Googler Paul Adams Heads To Facebook
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
But maybe Facebook is smart enough to change that model - ie, be more open to people maintain multiple, intersecting identities rather than expecting a single, single transparent identity.
If I were building a competitor to Facebook (like Google may be), I would allow a person to create sub-profiles under a main login. For example, a user could have the sub-profiles for themselves: "Work", "Family", "Friends". Each sub-profile would have it's own profile picture, it's own contact info, it's own newsfeed. When someone wants to add you, you would have the choice of which sub-profile you want to give them access to.
The main message that such a social network would need to give users is that each sub-profile is strictly walled off from your other profiles. So, now you won't have to worry about your boss seeing those photos from last night's party in which you had too much to drink since he only gets updates from your "work" sub-profile.
The problem a competitor face with this is:
1) Maintain multiple groups requires a significant mental overhead. Any UI would be hard but the thought the person would have to put plus the UI makes this impractical. I never use Facebook groups, my reptile brain processes it as "UI noise" before my rational mind even see it (ie, literally don't recall ever getting anything related to facebook groups).
2) There's a reflex for a person to think of themselves as using a single role even they aren't. Many people with a lot to hide will say and even sincerely mean "but I have nothing to hide" and only discover later they were bullshiting ... themselves.
So Facebook's approach has strong leverage.
Just as much, software people like to think they'll sell something based on "more features" when what people need ... is a single, clear feature.
Essentially, a direct alternative would need to be presented as a single thing people can understand and use easily. Even more that single thing couldn't be framed as "you get to have multiple identities" but would have to be framed somewhat differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Eve...
Re the UI -- spot on, but maybe that is a UI problem, not a UI boundary condition, and we could start researching cues for persona switching on the computer screen. Avatars are a first attempt, but not all that inspiring if you ask me.
I agree with your second statement but I'd invite you to consider that this actually supports my point. Human beings are naturally, unconsciously able switch personas so they tend not to be consciously aware of that switch.
As you say, it's done by cues and reflex. And thing about the Internet is people don't notice what they're not noticing. Just as an example, Flame wars come specifically because people don't understand that their "compass" isn't there. The same problem is there with multiple roles.
Yes all that good stuff you mention is happening. I am aware of it because I've studied a bit myself but the average person isn't aware of it even as they do it.
There are two ideal goals: - create a UI that allows both sufficient cues to get allow people to activate their useful unconscious filtering process (and which manufacture some places and situations which assures a person they can safely let go of those filtering mechanisms). - Present this UI in a frame where the conscious mind can accept it. Saying "it let you sneak around behind your boss' back" might be true but it isn't something a person's "presentation of self to self" would be inclined to accept.
Sometime the statement "The most brilliant advertisers in history have been those who've found a way to sell things to people 'they didn't know they needed'" can be true in a good way! The average person doesn't know they need multiple roles online so a new product needs to combine framing, education and UI really creatively.
Google was the coolest place to work for the last decade. All of the sudden, high profile people are leaving for Facebook. I'm not arguing that this is proof of some underlying flaw of Google or anything conspiratorial like that, but it certainly qualifies as interesting to people who might end up making a choice between the two companies (either as an employer or as a platform on which to develop).
Additionally, it's not completely unlikely that there's a small group of Facebook employees who are very happy when high-profile people join Facebook. It certainly makes me happy, and I haven't even started yet.
Do you know of others?
I would love to know why people are leaving Google for Facebook. I really don't think it is because of the money.
Is just more interesting these days?
FaceBook, I've heard, is also an awesome place to work.
Facebook is still younger, the teams are smaller, they still have to take shots at new ideas that will generate the revenue stream they need.
But I'm sure that money is also a big part of it, with crazy valuation numbers, being paid in stocks could turn some of the new recruits into millionaires.
A UX researcher's basic job is to figure out how users behave and what they want. This is basically applied social science. They work directly with users - sometimes through usability studies and one-way glass, sometimes through focus groups, sometimes through going out into the community and talking with people who use the product, and sometimes through logs analysis and quantitative data. This is not usually a technical position, but it requires someone with familiarity with the scientific method, a curiosity about people, and often good statistical/quantitative skills.
Since he's a UX lead, however, my guess is his day job came down to two things: hiring new UX people, and prioritizing requests for the skills of his reportees.