[IxDA Discuss] Changes to Facebook (Perceived Privacy)

[Mark Schraad]

>
> I've given this a lot of thought during the ruckus too, and I think
> the problem has to do with several factors that might not have been
> uncovered by traditional user testing with a small number of
> representative users. A usability professional on the spot would
> likely have known that and employed other methods as well.

Very possible but doubtful unless someone had experience scaling new  
features, once tested. A simple heuristic evaluation would not likely  
have foreseen the gravity of these results. This is a case where  
"deep dive" research might have provided a better understanding of  
the culture and its variances. It only takes a small, highly vocal  
minority to cause this sort of backlash. Obviously this portion of  
the community is important, but I have to guess that the new features  
were fine with the larger percentage. Bad PR, and the complaints of a  
few should not necessarily conclude that this is a bad feature. In  
the 90's, Microsoft started talking about producing server side  
applications of Office that the user would access from the web. The  
reaction was a resounding negative. Now, that concept has spawned its  
own mini-industry (web 2.0). The source company's image was wart of  
the problem... but it was also an idea that the general public was  
not quite ready for.

> Maybe if FB had turned on the new features for a volunteer group of
> user accounts and asked people to check them out and give feedback,
> they would not have lost so much trust and could have modified the
> feature rollout to be more palatable.

I agree. But this seems contrary to your point in paragraph one.

> What Jim Drew pointed out about scaling is also very important  
> though. In order to show the realistic
> effects of the features, the test group must include both average
> accounts and extremely friend-heavy accounts. I think in a case like
> this that simply mocking up accounts would not have been as effective
> as volunteer accounts, because we care a lot more about privacy when
> it's our intimate detail that's being syndicated.

Jim is correct. Scaling is a huge issue and this should have been and  
could have been predicted. You do not take a clam bisque recipe for  
four, and multiply the ingredients times 100 to feed 400.

> One of the blog articles I read this week (sorry I can't recall which
> one) also pointed out that "friend" means something different in this
> kind of social space. Being someone's friend in this context does not
> convey the kind of intimacy that the newsfeeds provided about profile
> changes and one-on-one interactions, but instead "friend" there is
> more like an acquaintance, a friend of a friend, or even just an
> indication of social token passing or endorsement.

Term definition is of particular importance in usability. From a  
generational, cultural and professional perspective, a single term  
can mean multiple things. When we did testing in the trucking  
industry back in the 90's, we found that the term  "van" had  
different meanings (we actually counted four distinct vehicles)  
depending upon the specific occupation of the user.

The shift from a small agile start up, to a larger company is a  
difficult one. It changes the culture, the type of talent and the way  
strategies must be defined and ultimately executed. I think it is  
important to note that the problem here was not just the risk taken,  
but also how it was managed and marketed. I realize the context of  
this forum is use interaction, but there are business and marketing  
issues at play here. We all too often categorize functionality in an  
attempt to isolate a problem so as to not duplicate it. As designers  
we must learn more about organizational behavior, strategy and  
business. Doing so will make us more effective contributors in  
contributing to innovation.

Mark