Apr 24, 2009

Don't Blame Facebook

User backlash has become a predictable reaction to redesigns of Facebook. Polls show that 94% of people disapprove of recent changes to the site layout, rejecting the ‘stream and filter’ system.

It seems, as Robert Scoble puts it, that Facebook has “pissed off its users” with each reinvention it undertakes. Back in 2006, the introduction of a newsfeed sparked  major outcry, with users petitioning and boycotting the changes. Today, people are just as furious: a disgruntled mob – one million strong – has pressured Facebook into bringing back some ‘old’ design and user experience features.

Why are people so upset?

Think Blog: Facebook Protest
Popular opinion suggests that Facebook isn’t listening to its customers – that it pursues revenue over the needs of its users. The digital community has spent much time listing out the problems with the new layout and scolding Facebook for not delivering on their promise to create a product that helps people learn about and share with others around them. The news feed, for example, has lost a key algorithm that regulates what and how much of your friend’s activity you receive. Now, you get everything and it’s up to you to filter it. This added responsibility and influx of information is, according to feedback, overwhelming.

It’s easy to get caught up in, and agree with, all the criticism thrown at Facebook. You can’t ignore the sheer volume of negative comments and expansive reasoning behind each design flaw. Or can you?

In 2002, Princeton’s Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel prize for discovering that people are impacted more by the loss of familiar product experiences than the benefits presented by new, unfamiliar innovations. Regardless of improvements, people are inclined to stick to what they know. This insight – and it’s not just a theory – readily explains the anxiety that users feel at every announcement of redesign, the roar of disapproval at implementation and the warming to new features as time passes.

The feud between Facebook and its users conforms to a trend of ‘status-quo bias.’ Tech Crunch’s Michael Arrington already touched on the idea, warning that “making users happy is a suckers game” because you won’t be pushing the envelope. The lesson in Arrington’s comment: consumers are generally conservative when it comes to new product innovation. In fact, it’s well documented that the majority – approximately 84% – of the population are slow adopters.

Consider that a change to Facebook affects all users. The 84% of people that would rather go at their own pace, taking their time to adopt – if they adopt at all – are forced into new territory. This majority is not proactive about change and are more receptive to persuasion from trusted peers. Think about the times you’ve had to convince someone that Twitter wasn’t pointless or that Netflix is a good alternative to the video store. Once convinced to change, people will develop a new status quo. A new habit to hang onto.

The success of Facebook redesigns should not be measured solely on user backlash. It’s a necessary and common psychological reaction to change. A reaction worth monitoring but something that shouldn’t hinder innovation – assuming your organization is ‘innovation-led’.

Share this Post


                           

Comments


John     Jan 05, 2010
I hate the change at first. I am so used to it now, I don't even remember the way the old layout was setup.

I agree with the points in the article though, and most of the comments above though. Initially, I disliked it as i said. Although, I always hate change...

Suffian     May 12, 2009
I like the redesign. Makes it simpler to use. Simple rocks.

Alex Chung     Apr 28, 2009
@Tyler Doshier

Well said. I agree that this iteration has lost some useful function (the demoted "Events" panel) and gained some annoying additions (celebrity boyfriends). I can only imagine - in response to your charge of "out-Twitter, Twitter" - that Facebook see 'streams' as the dominate way we will communicate in the future. Meaning, we are moving away from writing on each others wall's to contributing to a common feed of information through things like status updates. It would be interesting to see which features were most used in the 'Old Facebook' and whether the current changes were based on a slowing of wall-to-wall communication.

Your recommendation for Facebook to open up its API was recently met: check out Tech Crunch's article "Facebook Opens Up Its Stream API To Developers. Let The Conversation Wars Begin!"

@Guy Lev

Yes, you sum it up: "Its the technological equivalent of pulling off a band-aid." I wonder if Facebook could temper backlash with a phasing strategy. Previous iterations have allowed people a grace period, where they can swap between new and old versions. What if people could opt into new versions and slowly convince their peers?

@Neil @ Andy

The amount of justified complaints makes me wonder if Facebook's testing strategy is not working - Check out a great video on Fast Company with Robert Scoble and Facebook's product manager Mark Lee that gives insight into design process.







Bob     Apr 28, 2009
Great article.

Each time we launch a redesign the overwhelming response is "WTF OMG CAN'T DO 'x' ANYMORE!!! THE NEW SITE IS CRAP" It doesn't matter how much 'better' the new release is, users don't handle change well, I believe it has to do with the speed at which people use the web.

I find it really interesting that I can actually see the feedback in such a public way when it comes to a Facebook change. I watch all my friends, and their friends joining anti-new-design facebook groups and feel an affinity with facebook team.

I believe the Facebook team should keep doing what they are doing, there is a great Simpsons episode about letting the user design their own, "The Homer".

Tyler Doshier     Apr 27, 2009
I'm not one of the people who becomes outraged at every little change Facebook makes to the site. Even though I don't always agree with the decisions they make, I'm always interested to see where they're taking things. Having said that, the most recent iteration of Facebook really is a disaster. It's the first overhaul that's actually caused me to use the site less. Sure, as always, there are many who are up in arms simply because things have changed again, but there are also a LOT of completely valid criticisms this time around (such as the ones listed at the VentureBeat link you cited).

The concept of information hierarchy appears to have been completely lost, as every little thing in the feed and on the wall seems to be of equal importance. Facebook clearly did away with the magical algorithm that determined who and what to emphasize. For example, why do I see a glut of third party application junk in my feed when I don't have those applications installed and don't care to see them? I constantly get stuff like results for "Who would be your celebrity boyfriend?" taking up an inordinate amount of space in my feed. And how are the stories featured in the 'highlights' section selected? I seem to get a ton of news about acquaintances I don't care to follow closely and little about the people important to me that I would like to follow more closely. And, as Neil mentioned, why is something as important as the 'upcoming events' list shoved all the way down at the bottom of the right column? To be fair, Facebook has been slowly making some improvements since first introducing this new layout, but they still have a long way to go.

Twitter does one thing and does it well. In a hurried effort to out-Twitter Twitter, I don't think anyone at Facebook stopped to determine if trying to shoehorn Facebook's vast and extensive functionality into a Twitter-like model would work, and I don't think it currently does. If Facebook wants to fundamentally rethink how it provides information and evolve the site accordingly, I think that's wonderful. But this particular iteration feels slapped together. It's like they had a central idea (a useful, constantly-updated Twitter-like feed) and tacked on everything else around it (...the ironic part being that this version of the news feed seems to be less useful than the previous one). In general, I agree that people are whiners and need to be dragged into innovative redesigns kicking and screaming. In this particular case, though, I have to side with the whiners. Facebook did a lot more wrong than it did right.

Also, as a side note: the openness of Twitter's API is one of the reasons it has been so successful as a platform. Facebook would do well to follow Twitter's lead in that regard.

Jon Dascola     Apr 26, 2009
Talk about design by committee.

Guy Lev     Apr 25, 2009
The mindset of the user base at large seems to be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The problem of course being that the powers that be aren't trying to fix anything, they are trying to make it better. The perpetual delay of the switch from analogue to digital broadcast signals stands as an excellent example of what happens when you try to please everyone (I am willing to bet its not going to happen in June.)

Facebook gets around the problem of 84% late adopters by updating everyone all at once. They skip directly from one end of Everett's Diffusion curve to the other. They achieve critical mass all at once. (Critical mass being the tipping point where an innovation is so widely used that even slow adopters make the change so as not to be left behind.) Its the technological equivalent of pulling off a band-aid.




Andy K     Apr 25, 2009
agreed with Neil. The fact that you got to scroll down to reach the "Events" section is annoying and makes it more likely to be missed.

The Facebook home now is just like a Twitter (FB is following Twitter ?) where you and and of your friends are following each other, and you could leave comment on each tweet. The quiz results and name generators and whatever funny things the fb-apps are throwing on your page need occasional hammering, but other than that, everything's sweet. (for some people perhaps)

Chris     Apr 24, 2009
Thank you Alex! What a great insight.

Neil Martin     Apr 24, 2009
It annoys me greatly that the "Events" section is located underneath "Highlights". Events covers much more important and more personal things than Highlights such as birthdays and upcoming things that *you're* going to, rather than Highlights, which only really cover what *other* people are going to.

My point is that there have already been occasions where I've not noticed that there's an important birthday and/or event coming up because it's half way down the page instead of being on the very first things I see. In this respect, I would very much disagree that a user revolt is just about sticking with the known, but rather, is based on very justified complaints.


Speak






Submit »