one) do this frequently. It works pretty well.
I agree. I can't see how anyone would imagine that Facebook aren't working hard at their job, which is, in fact, delivering ads and making people click on them. Or that all that investment is spent paying smart people to have fun and sow the seeds of happiness worldwide, and every once in a while pay a little attention to the business model as an afterthought. I would really, really appreciate it if someone could exp…
By making your users your priority you create an environment where they want to be and will continue to use your platform. Putting your users first allows you to continue to profit through means like advertisements. If you put your users second to profits you'll quickly alienate them. I tend to think consumer facing companies like Facebook and Google really do think of their users first, but perhaps I'm just naive.
I think you're contradicting yourself by saying their concern for users derives from profit and then saying they put their users "first." If acquiring and keeping users is a means to an end, namely advertising revenue, then users are secondary to advertising revenue. Is there some other dynamic in the corporation (other than profit) that drives Facebook and Google to value users? If the answer is human good will, then I can believe it has some influence in some cases, but not that it ever overrides profit. Good will can be influential where there is a sincere belief that it is the best guide to long-term profit, and I think Google's founders were fairly successful in instilling that belief in their corporate culture, but in a mass consumer business that belief will be worn down through the process of making many small decisions where the two priorities conflict.
I have to disagree. Going through a photo gallery is far more emotional and personal than browsing a two column grid.
Your argument doesn't compute. You're comparing content (photo gallery) with a design structure. The "two column" grid includes photos, locations, new friends, comments, etc.
Perhaps I should've been more specific. His argument was that scrolling down timeline is one of the most emotional experiences.
Scrolling through a haphazard column system of photos of mishmash isn't that emotional to me. Going one by one through a persons Facebook album is more emotional to me because of the focus (one photo) and organization (I know which album I picked).
By making your users your priority you create an environment where they want to be and will continue to use your platform. Putting your users first allows you to continue to profit through means like advertisements. If you put your users second to profits you'll quickly alienate them. I tend to think consumer facing companies like Facebook and Google really do think of their users first, but perhaps I'm just naive.
I think you're contradicting yourself by saying their concern for users derives from profit and then saying they put their users "first." If acquiring and keeping users is a means to an end, namely advertising revenue, then users are secondary to advertising revenue. Is there some other dynamic in the corporation (other than profit) that drives Facebook and Google to value users? If the answer is human good will, the…
I think these companies view the users as the purpose and the advertising as the means - not the other way around. Both Google and Facebook were born out of an interest to improve the world and solve a problem. This idealism along with thinking long term about the product is what puts users first. I think the conflicts always tend to resolve on the side of benefiting users (ads that are relevant to a user's interest, or sponsored search results that are likely what the user is looking for anyway). The goal is to make a profit in a way that also adds utility to the user and doesn't distract from the main 'mission' of the company whatever that may be - and I don't think it is to make money.
Companies that become entirely about perpetuating their own existence, where the means of profiting becomes their purpose, seem to use nasty business practices and power to ruin competition rather than compete on product quality. They usually stagnate, alienate their users and only maintain market share by ensuring users have no other choice. I don't think this method is a good long term solution and from my perspective I don't think Facebook or Google are acting in this way (at least for now).