Chris just sent me a link to this fascinating New York Magazine article on how young people are using the internet to build their identity online.

I was, to some extent, part of the phenomenon of exhibitionist, obsessively-self-documenting teens on Livejournal. I started off on Livejournal writing plain, dull, what-I-had-for-lunch journal entries (FYI, I now do this on Twitter).

As I connected with other Livejournal users, I realised that I could tailor my posts to garner more comments (the cherished stamp of popularity). Comments motivated my writing, and I wrote to amuse, entertain, and to provoke commentry. I enjoyed having readers who commented on my posts as much as I enjoyed writing the posts.

I wasn’t as as obsessed with it as some. Some contacts on Livejournal would document themselves with endless photographs. And then I remember a community popping up on Livejournal, sometime in 2003, called “Nonuglies”. To join this community, wannabe members were asked to submit a journal entry to the community featuring three photos of themselves. Existing members would then vote “yes” or “no” on whether the applicant was beautiful enough to be accepted to the site. After the board had cast their votes, they would be counted. Accepted members were officially “non-ugly”. Rejects were hounded off the site.

Nonuglies was incredibly cold, elitist, and nasty. The original community shut down after a few months, and was reborn in various guises. And at the time, Nonuglies was very popular: loved and hated in equal measure — a squirming petri-dish of human nature.

What’s really amazing to me is the levels of self-exhibitionism the internet allows. Livejournal gives teens a platform to write about their lives, and garner popularity from it. We have self-made YouTube stars (leading to real-life, six-figure TV contracts). We have people documenting their lives in visual minutiae on their Flickr photo accounts. Facebook allows people to build an entire persona. Chris Pirillo streams live from his desk 24/7.

Who’s watching all this? What motivates it?

The “invisible audience” is an interesting term and is brought up in the NY Magazine article linked above. It really is possible to be famous on the internet, and I think it’s the motivation to be seen that motivates this self-documentation. Teenagers in particular battle for a sense of individuality, and they are making use of these online tools to do it. Inhibition is overcome in the process. On one hand, this self-confidence is great; on the other, it could be self-sabotaging — for starters, Google might be unforgiving to the data-trail you left throughout your confused teenage years. Nevertheless: the desire for self-invention in young people is there; the internet has given them the tools.

Tim Berners-Lee says the web is in its infancy. We have only just begun to see how the internet is being used to overcome distance, share information, and connect people together. The future web, Sir Tim says, will put “all the data in the world” at the fingertips of every user.

Whilst desktop and laptop computers have defined how we experience the web, I believe that the benefit of the web is best when you can use it anywhere. McGuire’s law is that the value of any product or service increases with its mobility.

So, the mobile web…

Mowser

In many ways, I think Mowser was a great idea. I also think that in many ways, Mowser missed the point. This is aknowledged by its creator, Russell Beattie, in his leaving letter, which was widely and wildly misinterpreted after it was published. Beattie’s leaving note, far from being doctor’s autopsy notes for the mobile web, is actually full of vision and hope for what the mobile web should be like.

In a way, it heralds the death of a certain kind of aenemic mobile web, and one we didn’t want in the first place. Mowser’s failure, although sad, should help to guide others working in the shaping the future of the mobile web:

It’s not the mobile web, it’s the web…?

The mobile web should exist as a term. But it should not refer to a different web. We can’t deny that how we access and use the “mobile” web is different from how we might use it at home. This does not refer just to the device that the web is viewed on; it refers also to what we use the web for.

We need to make mobile web experiences better. To do this, we need to try and identify how we use the web outside of our homes; and how this is different from how we use the web inside of our homes. E.g., we might not want to do intensive research whilst out shopping; but at home, we might meticulously research and compare reviews for a restaurant.

Despite this, we cannot, and definitely should not, separate the web we view on our laptop from the web we view on our mobile device. Tim Berners-Lee is vehemently opposed to .mobi domain names for this reason:

I’m a new student of “Experience Design”. Can you really design experiences?

One of the books I discovered in my flat a few months ago was the best-selling ‘The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People’ (by Stephen Covey). The book advocates the idea of a life that is governed by “principles”, by which positive outcomes are the natural product of this way of living, and not necessarily the aim. So according to Covey, a life led by positive principles leads to positive outcomes. A similar approach can be taken towards design, in terms of experience. The idea is similar: a designer focused on human experience of the finished object, rather than “designing an object”, will produce superior work.

I’ve just started to read Bill Buxton’s ‘Sketching User Experiences’. Here’s a quotation from Buxton’s website:

Ultimately, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the products that we design are the “things” that we sell, rather than the individual, social and cultural experience that they engender, and the value and impact that they have. Design that ignores this is not worthy of the name.

For me this is a totally new and very exciting way of looking at design.

We live in terms of experiences. We are surrounded by objects that give us an experience. Le Corbusier’s opening line in his 1923 book, ‘Vers une architecture’ (towards a new architecture), is “a house is a machine for living in“. I think this is a good approach to architecture. A house is a machine for living in, and a house is populated by various other man-made things such as a bed, a bookcase, a bedside table, a lamp. We experience a lamp when we attempt to turn it on and off. We experience a bed when we lie on it. We experience a bookcase when we put our books in it. If we can identify the components of what makes an experience good, then experiences are designable.

Objects we choose to surround ourselves with are, on the whole, man made; and they are objects which we have selected ourselves. We select these objects because they are easy to use, cheap, practical, aesthetically-pleasing, or all of these things. In other words, we choose to surround ourselves with objects that give us a pleasant experience. A designer who designs with this experience in mind is looking at the top of the hierarchy of everything a designer should be thinking about. Design exists to give human beings a good experience, whether it’s an entire city, a map to navigate the city, a dictionary, or a clear dictionary typeface.

I think a big enemy for designers is distraction, or approaching a problem with an existing agenda or idea in mind. Role-models (i.e. famous graphic designers, artists, architects) and inspirational objects (i.e. examples of existing examples that you admire by famous graphic designers, artists, architects) can distract and obscure, rather than clarify and help. By focusing on experience, the designer has a clear canvas. Good experience is the aim, and it doesn’t matter how you reach this aim. It includes both function and aesthetics, as both are necessary for a good experience, and both are necessary for a good design.

Experience design is very relevant to mobile design, and even more so as the small screen attempts an increasingly ambitious portfolio of capabilities that the desktop/laptop computer can already do. Designing applications that provide the user with a delightful experience is one thing. Working out how to deal with the desktop-scaled web on a small screen is another. I’m looking forward to giving this more thought…

I’ve been following Twitter and watching the SXSW conversations unfold in the last few hours. Many have been focused on Sarah Lacy’s interview with Mark Zuckerberg, which are mainly negative. There’s a really interesting write up on the interview at BuzzMachine.

From Jeff Jarvis’s write up of the interview, this is the most interesting bit to me:

He [Mark Zuckerberg] says that Facebook is working on a universal need: connecting people who want to communicate. He says that someday everyone on the world will be using these tools. “It may not be Facebook.”

Interesting. Facebook will need to evolve, as I think that branding and advertising will only obfuscate a communication tool. I think that if Facebook really wants to “connect people who want to communicate”, it needs to be as invisible as possible, and it needs to be open as possible. I want to easily sync my contacts with my address book, my phone, etc. I want to take data out.

Transparency in social networking: a good analogy would be plain typography, or the principles set out in Beatrice Warde’s ‘The Crystal Goblet‘: basically, that printing should be invisible, so that words and ideas can be read and understood as clearly as possible. A real communication tool must give privacy, yes, but also transparency and flexibility.