Spill

We’re not trying to be anti-social

A very popular topic at DUX ’07 was social networking sites. By my informal tally, every presentation of the 3-day conference made at least some reference to Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn and similar sites in order to provide a context to their main subject. I counted 12 presentations that focused specifically on social networking. These lectures addressed issues such as where the space is going and how they’ve been adapted to address traditionally offline tasks, such as smoking cessation. Some examined Second Life, a 3D rendering of Social Network (one of many ways Second Life can be defined). Peter Mortensen and Conrad Wai of Jump Associates gave an interesting presentation on the individual trust social networking sites require for them to be successful.

Bringing this topic back to Tanagram has sparked an exciting debate within our office. Do social networking sites connect or disconnect people? Our staff seems to be divided on this. In the disconnected camp, the argument goes that a Facebook post is short and uninformative. It is a cheap replacement of a phone call that allows me to check in on someone on my time and at my convenience without having any real interaction with that person. I am not required to invest any effort for this interaction and so the value of it is less.

In the connected camp, the argument is that these sites create a new line of communication. People can continue to connect via the phone and email but now you can interact quickly via Facebook to see what a person is up to at this moment. Each form of interaction (social networking, email, phone, blog) has its own value and it is not a choice of either/or communication.

I’m firmly in the latter camp. I do have a Facebook page (go ahead and look me up – I’ll gladly add you as a friend). I admit that I’m not a social networking guru. I’m perplexed by some of the more bizarre interactions it fosters. A couple of my friends – Mark and Andrew – are currently waging between them a month-long zombie war. I see daily updates of this such as: Andrew’s Bishop in the Church of Zombie regulated on Mark’s Lieutenant Zombie! Victory dances ensued. Huzzah! There seems to be no end in sight to this war.

Still, Facebook has allowed me to find friends that I’ve not spoken with in years. I readily admit that some of these friends I would probably never pick up the phone to call because I can’t honestly think of anything I would want to say to them. Perhaps I shouldn’t call them friends anymore? Yet that supposition seems harsh and I do wish them well even though I don’t seek a personal conversation with them. I think there is value in these brief connections allowed by social networking sites. I’m able to see the daily happenings of a friend’s life and I think there is an intrinsic value to this.

What strikes me most about the disconnected argument is that this line of reasoning is quite similar to the arguments against email 10 years ago. Back then email was viewed as a lazy way of writing a letter, lacking any sort of thought or consideration. This too is similar to the debate over proper cell phone etiquette as the mobile device became widespread. Calling a person to chat while you waited for a plane suggested you weren’t willing to invest the time for a proper phone call when you were at home (I believe a Seinfeld episode captured this argument a while back). I think it’s odd we now hold email and phone calls as the ideal alternative to social networking.

Social networking sites, in my opinion, offer a give-and-take proposition that lets us come out ahead. Our interactions through these sites may be less thought-intensive, certainly less self-invested, but they give us much more everyday connection. Since we don’t live our lives in a vacuum – seeing some friends on Facebook but also communicating with them via email, phone, and in person – it is possible to augment our relationships through these sites.

Posted by Joseph Juhnke on November 29, 2007

DUX 2007 – The devil’s in the details

DUX 2007 is a wrap. We came, we saw, we laughed, we loved, and we even learned. I thought I would spend a few characters writing up some observations. I think first, it’s always important to understand the massive amount of work that goes into putting together one of these events and I know the team that gave us DUX ‘07 was spared no amount of grief. They did a truly admirable job and I would like to thank them.

Thank you!

DUX is not TED, nor is it HCI International, but instead fits nicely in-between them where Living Surfaces used to flourish. A day doesn’t pass when I don’t reminisce about the buzzing energy and enthusiasm for all things interactive that used to eek out of every corner of the Living Surfaces conferences but that’s a story for another time. DUX ‘07 had a nice mixture of creative sensitivity (design) and scientific reason. There were discussions about robots designed to dance with humans, the definition of simplicity, and a ton of thinking done on social networking; fun stuff. Presentations were an interesting mix (about half and half) of representatives of corporate giants and student masters theses. There was a smattering of cool independents, but I couldn’t help cringing when yet another Google or Yahoo! employee got up and started speaking. To further emphasize the vortexes they represent Google even put job postings on the give-away jump drives presented to each attendee. Yikes!

I’d have to say my only complaint about the proceedings was the same one I have at all of the UX / HCI / Ergonomics / etc. conferences; a lack of attention to a few key details. We are experience designers, we care about all of the aspects of interaction and communication and yet repeatedly show a lack of concern for the experience of our conference attendees. For some reason, they decided to pass out printed cards after each speaker’s presentation that were gathered for the purposes of a Q & A session afterwards. This didn’t work out once, questions were poorly worded, lacked relevance, and were often too lengthy to merit responses. The fall-back became, “We’ll post your questions and the answers on the blog.” Why didn’t someone use a live blog to capture questions from cell phones? They could’ve even designed a cool concept to facilitate live conversations the moment the topic was hot in our minds. Real conversations are good things, right?

The other thing that kills me is when the logistics folks provide a really cool looking slide advance gizmo that none of the presenters could use. Yes, I’ve seen this before. The best part is that no one noticed (except for the audience who had to wait for each presenter to regain their momentum after a pooched slide) that there was an issue with the control and made an attempt to correct it. Some presenters in later sessions were even refusing to use the little UFO shaped thing-a-ma-jig.

I realize this is really silly, petty stuff but for me user experience is all about the little stuff. It’s the little stuff that dents brands. Catching the little stuff means you are passionate and engaged and excited about your craft and the industry. This was never a problem at Living Surfaces.

Posted by Joseph Juhnke on November 7, 2007