Thread by @cwodtke

I will be featuring this in my cs247 class as a bad example of design. You, dear followers, can get a fun preview. Ready?

https://twitter.com/Twitter/status/1113865009724104704

Let's start with the problem statement. They state they want to make it "easy to follow and join conversations."
So what is the problem? Only they know of course, but considering the amount of abuse women get on twitter, I'm gonna guess "reply" is understood.

I'll point out yet again that when you click on cartoon speech bubble, you are prompted to weigh in, NOT check out what has already been said. That's clearly problematic.
If clicking comment both showed comments and had a space for you reply, more reflection *might* occur.

So let's more on. They are labeling the humans in the conversation.
In any design there are at least two contexts to consider:
1. the software conventions
2. the user's world's conventions medium.com/@cwodtke/the-i…
This design violates both.

ON twitter, follower has a clear meaning: a person who follows another person.
In this use, what does it mean? follow the person? Follow the conversation?

so what is the difference between James and Eric? Is James Kate's follower? Or is he following the thread?
And what does that difference mean? If James more trustworthy because he follows Kate?
If so, could a detractor follow someone to get fake authority?

when you design a feature for social, you have to ask both how it works positively, and how trolls will use it.

Now let's talk about visual hierarchy. What is visual hierarchy, you ask?
It simply means that more important elements get more visual weight, which can be accomplished by color/line weight/size etc....
We should also talk about gestalt principals esp proximity.

This is what I assume is the hierarchy, based on both use and design choices.
The message and who is speaking is what matters. Message by font color, size and location (central) Who by font, bold and avatar.
Actions are in gray BUT they are icons which gives them some weight

So what is the most important thing here, visually?
Yet is this the most important thing to know?

Proximity matters. Where you place following will tell you what is followed. For example, in this quick and crappy mock, following is both placed near a person (the follower) making sure we know it's the person, not the thread that is followed.

I mentioned it didn't adhere to world as well. "Author" seems weird, since I follow a bunch of author, and being the author of a book vs the author of a blog post vs author of a tweet seem non-equivalent. *If* it matters to know who started the thread and *if* you can't tell,

there is probably a better way to explain it. An icon. If you wanted the author to have some power, perhaps owner. This might be good, if authors could kick people off threads because wouldn't that be useful.
explorations in look/feel/language can lead to interesting features.

Some books for twitter's PM's (Whom I hope are responsible for this and not design)
amzn.to/2OTmrpR
amzn.to/2FTW4M9
amzn.to/2UiA4Ve
and if you are broke at least read amzn.to/2UiA4Ve

Many great replies from this tweetstorm: no one, but no one gets what following means... I follow them? The "author" follows them?
USABILITY TESTING! It's a thing, people!

COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS PEOPLE. It's thing!
Twitter, forums have existed since the dawn of computers! Go look at 20 and figure out what to do!

Also, fun trick... if you want to know what the design is telling you is most important, cross your eyes slightly. what every pops when it's all blurry, that's what the design has decided is most important (on purpose or not)

Let’s talk about this. I am following MJ? I’m not following MJ? He is following himself?

I may be at the point where I offer a prize to any student who can explain how this works

(And what is that gray line?)

@threadreaderapp unroll