3 posts categorized "Collaboration"

05/04/2010

On Privacy and Security, Or What's up with Facebook?

Fb_devil-01  Unless you've been living in a cave thus embracing the life of a true Luddite, you've probably heard about Facebook's recent war against privacy. For the past fews months it seems as if every other day America's biggest social networking site has done something new to chip away at the already ill-defined sense of privacy within it's trenches. Here's something of a brief summary, in case you have been in hiding:

Awhile back, Facebook quietly made your status updates indexable by Google. In a bid to be Twitter, this feature surprised the user base that had never really realized that their statuses were potentially going to be public knowledge. Uproar occurs for a few days then dissipates as people quickly forget about caring.

Later, Facebook introduces a way for other websites to consume your data. That's right, Facebook quietly started sharing your interests and information with websites you may not even know about, generally without telling you. 

A couple of days ago, Facebook launched a feature to link all of your interests to actual pages, spamming your wall with new advertising, and sharing your information with those pages as well. In this case there was a opt out option, but it never really explained what the feature was to begin with. Opt out is hardly useful without proper knowledge. 

Learn about some of this at PC World

So what's the deal? Not long before all of this, there was a very public kerfluffle when Google launched it's social sharing system Buzz. Buzz made a relatively grievous mistake at launch, automatically making your whole contact list privy to what you were sharing on Google Reader and whatever else you linked into Buzz. It didn't at that time make it clear what was happening, and the fall out was pretty swift. People freaked out at a level that was somewhat astonishing. Yes, it seemed from this example, that people cared about their privacy. 

Some background on Buzz's launch.

Google and Facebook are hardly the only ones flailing about in this game, although they are the most visible. Netflix slipped into this quaqmire when the company was sued over it's latest recommendation improvement contest for allegedly outing an in-the-closet lesbian mom based on her movie watching history. Money management site, Mint, had problems when it announced that your shopping history, although aggregated and anonymous, might be sold to marketing research firms. Some people canceled their accounts with great speed.

What's interesting to me about much of this is how surprised people are to realize that what they are doing on the web is potentially going to make itself public. I myself have always treated Facebook, despite it's privacy setting options, as data that I would not be devastated about becoming public. That's me though, and I've been playing this game for quite some time. People unfamiliar with the internet, young users and older users in particular, don't really understand what's going on when they post things to the web. New users to Twitter are often surprised to realize that everything they tweet is public knowledge. At the very least people's grasp of exactly who is included in "the public" is pretty slim. Take the young guy who was offered a job at Cisco and promptly lost it when he tweeted: "Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work." 

That's right kids, your employer and your mom are both part of the public these days. Watch your step.

A lot of these privacy missteps, both on the part of the companies involved and those kids foolishly posting public photos of themselves shot-gunning beer at parties and then wondering why they didn't get that plush job, is simply a failure to grasp what's going on. These are mistakes, and much of the time, the companies are quick to take corrective action. Google responded to the Buzz complaints within hours. Netflix canceled its contest pretty promptly. There's one company though that seems to flaunt it's issues with privacy, and that's Facebook.

Facebook wields a lot of power. It's the first social networking site that's really collected such a vast and diverse user community that truly actively participates. Each user is a font of delicious information about interests from movies, food, books, tv shows. Each status message is another bit of data telling Facebook where you like to go, what you like to do and who you like to do it with. It is a marketing company dream database, and we are all quietly working to make it more impressive everyday. The truth of it is, Facebook does not really think of us as customers of their site but as unpaid employees entering data in a constant stream. Thus why they are so alarmingly cavalier about how they handle that data. 

The cynical among us have know this for years, but what's sneaky about Facebook is the front it puts up. It somewhat slyly pretends to care about your privacy. There are account settings where you can set the privacy level for any number of aspects of your Facebook posts, but here's the problem: how easy is any of this to set up? When it comes to UI design, I'd be the last person to give Facebook any awards, but far and away the most confusing part of the deeply complex interface is the part that ought to be the most clear: how to ensure that your data is protected. 

There is this concept in usability called an "evil interface". When you've learned enough about design you aren't just capable of delivering designs that are easy to use, you are also capable of designing interfaces to be purposefully obtuse. A naive designer makes mistakes, and evil designer doesn't make mistakes so much as he or she makes your life difficult because they do not want you to accomplish the required task. It is in Facebook's best interest (at least from their perspective) for your data to be public and for them to be able to sell it. Given that, what reason would they have NOT to make the privacy settings confusing. 

EFF has a great article about Facebook's Evil Interfaces, that I highly recommend.

We designers are told from the very beginning that we need to design interfaces that are transparent and easy to use for everyone. I'm often in my work struggling to take a step back in order to try and look at things from the perspective of a technology novice. It's an ethical responsibility as much as it is a skill to do everything we can for our users, especially when it comes to something as delicate as private data. 

So should you quit Facebook? That's up to you, naturally, but you should be an evanglist for your friends on Facebook. Many of them won't really know what the truth of this is, and Facebook certainly isn't going to tell them. It's up to us really, so spread the word. When I publish this post, I will almost assuredly share it on Facebook. 

10/15/2009

On Google Wave's Complexity and Usability

Over the summer, Google released a rather astonishing video of Google Wave in action. All across the internet enthusiasm was at an incredible high. Google Wave was going to be a paradigm shift of a collaboration suite. It was going to surpass email as the way people communicate with each other. I work a bit with collaboration software, mostly Sharepoint, so I was particularly interested in where this might go. Thus, it was with excitement that I acquired an invite to Wave.

Now, I've been scooting around this interface for about a week attempting to figure things out and I've come to a few conclusions.

The first: Google Wave won't replace email

Why not? It's far to complicated. What makes email a powerful medium is in actuality it's pure simplicity. The learning curve for email is almost trivially small. Wave is chock full of features, but in a sense they are features that are simply more than what the average person requires and that is a barrier to entry. I want to stress though that this is not so much a criticism as it is merely an observation. Wave probably isn't seeking to solve the email problem.

The second: chat is necessary for real time collaboration

I hadn't realized this before, but in the process of attempting to plan a trip to Greece with a friend using Wave as our platform I found the lack of a true chat interface unbearably frustrating. While you can "ping" a person in Wave, that ping merely acts as a mini wave. It's fully featured, which is absolutely overkill for a quick chat, and is also saved as a separate wave from the one you are currently working on, meaning the chat information and any decisions made there are separated from the rest of your collaboration work. 

I think for Wave to really take off, it needs to have a true chat feature, one that rather than being a wave is truly optimized for chat. For me, the lack of this was so frustrating I had to supplement my work in Wave with chatting over Adium. 

The third: There really needs to be connectivity between Wave and other Google Aps.

You're welcome to attach documents to your waves, but there doesn't appear to be a way to link in Google's already relatively successful collaboration suite. Prior to using wave for our "Plan a Trip to Greece" project, my friend Shane and I had both a Google doc of information and a Google Map of places we wanted to visit. My enthusiasm for Wave was damped when it became clear I could not capitalize on this existing work within the application. I could drop in a map gadget, but I'd have had to build my whole map again from scratch.

It felt extremely limiting to not be able to bring in work completed in other places, especially considering that those other places are ... well ... Google.

The fourth: this interface is wicked confusing

I have general faith that this will improve with time, but there are a lot of little things about the Wave interface that make it frustrating to use. I won't detail all of them here, but here's a brief sampling:

1. Why the funky scroll bars? They're a little clunky and it confuses me a bit that they didn't just use standard scroll bars which work perfectly well.

2. In a long wave, how can I jump to the unread changes? Right now I can't find a way to do this. If the changes are spread throughout the wave, it's extremely difficult to move through it to find the relevant changes.

3. Nested replies get quickly out of hand: one thing, having to double click to even find these features is messy. Another, those nested replies seem to not always show up where you expect it to. As they grow, it makes following them a bit difficult. I think they perhaps would have worked better showing up in the style of notes in Microsoft office revision mode.

Conclusions....

Wave might yet prove to be a paradigm shifting project. Niggling usability issues are a part of any release like that, so it doesn't concern me overly much. However, the lack of Google Docs and Maps integration surprises me and makes me wonder how long we'll have to wait to see what I view as very necessary new features.

One other thing that came to mind as I was playing with this... will the masses, who aren't perhaps looking for a robust collaboration solution, find themselves driven to use Wave at all? I have my doubts. Most of us in our day to day lives don't require that much complexity and jumping right into it is an overwhelming experience.

On the other side of the fence we have gmail kind of quietly doing its thing. More and more it seems to me that it's gmail that could really take off as a collaboration platform that everyone can start using. Already it has integrated chat with the email client, and it's starting to build in a connection with Google Docs as well. It's a way of easing users into a more robust experience by trickling the features in over time. Not a bad approach, although maybe not a paradigm shifting one.

Some references and other opinions on Wave:

1. IT Pro agrees, Wave won't replace email

2. Mashable's opinion is generally positive

3. Louis Gray thinks Wave is way way too noisy

4. Some thoughts at CNET

09/03/2009

Addendum to a Restricted Wikipedia

So it turns out there was perhaps some faulty reporting involved surrounding Wikipedia's plans for adding in moderation to their work flow. Check out this article for the full details.

The summary is thus: Wikipedia is not really planning to introduce full moderation. What they are doing is thinking over a couple of ways that they could alleviate some of the problems I discussed in my post. Two approaches are being bandied about as you'll see in the linked article. The first is "flagged protection" which is pretty much the moderation style approach I discussed last time. This is in use already on the German version of Wikipedia.

I still feel hiding changes isn't a great idea, which brings me to approach number two. This one is called "patrolled revisions". This is a lot like what I was recommending, the edits go live immediately so everyone can see them, but the article itself is clearly noted as not vetted. 

What Wikipedia will be doing is using approach number one as a replacement for articles that are currently locked down. So in that sense, things are getting more open. They'll also introduce approach number two on other articles about living people. Aside from those, all other articles will remain the same.

So all the criticism and panic is clearly premature. I'm actually quite ok with the approach as described here.

I guess in summary, you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Even if it is in the New York Times.

About

Usability Shark is ostensibly a blog about various topics on user experience and the like, but may notably also feature random ramblings from the author. Usability Shark, also known as Rachel, has an MS in Human Computer Interaction and has been working in user experience for ... some time let's say.

Twitter Status

    follow me on Twitter