[Freedombox-discuss] Do we need a UI/UX Expert?

[James Vasile]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:40:13 +1000, "John Walsh" <fiftyfour at waldevin.com> wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/mixed
Non-text part: multipart/alternative
> Hi Everybody,
> There are a lot of smart people within the project and they have years of
> experience of using software and social networking sites. The thing that
> appealed to me about this project was that a) you get hardware like a
> consumer appliance b) you use existing software. I FreedomBox should be
> developed to the current best standards, but doing so with a privacy first
> context.
>  
> I would imagine the FBX will had a web front-end and prefer the more
> Facebook/Plaxo Corporate Cool UI. I have seen many social networking sites
> that have added bling which looks cool initially but becomes jagged quite
> quickly, forcing the sites in a never-ending bling upgrade cycle. IMHO, FBX
> should keep the UI simple, but offer FBX users the option to upgrade their
> web-front end "theme" through CSS etc.
>  
> Overtime in the social networking space, I have seen the following best
> practises;
> 
> *	Create an "account" with all your personal identifiable and personal
> information.
> *	Your account home page contains your activity stream which pulls all
> your communications together. IMHO, I think it should be called MyStream -
> home page is such an abused label.
> *	Create different "profiles" for your different social "circles" to
> control the release of personal information and messages (Plaxo, Friendika,
> Google+?)
> *	Upload your address book to store as "contacts" (Plaxo, Friendika),
> which can be invited as "guests" (Tonidoplug, general web) based on
> relationships (Plaxo, inventors of portable contacts)
> *	At the most have two degrees of separation between you and your
> personal information/messages.
> 	
> *	Your "Wall" offers you the options to share your "Status", "Photos",
> "Videos".
> *	People outside of your Friend of Friend network are *public*
> regardless of whether they are on your current network or the public -
> Facebook removed this distinction.
> *	When you post a message indicate the message's sensitivity/audience
> e.g. Private, Public (Tonido), although, personally, I would like to expand
> this idea to include Secret, i.e. please do not forward, and Confidential
> i.e. forward to one more degree of separation only. There is an option in
> Friendika's Wall that a posting will only be seen by the intended recipients
> and not their friends too. If all social networking sites did this you
> wouldn't need the messaging service simplifying the UX. 
> *	All social networking sites allow you create "groups" for people
> outside your usual social circle "members". These groups can be private,
> like an IRC room, moderated or public.
> *	The social networking home page lists all public posts as the
> "public stream" (twitter, identi.ca, wordpress.com)
> *	Each account holder can "follows" public posts and have "followers"
> of their public posts
> 
>  
> In the bullet points above, the labels "account", "profiles", "contacts",
> "guests", "wall", "status" "photos" and "videos", "groups", "members",
> "followers" and "follows"  create well known mental models, i.e. everybody
> knows what UX sits behind those labels. As long as FBX uses these will known
> labels and when we do absolutely need to introduce our own labels use words
> with well-known concepts behind them, e.g. secret and confidential ;), then
> we should be fine. In the list above, I included Googles "circles" because I
> assume that label offers better privacy than Facebooks "lists" and FBX is
> privacy first.
>  
> One of my pet peeves of the software industry is their need to jargonise
> everything which twitter seems to have turned into a way of life with its
> tweet (websms), RT (forward), follow (subscriptions), followers
> (subscribers) :p
>  
> Writing this has led to ideas about the differences between real world
> identities and online identities that FBX needs to consider, but I need to
> think through a few more things before I post those ideas.
>  
> What problems still exist in social networking that we need a UX expert?
> What do people think?

UX is more than just UI and knowing what labels to use.  Expertise in
this area is a priority.  I'm putting the finishing touches on the
Working Groups doc this weekend, and the WG focused on such issues is
going to need some real expertise to succeed.