I’ve ruthlessly culled my Facebook friends list. If you didn’t make the cut, sorry. Don’t be too offended though, seriously, I don’t really use Facebook that much. It’s become a family photo-sharing platform now that most my extended family are on it. I use twitter more, so if I unfollowed you on twitter you probably have more grounds to be offended. I made an executive decision (on a rainy train platform) based primarily on who probably won’t be interested in countless videos and photos of my little girl – what my timeline is mostly made up of these days – which is quite a few people … so I did it for YOUR. OWN. GOOD. Also if I friended you but never actually interacted with you (i.e. old old acquaintances from secondary school) … sorry, but bye. It needed to be done. Not surprising, as social media platforms evolve – in terms of how you use them – over time and mine’s been lying neglected, like an untrimmed backyard, for quite a while now.

Facebook have recently announced a new market valuation of $50bn (almost as much as Yahoo and eBay combined!). I often think whether it’s possible for any other social network to replace Facebook now. Regardless that many users now ‘reluctantly’ use Facebook or don’t trust Facebook with their data, there seems to be no way to muscle in on its share of the social network market. From my personal point-of-view, Facebook already saw off challenges – in the early days – from rival social networks like Friendster, Hi5 (pls stop sending me emails btw), Friends Reunited, MySpace, and Bebo. That was probably the time when other networks, if they moved quick enough, could have worried Facebook. However, what Facebook has now is size. And that’s the sheer number of people on it. When you try to get a user to switch their social network you can’t just get them to switch on their own, you have to switch all five-hundred-or-so of their friends. And to switch each of their friends, guess what … you have to convince each of their five-hundred-or-so friends to come across too.

It might be possible, one of these days, that a campaign against Facebook leads to a mass exodus but then we need to think about (a) which social network can replace it functionality and features wise and (b) how can users bring across (easily) all the content they’ve spent years creating.

Even if the above two issues are dealt with there’s still be a decision-making process to be facilitated. You could just leave it for a few users to instigate and organise a mass-move but if coordinating a handful of people in one location is hard enough (think about work), what will coordinating hundreds of your friends, located across the world in different timezones, with differing usage patterns be like? How can users and their friends all (or mostly) agree to move. There’d need to be some sort of collaborative discussion / voting tool which would then, after everyone agrees, automate an export process and re-create their network elsewhere.

Phew. Easy then …

Oh, and by the way, HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Through Twitter I found out about a guy (Paul Butler) who has managed to visualise the friendships between the 500 million Facebook users into an awesome visual. He “was interested in seeing how geography and political borders affected where people lived relative to their friends” and “wanted a visualization that would show which cities had a lot of friendships between them”. Very clever stuff.

Many sites now offer some sort of user registration as a means to provide additional (hopefully cool & useful) functionality to identified users, as well as a means to capture data about the user to sell them lots and lots of ‘stuff’. Fair dos. We live in a commercial world and this is to be expected to some extent but users also now expect some sort of payback for becoming a member that doesn’t consist of buying more ‘stuff’. It’s kinda like a give-and-take relationship.

So the user is happily browsing your site, experiencing all the content you’ve laid out for them, when they suddenly hit a barrier … ‘sign up to [insert enticing functionality here]‘. This is the point where users do a quick, subconscious analysis of the site and company behind it to decide whether they want to make this ‘long-term committment’. I say long-term committment because to the users, this may be how it seems. They’ll expect that once they sign up, there’ll be the bliss of accessing great stuff but there’ll also be a range of direct / indirect annoyances along the way. These could be anything from being on the receiving end of email (or offline) marketing bombardments, having your details ‘sold off’ to partners (despite what you say!), having your online activity tracked, having to come up with (and remembering!) yet another set of login details, etc. And to round it all off, users – from experience – may think of this signing up as an unreversible action in that you may be able delete your account but once marketers have your details, you’ll never get them to let them go! Certainly, unsuccessful experiences of ‘unsubscribing from mailshots has helped plant this thought in my head.

So. Back to the will-he / won’t-he user. When faced with having to register, users may consider a number of things about the site and company:

• Do I trust this company? Will they use my details in an unprofessional manner? This impression of trust, integrity and professionalism is gleaned from all interactions users have with your company – from Word of Mouth to TV advertisements, all the way through to their experience on your site. Do you ask for waaayyyy too much data? Do you make me sit there and fill out huge boring forms? Trust and credibility can be enhanced through the creative on the site as well as the content you give your users. Do you give them somewhere they can leave feedback? Is your real address on the site? Is there positive information about the type of company / people you are? Do you re-invest your money into environmental or community projects? Is your site updated – is there actually anyone there? Trust can be assumed though. For sites like Facebook, where all your friends may be using it, users may be less analytical about it due to an over-riding desire to ‘join in’ or not get ‘left behind’.
• How much do I want the content or functionality? This is a key question. Registration may be free (i.e. no monetary value) but users have to pay with their details. If you content is enticing enough, they will sign up. It’s important to emphasise what users will get by registering, before they register. Let users know how much convenience and value they will get in return for being a member.
• How long am I going to be here? Don’t make the form dauntingly long. There’s nothing worse than users deciding they want to join and then are crapping their pants over the amount of information they have to provide. It’s a website, don’t make it look like a tax form or an exam. Sometimes there really is a certain amount of data you need, so collect it in a nicer way. Visually enrich the form so it’s more engaging and attractive. Add cool functionality to make it more interactive. Add reassuring text where required and add on-demand supplementary information when requested. I also think it’s best to use standard login detail formats so users can re-use their usual login details. This might not be possible, so have a good password retrieval process.

That’s all I can think of right now. I need lunch.

Working in the digital sphere and working with / pushing the boundaries of web technologies, one thing we often forget is that there are limits to what people can do on your website, for many particular types of sites. For these types of sites, you can’t expect your site to replace all other touchpoints with your users, but merely complement and enhance them. My wife, flicking through her IKEA catalogue mentioned “now I can see things more clearly”. What she meant was although the website’s great at helping her find products (good site navigational / organisational / labelling systems are in place) and inspire her by presenting different room styles, her experience then needs to go to the next stage further with offline interactions with the company.

To see products in more detail users will need to go in-store or at least pick up a catalogue. Catalogues are a different type of beast to websites. Websites are limited by a certain screen size / real estate and location-based restrictions whereas a catalogue, designed well, can be a leisurely browse over a cup of tea, or on a train-journey. And as more and more of what we do is online, from work to home-management, then I find that there’s more and more that I want to do offline. This particularly includes reading of articles or sanity checking my own work.

It’s so much harder to concentrate on something when staring at a screen. When it’s printed out, you can conveniently read it where you like, at your own pace, hold it at a comfortable height, you can mark it up and you can write all over it. These tasks are still, to some extent, not being adequately replaced by computers – though they may try. The more and more we do online, the more enjoyable things we do offline have become, and companies have to remember not to neglect this space but to take advantage of it and continue the experience through.

Particularly true to shopping for furniture and cars, to name but two.