DeadSpace: 7 Reasons Why MySpace is as Good as Dead

The first behemoth of social networking, MySpace—now owned by Fox Interactive Media—is on its way to its grave, with no one to blame but itself. MySpace’s popularity hit its apex in March 2008. In the following month, it was overtaken by its first real competitor, Facebook. But the writing was on the wall long before that. Web developers and architects all over knew that MySpace was doing it wrong. Surely at least a few of its own developers knew this and pushed for change. Still, MySpace was the slowest to adapt. For a site of that magnitude—including all of its systems, engineering and hacks to make it function—change does not come easy or cheap. The site was not built to do or handle what it attempts to do today, and its poor framework and conventions of interaction are a reflection of that. This is where the ever-important step of planning and laying a site’s foundation is so important. MySpace architects did not effectively build the system to be much more than a novelty. And while MySpace is not your average website, it serves as a lesson in utility for anyone charged with planning, building and running a website on any scale. If a better alternative in Facebook had never come along, MySpace would not be in this position nor would it have pushed to try to make any changes, even in the eleventh hour. People still want to connect to other people, share things they care about and display certain aspects of their life. Whether you agree with those aspects of our culture or not, they do exist, and MySpace fulfilled those motivations for a time. All you need is one competitor, however, one other option entering the marketplace, and the incumbent developers will be challenged to fight to the death. MySpace’s architects and developers simply could not live up to that challenge. In 2008, MySpace did begin to introduce features, tweak aspects of its foundation and attempt to crack down on the juggernauts of spam bots plaguing the site—but by then people didn’t care. Facebook came along, presented a better option, and people moved with little doubt that they would ever return to MySpace. Thus, in the same way it virally grew, MySpace will die by the same domino effect that catapulted its popularity. Let’s examine seven key elements of MySpace that rushed MySpace to its grave. (It should be noted that the following screenshots were purely at random and were very, very easy to find.)

1: Out-of-control design framework

Of the people you know, how many could lay plans for their own house, paint a beautiful portrait worthy of hanging in your living room or perform cosmetic surgery? Chances are, few. There are just certain things that some people have no business doing, either lawfully or for the sake of the rest of us. Designing websites is one of those things. Designers are in a unique class of professionals, and good web design is an exact art and science. MySpace disagrees, however, and allows their users to hack everything in the page until nothing is usable, legible or tolerable. Pages are riddled with high-res backgrounds, text isn’t protected, and colors, styles and sizes are fully unlocked—just to name a few. All of this creates a design playground which breeds annoying layouts that distract from the page's content. In contrast, Facebook has chosen to restrict at least the foundational framework of the site. While customization is an important aspect, it shouldn’t be allowed at the risk of the functional system—the very heart of a social networking site’s brand and reputation.

2: Auto-play music

People love music. It’s one of the few ubiquitous facets of life. In fact, Apple’s famed comeback as a technological and cultural superpower was all a carefully conceived plan to tap into our common love for music—and they rode that all the way to billion-dollar profits. In contrast, MySpace taps into music to annoy the living hell out of most of us. In fact, it should be noted that all non-prompted audio anywhere, on any page, is a widely unacceptable and an unwanted "feature."” This goes for ads, auto-play videos, and most important, unexpected, blaring music overlaid on what you might be listening to already.

3: Identities

The days of Internet handles are coming to a close. Yes, there was a time when one would be known as “Biker5445,” as systems continued to use usernames as main identifiers. Of course, Internet e-mail systems will still use some form of handles for some time. Most of today’s websites, however, no longer need to do this—particularly social networking sites. This is even more important due to recent news and events concerning privacy and security. The use of a handle is only good for concealing identity, and that doesn’t mix well in a site intended to connect people. What good can come from that policy in a social networking site? MySpace did eventually get clued into this basic, fundamental issue and started asking its users for their real name as an option: Again, too little too late.

4: Little focus on content with a horrible user interface

There’s actually too much of this subject matter to fit within this article’s short space. One could write volumes about the sheer usability and UI issues that plague MySpace. One thing is for sure, this aspect is a website killer, no matter if you are local deli or a major social networking site. In the case of MySpace, most interactions and conversations occur within a never-ending, scrolling guestbook. These “comments” also have very little restrictions and are filled with a cacophony of text, pictures, videos and animated gifs—all without any context in the conversation. Ultimately, the interface leaves everyone reading essentially one-half of an e-mail conversation between two people and no one else. That’s just the beginning. Features that are, at best, a one-time read about a person’s interests, life story, and favorite music, movies, books, television shows, heroes and foods are typically placed near the top of the page in one long column. Whether you have an interest in any of this stuff or not, you’re treated to it every time. The list goes on, but we just can’t stomach any more.

5: MySpace has cultivated a raunchy, immature base

MySpace’s culture—formed by the foundation created by its architects—has without a doubt developed an immaturity and a raunchiness that is unique to MySpace. It’s widely known that MySpace has sold-out to become a platform built around dating, which doesn’t help its state in terms of the quality of content. You can easily find all the "vital" statistics that you want from a date on most pages—everything from sexual orientation, build types, even income takes headline status. The archetypical “MySpace photo” is often mocked and mimicked today by a photo with the person in a sexually suggestive pose, with bright light and the camera aiming down from above. It’s not just about sexually suggestive material, but about the framework of how MySpace works. The site can’t be responsible for user’s content, or perhaps lack of content, but what MySpace’s architects have built promotes an underlying immaturity that is not present in Facebook—at least not yet. Coupled with all the other out-of-control elements, a light click-through of MySpace easily resembles a walk down a tattered, defaced red light district. And why is Facebook not facing this degree of the problem? Its architects have planned better. Perhaps it’s embracing the common sense of restricting anonymity. Perhaps it’s because Facebook doesn’t allow layouts and its interface to go nuts. Either way, it’s well-known that Facebook has attracted a more mature presence and left MySpace with the rest. If you have never experienced this cultural difference, click around random pages in MySpace—if you dare. Chances are, you don't need to and you're just nodding along with the rest of us.

6: Inordinate number of ads

News Corp is definitely profit-centric. Whatever soul MySpace ever had, it was sold to the highest bidder ages ago. The number of large, animated, irritating, irrelevant and sometimes offensive ads compared to what matters—content and utility—is terribly imbalanced. While Facebook has yet to turn a profit at the date of this article, it will eventually need to solve this problem and will most certainly shift its balance as well. Until the day comes when Facebook burns through its cash faster than investors can pour it in, this difference makes it an easy switch from MySpace to Facebook.

7: Spam

If there’s one thing that’s notorious on MySpace, it’s spam. The site’s spam comes in many forms, but the most prevalent are the spam bots for sex and dating sites. They pose as skanky figures, companies, scam artists, music groups and interest groups, which scour friend lists in public profiles and send out friend requests to drive traffic to their MySpace page or other shady website. MySpace came to its senses in recent times, figuring that this was annoying people beyond limits and started to ruthlessly crackdown. Again, too late. The brand of MySpace, “A Place for Friends,” became “MySpace—A Place For Sleazy Marketers.”

The Future

While MySpace's reputation is dead, Facebook isn’t perfect either. In fact, more and more people are becoming annoyed with its limitations and methods as well. It is still plagued with its own problems, some of them similar to MySpace in terms of its core usage. Simply put, there are things that “social networking” sites should be doing and they are not, along with things that they are doing and shouldn’t be. Facebook is—for the moment—simply a better option. But it’s got a thin line to walk as well, not the least of which is to actually turn a profit. With MySpace as good as buried, look to Facebook to begin making changes to address the pressures of creating more revenue. The balance between utility and profits will be tilted. The question is how much will it tilt and how much will be sacrificed when the next social networking site comes along and ups the ante?

More...

MySpace Helps News Corp Lose $363 Million [Mashable]

---

The Next Big Thing in Website Design: Wearable Technology

5 years ago, if you would’ve told me that people would be using mobile phones with tiny screens to access website content, I would’ve said that you were crazy. Obviously, I would have been quite wrong.

Today, I have clients who see more than 50% of their traffic come from mobile devices. The rise of those devices has changed the web design industry more so than any other thing I have seen in my 15+ years of designing and developing websites. Today, I see some of the signs I saw at the start of that rise in the growing popularity of wearable devices.

In this article, we will talk about what these wearable devices are, how they are used, and how their adoption may affect your business and your website.

What are wearable devices?

As the name suggests, “wearable devices” are ones that consumers actually wear on their body, as opposed to ones that they simply carry with them like a smartphone. Popular wearable device examples would be smartglasses, like Google Glass, and smartwatches, like the Moto 360 from Motorola or the forthcoming Apple Watch.

Each of these devices allow users to connect to the Web and access online content, and all of these devices feature screen sizes that are much smaller than what you will find on current smartphones. If you thought that it was a challenge to get your website content to be effective for a mobile phone, think about that same task now applied to an even smaller form factor!

It is that smaller form factor that is often given as a way to dismiss wearable devices ever being used to visit websites. Many people question whether a person would even want to access web content on those small screens. This is the same argument that was made early on in the rise of mobile devices like smartphones. The problem with this thinking is that it assumes that the wearable device is being used on its own, when in reality, the strength of these devices is how they connect as part of a larger ecosystem.

A connected ecosystem

Recently, we have been testing and experimenting with some wearable devices in our offices, including the aforementioned Moto 360 smartwatch and Google Glass. While these devices are amazing and powerful in their own right, they really begin to shine when they are paired with other devices, like a smartphone.

Yes, the tiny screen of a smartwatch makes reading long blocks of content or doing data entry on a webform uncomfortable, but those tasks can easily be bumped over to a connected smartphone. The watch can be used to filter this information. Instead of digging into my pocket to get my phone to check my emails or view online updates, I can more easily scan that information on the watch. Then, once I have identified something that requires my attention, I can switch to the phone, a tablet, or even a laptop of desktop computer to complete that task. In this way, I am using each device for what it does best – and both of them are accessing web-based content.

By connecting devices, you can also create actions or “triggers” based on certain parameters. For instance, in our testing we were able to take a picture with Google Glass and automatically publish that image to our Twitter account. Pretty cool, but we wanted to really take it a step further and see how far we could push this concept of connected devices and automatic actions. To do this, we purchased a MindWave headset from Amazon.com. This device measures brainwave activity. By using Bluetooth to connect that scanner to Google Glass and a smartphone, and with a little additional programming, we were able to create triggers that activated when certain thresholds were met. The first of those triggers caused Google Glass to snap a photo. The next trigger posted that photo to Twitter. These “triggers” were activated when the brainwave scanner sensed a change in a person’s brainwave patterns. We were able to demonstrate the process of automatically taking a photo and uploading it to social media – all with no input required other than changing the way we think.

Admittedly, this demonstration was a bit over-the-top by design. I do not expect consumers to start running around with brainwave scanners anytime soon, but the lesson here is that these devices, when connected as part of a larger ecosystem, can become so much more than the sum of their parts. As website owners, we really need to stop thinking about devices on an individual basis and start considering them as part of a larger whole.

Embracing the concept of "one Web"

When smartphones began to really gain popularity, companies realized that they could no longer ignore mobile by simply allowing their “normal” site (which was created to be used on a desktop computer, not a smaller handheld mobile device) to be sent to those phone screens. The solution that many companies embraced during this time was to create a separate “mobile-only” site for visitors using a smartphone. This solution became strained as tablet devices entered the market next.

Technically considered a mobile device, but with a screen size closer to a laptop than a phone, tablets really forced companies to question this “separate sites” approach. Yes, you could create one site for large, desktop monitors and another for mobile phones, but would you now create one for tablets –

leaving you with 3 sites to manage and maintain? With the rise of wearable devices, will you need to create a new site for each distinct wearable category? That is a long and expensive road to travel.

The desire to have only one website to manage and maintain has led to the adoption of responsive web design as an industry best practice. Responsive web design allows you to have one website that will automatically change its layout based on the user’s screen size. This was helpful when we had to consider mobile phones and tablets. With the rise of new wearable devices, this concept of “one web” is even more important.

If you intend to develop separate sites for each possible screen size, you will always be playing catch-up. As new devices enter the market, you will need to create a new site for each device type, which means you need to endure the time and expense of constantly rolling out new sites. This can quickly becoming overwhelming.

The reality is that there is no “mobile web”, there is just one Web and as the emergence of wearable devices has shown, our customers are using a variety of devices to access that Web and the content we put out there.

To do now

As wearable devices go from a novelty being used by the few to a way of life for the many, we want to make sure our sites will be ready. Don’t think wearable devices will ever be popular with consumers or used to regularly access web content? Again, that is exactly the argument that was given when smartphones first began gaining popularity, and we can see how that turned out. No, the question of wearable devices is not “if” they will impact our websites and audience, it is “when” they will do so.

If you have not already embraced the “one web” approach on your website, now is the time to really start exploring that option. You can begin by testing your website out on a variety of devices. If you have the ability to purchase these devices at your business, that is great, but even if you do not have the budget for devices purchases, you can still test your site on them. Visit your local Best Buy or other electronics retailer and see what new wearable and mobile devices are available today. Access your website on those devices to get a feel for what your customers may be seeing if they are visiting your site with similar devices.

You can also speak to your web or marketing agency about the rise of wearable devices and how to best prepare your site for them. By being proactive about wearable device support on your website, you can be a leader in the rise of these new devices, instead of a company trying to play catch-up after the fact.

 

---