6 foot blog

Web 2.Blow

posted in usability, web2.0 by Richard Glover on Sun Feb 12, 04:48 PM

Subtitle:
Yet Another Scathing Web2.0 Critique (YASW2.0C) or
What Went Wrong With Web2.0 (WWWWW2.0)

Prefixes and Caveats

My entry into the blogosphere was just recently. The transition is tough. In the real world, I’m a physics and calculus teacher and the channels of knowledge and influence are well defined. In the virtual world, beign able to write with an expert tone (often condescending) and treating oneslef as an inherent authority is the norm. It has not been easy trying to pick that up. It is not something I’m comfortable with. It is not something I plan to make a practice of. The point is that absolutely EVERY statement made below should be understood to be prefaced with IANAE (I am not an expert).

Also, my web2.0 is not your web 2.0 (see definition). Slightly restated, this isn’t meant to be indicative of ALL web2.0 sites/applications. There are plenty of fantastic web2.0 apps out there, and I will try as much as possible to point out those sites that sidestep or address each of the concerns I’ll outline below. Similarly, I’m not criticising the actual value of any of the applications below, so please don’t flame with “But ‘xxxx’ is INDESPENSIBLE and you are obviously just too STOOPID to get it”.

Lastly, I don’t pretend to be the first to make these observations (see subtitles). This has been influenced by several recent works, including Dion Hinchcliffe’s 10 Issues Facing Web2.0 (and the seemingly endless summaries of what is already a short summary, with one standout.), and Naked IT’s musings about benefits and culture. I still think that, in the breadth of my reading, what I will say is novel enough to bear writing. Now onto the show.

The Definition

What is “Web2.0”? Descriptions abound, O’Reilly has weighed in (complete with a MemeMap), supr.c.ilio.us has made me laugh, and every blog in the world seems to have picked up on the visual definition. I believe I agree with Om Malik: “a collection of technologies…that leverage the power of always on, high speed connections and treat broadband as a platform, and not just a pipe to connect”. Nebulous enough for ya? Well, ultimately, Web2.0 is as Web2.0 does. If you say you are Web2.0, since it is not a standard, who can really argue with you? Dave Winer wins with “Web 2.0 is a marketing concept used by venture capitalists and conference promoters to try to call another bubble into existence”...a hype machine. As a final note, somewhere I read a particular Web2.0 app characterized as “data porn”, which I think is very apt as a description of the whole group. I would love to attribute it, but I don’t want to wade through the NSFW I expect to get when I Google it.

The Problem

The problems that strike me most center around usability and how it ultimately affects potential crossover (if you are keeping track on the “10 Things” post, its numbers 6, 7, and 11). Sites and apps are designed well, but described and marketed poorly, which erects a barrier to usability. When going to a Web2.0 link, one is faced with spending 15+ minutes (potentially spread over a few days if there is a signup) to find out what this is, how it works, and if it has enough (or any) personal benefit to justify further exploration. The answer to the final question is more often than not “no”, making that 15+ minutes a waste. The end result is a predisposition against adoption and a very short attention span.

Cognitive Friction

This term (coined by Alan Cooper of Visual Basic fame) describes the extent to which a product is intuitive. A product whose output/outcome is easily assessed and produced has low cognitive friction (many physical tools, like hammers, fit here); a product whose output/outcome is abstract and not easily assessed and produced has high cognitive friction. Most programs will, by definition, have high friction, but it seems a preponderance of Web2.0 apps have inordinate amounts. Why is this?

Your standard web-user does not get paid for surfing the web. In fact, most are actually being deviant (neglecting work, family, food, etc) by doing so. Those of us that are in the web business sometimes forget that most people can’t tool about the internet like we do. They have finite (and small) time to spend, and they can’t spend it digging through blogs for the details of your innovative new idea. As a result, Web2.0 apps desperately need to answer the “why would I want to do that” question and quickly. As noted, the very nature of the social, always-on, Web2.0 app is more abstract than most are comfortable with. Describing the purpose and desireability of your program is a daunting task…one that many websites seem to be balking at. A quick perusal of the Web2.0 sphere gives a strong impression of “if you don’t know, I’m not going to tell you”.

The first hurdle is the seemingly perpetual pre-alpha through private-beta status of many apps. It is hard to get solid details from websites that aren’t even sure they want you involved (yet). I’m thinking of sites like Noodly. I challenge you to get from the front-page ANY idea whatsoever what this tool is. I really enjoy Pete Cashmore’s blog, but if finding out what this is about involves going there (and then searching for Noodly-related posts once I’m there), I’m not likely to find out what it is. Other such notable websites are dabble, dogear, and renkoo. One wonders what the use of advertising is when the entirety of your ad is whitespace. How do you build buzz with no flowers?
Note₁: since I started writing this piece, Noodly has at least started taking applications for alpha-testing.
Note₂: It appears dogear has taken the criticism to heart. In fact, they may be public! Well done on either count. You now may log in as demo/demo to see the tool, so it now belongs in the Burnout section below.

Semantic But Not Descriptive

Even if not pre-alpha/private-beta, many don’t bother giving any description. Or, even if description is given, it is surreptitiously placed in an “about” link that may as well say “Where’s Waldo”. For reference, try looking at Simpy. I realize I’m supposed to “Tag. Search. Share.”, I just don’t understand why/how. Burried in the top right corner (literally the 7th option in the row) is an about link to help. Even worse is eskobo, which doesn’t even bother with an “about” link. The content is obvious enough to eventually become clear…but do you really want to rely on deductive reasoning to define your market? Getting around this would seem easy. Until you are a household name (which no Web2.0 app is), consider a description (or a link to a description) prominently featured on the front page explaining the service. Site’s that comes to mind are FeedTier for the former and Shadows for the latter. Within 1 minute of being there, I know what it is and how to use it.

Of course, that assumes I understand the jargon (which, for the most part, I do). The standard web user does not. “Aggregated” is an SAT word before it gets put into an internet context…then it becomes some abstruse thing linked to “RSS” and “Atom”, et al. The vocabulary of a Web2.0 site is almost never helpful. It is usually an amalgam of terms-of-art that are super-condensed so that your Web2.0 site can accommodate the huge fonts that are ever-so-vogue. Or maybe it is a collection of buzzwords that are too trite to bear meaning. Remember, you are writing for your potential clients, not your peers. Websites that do a good job avoiding this are Mayomi (which features a easily understood description) and Feedster (which features an “about RSS” link directly beneath the app’s description).

Burnout

And once you’ve covered those bases, there is the issue of redundance. There are hundreds of sites all doing the exact same thing in not-so-novel ways. Of course, they advertise themselves as the unique way to capture whatever their experience is. When coupled with the buzzword problem above, this can be fatal. In the same way that this is a Yet Another (YA) article, most Webb2.0 apps are YA as well. So what sets your app apart? Got YAPhotosharing app (ala pixagogo)? Why is it different (Smugmug) or better (TagWorld) than Flickr? You better find some convincing argument and put it on the frontpage. That’s before we even get into the category of combined content marketed with empty branding phrases like Jetpacks .

The point is that if I come across a page in the YA category, I’m already half shut-down before I even start to evaluate the value of your service. If you then give me the standard cliche’s, I’m leaving. If you give me something unique, I may stick around. Take a look at my review of Ma.gnolia for an example of a site that leapt this hurdle with ease.

Floating Face Down In The Mainstream

The only industry as openly critical (but secretly covetous) of the mainstream is “indy” music. So this section gets an Outkast quote (though I was tempted by Copywrite’s “I don’t wanna be mainstream, I wanna piss in it”). Web2.0 precariously teeters on a fulcrum between bubble (which will inevitably burst) and boom (which may be long lasting). I’ll leave those prognostications to those who make a living off of this sort of thing (and the blogosphere is full of them). But every argument I have made thus far is premised on appealing to a market that is wider than your peer base, so this needs to be addressed.

Maybe mainstream isn’t necessary to be successful. Even the ubiquitous and expensive 2.0 apps are hardly household names (you should hear me trying to explain del.icio.us to my girlfriend). In fact, I believe the claim that most 2.0 apps don’t want to be mainstream. Scaling up to a mainstream level is not something small 2.0 apps are ready to do. Besides, they’re overt financial drive is being bought out, not going public. And maybe that is a good thing. I’ve seen several blogs refer to this as the redeeming value that prevents the bubble from forming. But rejecting widespread acceptance is ridiculous. Your app needs to be appealing first before it can be bought-out (ostensibly to be made mainstream)...and even if it is never appealing to everyone, it still has to be more appealing than the other hundreds of apps that do the same thing.

End Notes

I suggest a jaunt over to my favorite tag compiler (conveniently designed by my partner): evrathin. It is in public pre-alpha and is now delivered with 150% more Web2.0! I only get away with shameless advertising like this because my partner never bothers to read my posts (much less make some of his own)!

Or, before even leaving this domain, check out the We.b2.0.al.izr (inspired by this post). You can generate a buzz without doing any work. Even better, when you’ve taylored it the way you like, you can download all of the code!

Also, hyalineskies has a tangential, but inciteful post concerning this 2.0Culture business. Its contents are very roughly (and not intentionally) summed up in a recent rant (or call for reason) by digg user “dayquil” (lightly edited for this blog and emphasis added):

bickering about what is and is not “web 2.0” is useless. It’s surprising anyone gets so far as caring, given that web 2.0 is a myth.

using that term in news, in blogs about news, and in posts about blogs, does nothing more than make the writer look foolish.

i’d call it a flash in the pan, but it’s worse than that. typically a flash in the pan actually exists.

lets all stop sucking each others [edited] over our inappropriate use of ajax, stop congratulating each other for underestimating the tried and true policies and techniques of those beyond age 25, and start recognizing that the web is the web is the web. powerful ideas shape it. not the elimination of page refresh.

the idea that we’re experiencing some kind of revolution is an embarrassing exaggeration. giving it a moniker that implies versioning that would render the “old” web obsolete is just retardation.

I think it’s clear by now that I’m not alone in feeling this way, but the point to take home with you is: things like [edited]ing your pants over everything ajax, anything apple does, a hot dog truck being spotted in the google parking lot (digg headline: “google to purchase oscar mayer????”), and posting links to your [edited] miniscule and terribly written blog entry instead of the news itself, are the kinds of things that will (do) make digg the laughingstock of more legitimate sources….

Let me know what you think.