

Facebook Timeline is too awful to be an accident - jeffdechambeau
http://jeffdechambeau.com/friending-fast-and-slow.html

======
dxbydt
>> "When information is organized in a list, it’s trivially easy to scan it,
but with Timeline your eye has to dart around and try to combine the layout
into an understanding of what the person’s been up to. It induces cognitive
strain"

Well, the whole idea is to engage the user. They hang around a lot more when
they engage. If you give somebody a list they will trivially take the head the
second time onwards ( they will pop the stack, for any imperative folks out
there ). That's because the very first time, you actually traverse the list.
From then on, the head tells you if the list has mutated. So your brain will
save you the cognitive load by simply taking the head of the list and then
saying to you, look, there is no need to engage further since there hasn't
been any destructive update since the last time you looked. So you will log
off.

To prevent disengagement, all creative media ( magazines, newspapers, movies,
comics, TV etc. ) will assault you on multiple fronts. So you don't get a list
anymore. So Time magazine will have multiple columns on the same page, with
each column corresponding to a different topic. One of those columns will have
a picture, another an ad, the third an infographic, the fourth some text, and
so on. I took a bunch of semesters of screenplay writing where this stuff is
actually taught in some gory detail - how to keep the viewer hooked. Never be
linear - the viewer is smart and will simply (and often correctly) guess where
the movie is headed. So confuse the viewer by presenting information in a non-
linear fashion deliberately, and occasionally throw interesting but unrelated
bits of filler/second unit stock footage into the plot. Spice things up. I
believe it was the british who came up with the more accurate term "sex it
up". That's what facebok is doing. Frankly, it works very well - for the non-
programmer types. Lets be clear, your life isn't all that interesting. If I
just show you status updates in a list, you will be bored stiff after a point.
But if I introduce a tiny element of stochastic displacement in your timeline,
you will wonder, hey, where did this come from , when did I do that, etc.
That'll keep you engaged, and that translates to a longer duration on the site
=> more $$

~~~
eggbrain
I think Facebook timeline differs in a fundamental way from, lets say,
newspapers.

Newspapers work well with multiple columns because there's no inherent
connecting features. Sure a page from the sports section will all have sports
related items, but in general all the columns stand by themselves.

Facebook timeline is united by time. As in, what I say at the top of my
timeline might be directly related to what I said before, and that might be
directly related to what i said before that, and so on. So as humans, we want
to read objects in the way they were chronologically presented. But on the new
timeline, in order to do this, we have to zig zag from left to right, to left
again. This isn't engaging the user just as making me do jumping jacks while I
read isn't engaging -- yes it is spicing up my reading experience, but that
just forces me to relearn something that is harder than what I was doing
originally.

If the timeline was broken up into pieces, I could deal with that. Wall posts
on the left, images and polls on the right, etc. Give my eyes some logical way
to focus on only a part of my screen. But the exact middle of the screen on
Facebook is a dividing line between left and right that presents almost
identical information, and I have to form a structure from that.

Taking another example, in movies, it makes sense that the movie makers try to
confuse and sex up a movie -- our brains want to be stimulated. But there's a
difference between spicing the content of entertainment and spicing up the
delivery method that content is offered -- imagine going to the movie and
having two videos on the screen at once -- both showing different things. I'm
pretty sure you wouldn't be happy.

~~~
randallsquared
_imagine going to the movie and having two videos on the screen at once --
both showing different things. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be happy._

But some TV shows (Burn Notice, for one) do this frequently. It works pretty
well.

~~~
__david__
That's not the same thing. Burn Notice (and more notably, 24) use that
technique for _very_ short periods of time to change things up. And during
that time there is _never_ anything important going on in any of the 2 scenes
--no one is going to risk half the viewers missing a relevant plot point just
because they happened to be focusing on the wrong half of the screen at that
moment.

Try going to Fry's and finding a spot where they have 2 TVs next to each other
that are showing different channels. Try just watching one of them: It's
maddening. To me it's equivalent to animated ads on web pages--it just makes
it impossible to concentrate.

~~~
randallsquared
But with Burn Notice, they don't _expect_ you to concentrate on just one of
the scenes... instead, you look at both or all of them at once, and you get a
pretty good idea about what's going on in all of them. This is possible
because meaning-wise, video is usually very sparse; lots of people "watch"
shows while doing other things, and still have a sense of continuity about the
story the show is telling. I also find this a bit distracting, but many people
I know seem to use this as the default paradigm of watching TV.

However, the thing I find interesting is other people in the comments here
have mentioned that they just look at the center and take in what's going on
on both sides, which is exactly the same technique, and Facebook timelines are
sparse in the same way that video is. It's easy to get a sense of what your
Facebook friends are doing with a quick skim, without fully concentrating on
any particular post. During this skim, your attention might be drawn to a
specific post, but if it's not, you've absorbed a high-level overview and
moved on, without having to read each post individually.

------
fossuser
Seems to me the much more likely scenario is that Timeline was created to give
a better (and prettier) interface for users to access the information posted
to facebook - not some kind of secret psychological advertising conspiracy.

~~~
Jimmy
But it's not a better and prettier interface. It's just awful. Granted, the
only ads that appear on a Timeline page are in a narrow column off to the side
(I didn't even know there were any ads until I specifically checked for them
after reading this article), so I'm not sure how valid this conspiracy theory
is. But it doesn't change the fact that Timeline looks horrible.

~~~
randomdata
It is worth noting that every change Facebook has ever made has been deemed
awful by a significant number of people. I'm not certain Facebook, or anyone
for that matter, could make an update that satisfies everyone.

~~~
alabut
You're absolutely right and it's called Baby Duck Syndrome, which you can
learn about after the blackout here:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_duck_syndrome>

~~~
reason
<http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/baby+duck+syndrome>

~~~
slig
Just hit Esc when the Wikipedia page is loading.

------
joebadmo
I think the formulation that "the smartest people in the world are working
hard to come up with ways to get you to click on ads" is awfully reductive.
Reading Steven Levy's _In the Plex_ really gave me a sense of what the people
at Google are actually about, and it's not just making money. There's a
somewhat naive idealism at work that you can judge however you want, but you
should acknowledge its existence.

While I tend to give the people at Facebook less credit, I do think there's a
similar idealism at the core of the project. But I think they're fundamentally
undermining human connection in many subtle ways that I've written about on my
blog. Specifically, and more to the point, I think Timeline undermines the
human intimacy of private sharing for the benefit of public performance.

[http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/10755504272/intimacy-and-
perf...](http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/10755504272/intimacy-and-performance-
on-facebook)

------
jraines
It has its rough edges, but I have to say that scrolling down the Timeline is
a more personal and emotional experience than can be found anywhere else.

~~~
thomasgerbe
I have to disagree. Going through a photo gallery is far more emotional and
personal than browsing a two column grid.

~~~
swalsh
Photos are a pretty emotional experience, true. However I think there's a
major difference. Typically photos on my facebook represent moments, short
memories in time... mostly happy.

Looking at a photo makes me remember the context of the photo. However a
status update is different. They're more frequent, they're less significant.
They give context around the less important things.

For example, I remember the first time I looked at my timeline there was a
status update that said something along the lines of "Oh man new doughnut at
the Dunkin!" I wrote it a few years ago, and it was Completely pointless, and
meaningless.. but then I remembered it, because later that day my mom was hit
by a car. The entire events of that day flashed in my mind. Frankly that was
pretty emotional for me.

~~~
nchuhoai
I'm sure Facebook, just like google and twitter try to find and display only
relevant. Nobody is perfect

------
blhack
The problem with timeline, for me, is lack of context. Scroll back to the
beginning of my life on facebook and you see exchanges between me and my then
girlfriend.

Scrolling through 5 years worth of status updates gave you context for this
(sortof), it was psychologically "far" away.

Being able to just click "2006", and easily see that stuff is _creepy_.

This is why I can't stand this timeline nonsense.

So...do I delete all of this stuff? I don't have a problem with these things
being a part of my history, I just don't like them being presented in such a
readily-available way...

~~~
henrikschroder
This is also my main problem with it. The idea is nice to have some sort of
diary where you log important events in your life so that you can scroll back
in someone's history and see when important things happened.

But sometime before Timeline, Facebook made a change so that each post has an
individual visibility to give users more control or whatever, and when I
switched over to Timeline, all my old posts that weren't private automatically
appeared on my timeline, and I can't _easily_ change the visibility of all
those old posts, that are now much more easily accessible.

I want the newer posts on my Timeline to be visible, so others can see the
latest crap I shared with my friends, but I want the older posts to fade into
obscurity, unless I actively bring them back again.

~~~
runn1ng
You can change the visibility of all the past posts easily; select " Limit the
Audience for Past Posts" in Privacy Settings.

~~~
henrikschroder
Thanks, but you can only set past post visbility to "Friends", not "Private",
and I don't see any definition of how old a post has to be to be considered a
"past post".

------
bobbles
I love the timeline layout.. id rather scroll easily through stuff from a
couple of years ago and get a good overview of what I was doing than go
through photo galleries I have on my PC with no context or further
information.

~~~
rkudeshi
The real question is, are you OK with your "friends" going through your
profile and doing the same thing?

~~~
bobbles
..yes? Why I would I friend someone if I didn't want them to be able to see my
info/pictures? I'm sure people care a lot less about me than I do.

------
drenei
Kahneman and his research is fascinating. Vanity Fair had an short article
that serves as a goodish introduction to him that is worth a quick read.
([http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/michael-l...](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/michael-
lewis-201112))

------
iamandrus
The problem I have with Timeline is the _awful_ way that it organizes posts.
The two column format is awkward and it makes it hard to search or even
casually read posts as you scroll down, because your eyes are darting between
the two columns rather than one. The grouping is pretty crap, too.

~~~
hack_edu
As much as I want to like it, I don't even try to read people's profiles
anymore.

If Facebook wanted me to pay 100% attention to the Status feed, they've
succeeded. And by Status feed, I don't mean whatever that thing on the right
frame is. Who reads that anyway?

------
pixie_
I found timeline confusing at first, but then I realized if I focus on the
line in the middle then reading posts becomes just as orderly as it was
before, with the added benefit of greater information density. It also
unclutters the left side of the page which was a column before. And also by
turning the background blue it gives better contrast to the news/chat panels
on the right. About a third of my friends have switched over now, and old
profiles just look old. The large banner was a nice touch as well.

------
casca
You are not the target audience. Yes, if you're reading this, you are not the
audience that Facebook is building for. The Timeline is there after being
extensively tested and stays there are long as the results (Facebook
definition) are better than the alternative.

In case you missed it, to be clear - you are not the target audience.

------
jaylevitt
As a layperson, I think Kahneman's work is brilliant and I can't wait to read
the book, but do understand that to the actual evil scientists - research
psychologists - he is Donald Knuth, not, um, whoever's hot in CS these days.
They think his ideas revolutionized the field a few decades ago, and it's
great that he finally got his book published, but meanwhile, we've learned a
lot and that whole dual-system thing is kinda quaint.

So lucky for us, if Facebook were really basing their designs around what is
more Poor Richard's Almanac than the Bible, we can build far more compelling
experiences than Facebook using _actual_ cutting-edge psychology - and I feel
kinda lucky to get paid to do just that.

~~~
aristus
Any recommendations for books that are less "quaint"?

~~~
gideon_b
Dan Ariely at MIT has picked up where Kahneman and Tversky left off in terms
of behavioural economics. He has written a few books.

That said, Kahneman Tversky and Ariely dont deal with scene perception - which
is what you would want to look into if you were interested in planting ads.
They all started off as vision researchers then shifted into deeper cognitive
work.

If you want some scene perception look into Dan Simons or Ron Rensink.

------
chefsurfing
Jeff, if I read you correctly, you think turning on brain system 1 and brain
system 2 to insert advertising constitutes a grey or dark pattern [1]?

[1] <http://wiki.darkpatterns.org/Home>

~~~
jeffdechambeau
Very interesting. I know what I'll be doing with my afternoon.

I lacked this language, but yes I think that's a fair reading of my position.

There's a broader argument that facebook really is providing a valuable
service to us by making us aware of products and services that really will
make our lives better. I'm unmoved by that claim, as I suspect most of us are.

------
waterlesscloud
I don't know. I think making money is a sideline to Facebook's real goals.

That might not make sense to people with a simplistic view of what
corporations are for, but I think it's true nonetheless.

------
jgw
"the smartest people in the world are working hard to come up with ways to get
you to click on ads.”

Does anyone know what quote he's alluding to here? I recall skimming an
article on it some time ago, but I can't actually find the original.

I've been thinking about this trend - and, quite frankly, being depressed by
it - a lot recently.

~~~
jeffdechambeau
I went looking for it too but came up empty handed. I know it was said/written
somewhere.

And yeah, it is depressing. And I spend my time thinking about what they're
doing... not sure if that is better or worse.

------
citricsquid
I like the new Timeline feature but the inability for me to switch to some
sort of "old" view when I just want to see a perfect list of updates without
any fancy grouping an annoyance. For casual use the Timeline is good but it
leaves a lot to be desired when I want to see everything.

~~~
natesm
Buy an iPhone.

Joking. But the Timeline view in the iOS app places all items in a single
column.

That said, Facebook has basically become a place where I sync my tweets and
other services like Instagram so that people that I know who don't use Twitter
yet can see them.

~~~
randomdata
The iPhone app is just a thin wrapper around <http://m.facebook.com/>, so any
browser will do.

------
engtech
If anyone else had trouble reading the site because of font rendering in
Firefox (what is up with those r's, D's and S's!?), I found readability made
it digestible.

<http://www.readability.com/bookmarklets>

~~~
nuttendorfer
Stopped using Readability and switched to Readable when their bookmarks
started doing funky stuff involving their servers.

------
colanderman
Along these same lines, one could say that Timeline's addition of the
personalized banner image with the user's name across it makes users look more
like brands, possibly in an attempt to desensitize Facebook users to the
difference between brands and actual people.

------
ispivey
The biggest benefits of timeline are (1) making it easier to see stuff in the
past and (2) calling out the most memorable important events/content while
hiding less important stuff. They could have done this in a list format, but
using the Timeline makes it much more clear that important things are being
called out while some other things are being left hidden.

It's a powerful solution to the problem of browsing all of a user's content
over time, which was very difficult in the old profile. And it's a perfectly
good reason for Facebook to try Timeline without ascribing ulterior motives.

------
latchkey
I'd never heard of System1/2 before, but it makes a lot of sense. Sites that
are similar to the FB timeline, like Pinterest (which I recently signed up on
to try it out), also give me that same sense of having to 'pay attention'
more. It becomes more of a novelty instead of something that I'd want to use
all the time. I think that is part of the popularity of sites like Craigslist
and Hackernews, which present the information in an easily scanned format.
They both fall into System 1. I think that as I do UX design for my site, I'll
keep this in mind.

------
orijing
> Timeline also makes branded posts (ads) look nearly identical to the actual
> content we’re on facebook to see, so it follows that they’d be processed
> similarly.

I'm not sure what the author is referring to, but the ads on the side
(regrettably IMO) look nothing like the organic content in the main Timeline
columns. There isn't enough space to show more organic content on the side as
there is next to the Newsfeed. Why does the OP think that the ads are "nearly
identical" to organic content?

------
simondlr
While an interesting theory (I should read the book), how are you certain that
system 2 comes online when viewing the timeline?

~~~
jeffdechambeau
Can't be certain, but I know that from a subjective perspective my brain feels
the same way browsing timeline as it does when I'm doing math or reasoning
intently. The experience of cognitive strain is present in both cases.

One example in the book is that even hard to read fonts can cause cognitive
strain and make you judge the content of the text differently. I see that as
being largely analogous.

~~~
Lewisham
From my reading of the book (and the exerpt you have mentioned here), I'd
agree that System 2 is in play when looking at the Timeline; it does create
some cognitive load.

However, I can't remember anything backing your assertion that System 2 is
more susceptible to advertising. In fact, my reading is the opposite: System 1
cannot help but read words or look at images, and it is easily swayed by
various advertising techniques. It would be System 2 that processes what's
happening, realizes you are trying to be sold something that you probably
don't want/need, then rejects it. Isn't it a lack of engagement of System 2
that leads people to instinctively click ads or follow spam links?

------
zerostar07
Having followed the changes in their platform for years that doesn't seem to
be the case. It s probably somebody new wanting to try some new idea. Zynga
does have an optimization engine in place, Facebook does trial and error too
much: profile boxes, tabs, no boxes, top stories etc, it's just pointless
variations of a newsfeed.

------
fauldsh
I can't be the only person who has never used timelines?

I assumed other people used facebook like me: To read what friends had posted,
maybe occasionally post myself and respond to messages/events, nothing more.

The only timeline I have seen was one in which my friend put a picture of baby
Jesus as his birth picture...

------
jgh
That font is too awful to be an accident.

------
adamio
Isn't this the basis of "disruption"? Change the format and you cause people
to look more closely at something. Users will get used to timeline and they'll
have to change again. Also I'm skeptical of the statement "facebook will be
changing the way our brains process advertising".

------
lcusack
I agree with the headline but I think the real purposes is to drive more
people to the news feed instead of browsing profiles. The ads are inserted
into the news streams.

------
jff
Or the Facebook Timeline is their New Coke--they can roll it out, then in a
few months roll back to something similar, but not exactly the same as, the
old layout.

~~~
SomeOtherGuy
If it is their New Coke, then what you mean is they can roll it back to
something exactly the same, and then have conspiracy nuts repeat nonsense
claims that it is different now. New Coke was not a way to distract people
while they changed the recipe of classic, classic didn't change.

~~~
eekfuh
Classic did change. It went from having cane sugar before to having high
fructose corn syrup afterwards.

~~~
jgw
Not sure about that.

What Coca Cola actually ships from Atlanta is the syrup, unsweetened. The
bottlers add water and sugar to this, and AFAIK [1], it is up to their
discretion what type of sugar to use.

This is one of the reasons that Coke tastes different in different places - a
can of Coke in Montreal is very different from one in Toronto.

I'd have fact-checked this, but for some reason, Wikipedia is down... :)

[1] Perhaps this is no longer the case, but it certainly was in 1989, when I
"interned" at a Coke bottling facility in Harare, Zimbabwe for a week

------
lukeschlather
The first time I saw the timeline, my first thought was "Wow, that's roughly
as cluttered as MySpace. We've almost come full circle."

------
domwood
Very good points there, I can't help but agree. I'm also rather glad I'm one
of those anti-Facebook nuts. Where's my foil hat?

------
feralchimp
Re: "the smartest people in the world are working hard to come up with ways to
get you to click on ads."

Maybe the third-smartest. The smartest people in the world probably aren't
working hard, period. The second-smartest people are working hard to build
shit that _sells itself_.

------
dreamdu5t
Effective? I doubt it. I haven't clicked a single ad or promotional item in
FB, after using it for years.

I click on Google ads at least a couple times a month, because they tend to be
relevant to what I'm looking for at the moment.

------
suking
I was just talking to a friend about timeline and how hard it is to navigate.
I can't even go on friends pages that use it - it's just too hard to get used
to, especially when almost everyone else uses the regular interface.

------
jeffdechambeau
Whoops, ran out of bandwidth. Called my host and should be back online in a
second.

