Why MySpace is Good for Design
April 13th, 2007
You’ve got to hand it to MySpace. The designers there have done the impossible: they’ve created a site that tramples on the aesthetic sensibilities of nearly everyone while continuing to grow and be successful.
Today’s homepage, a page cluttered with ads for the new movie Red Line, is just another in a long line of disorienting, disquieting, overly-saturated designs that makes you wonder: “Why? Why on earth would MySpace create a billboard for Satan?”
(click for full-size screenshot)
It’s no wonder that every time we get talking about MySpace some very passionate conversation ensues. It is almost impossible to see through the visual clutter of the site to reveal the value that people are actually getting out of it.
Bad Design, Great Conversation
That’s why I think MySpace a great thing for design. Not because the homepage makes one’s head hurt, but because it so obscures the value that its members are getting that it always leads to passionate conversations. It gets graphic designers riled up, interaction designers in a tizzy, and product leads simply shaking their head.
Just yesterday, Jared and I were in a meeting with a design team and the subject of MySpace came up. Boy did the conversation begin to move then! Everyone went from a caffeine low to a can’t-get-a-word-in edgewise high. It was fabulous. Everyone had an opinion, and everyone was involved. That in itself is valuable.
What often happens at this point is that the notion of value has to come to the forefront for MySpace to make sense. We can’t imagine value coming from something so ugly, so we have to rely on asking actual MySpace users to find out why they’re so connected to the site. If you have done this or ever have the chance to, do it! You’ll find it incredibly interesting. The conversations that I’ve had with MySpace users has really changed the way I think about design…as well as the entire value proposition of social software.
To that end, ethnographers and usability folks, who study the actual behavior of people, are fascinated by MySpace. It’s like studying an alien civilization. The site breaks all the rules. Our common notions of design just don’t apply. It’s truly another world.
This is a good thing! The frustration we feel when looking at MySpace is a catalyst for evaluating our own design practices. Are we making too many assumptions based on how we personally feel? Are we in tune enough with the people we design for? Are we focused too much on visuals and not enough on other ways of providing value? Are we not targeting the right population? The questions that MySpace forces on us are valuable, enlightening, and always controversial.
So what do you think? Do you agree that MySpace is good for design? Or do you see it as a blot on the face of the Web?
April 13th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I think that MySpace has succeeded in part because it allows its members such latitude for self-expression. Everyone is a designer. Not everyone is a good designer. But being given a outlet for creative urges trumps aesthetics.
With increasing frequency, we “professional” designers will be called upon to design systems that allow users much more latitude for self-expression. I actually find that quite an exciting challenge.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I put together a web site where people can post about their businesses and products. I considered making an extensive design portal that lets people click on things and in the end build sites that look like they were done by professionals. The reality was that was not what people wanted, they wanted to just put themselves online and create to the best of their abilities something that they own. They can point to it and say they did it (and it is obvious that they did… it looks horrible) But it is what people want. At least right now. Maybe some day the average user will be a good designer and nasty MySpace pages will be shunned for their aesthetics despite their extensive networks and content. Will have to wait and see…
April 15th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I think that most people who use MySpace would do so regardless of the design. The function of MySpace, rather than the design, drives its success. Users are there to express themselves, or to see how others have done the same, and what is on the Home page is of less concern to them. The users’ purpose motivates them beyond any aspects of the design that are poor or even annoying. Incidentally, the Home page today (4/15) has changed, with the music page in the role of headache-inducer. At least I had to click twice to see it.
Looking at the above screenshot reminds me of another site—where people might turn for sports information and news–that I think is equally headache-inducing. In this latter case, I believe that some of the design elements obscure the information presented, a more serious offense on that site, since its purpose is informational, as well as entertainment.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:29 am
It is important for us web types to understand that many/most web users do not understand design, good or bad. A myspace page with unreadably large text and huge images that break the layout isn’t immediately different from another page with small text and a flyout menu for navigation. Each page presents certain difficulties for users (even if the second is clearly easier for us) and they muddle through without any notion of which is better.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:05 am
@lucasamanda : Your assertion that people use MySpace solely on function is an interesting one. Can that teach us anything about how we design other web sites? Is this unique to MySpace, or can we apply it elsewhere?
April 16th, 2007 at 10:06 am
@Tamlyn: If more users don’t understand design, and use sites like MySpace with obviously lacking visual design, what, then, is the value of design? Is it a differentiator…or just something that we can charge a lot of money for?
April 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I think that what lucasamanda said is accurate it is not the usability of MySpace that draws it’s users it is that they offer a service that no one else did at the time of MySpaces rise. It allows its users the ability to gather on a social ground and chat, post, and express themselves online - for free. Other sites want them to pay for these things. If MySpace charged for this service there would be less enthusiasm I think.
If you are the first to offer a product/service that no one else offers it really is despite the design that they succeed.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:36 am
I have to agree with lucasamanda. I feel the success of MySpace and it’s Dutch equivalent Hyves.nl lies in the fact that they are the next evolution of ’social’ web-phenomena like Forums (while being more readily accessible than Second Life, which might be the summit in the evolution of ’social’ web phenomena). While Forums forced users to meet in a ‘general’/'public’ place, social network sites enable users to meet at each other’s homes.
And don’t underestimate the bandwagon effect. I recently started using Hyves.nl, despite all its design flaws and performance issues, just because of the immense social pressure of all my friends who were already using it.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:43 am
BTW: The long tail also applies to social network sites. You can hook up with people you haven’t seen since you were in your diapers
April 17th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
My IT and technical writing backgrounds have given me exposure to GUI design and usability issues. I’ve also been an avid myspace user for about 2 yrs. (Not to chat or collect friends, but because I’m involved with the local music scene in my town, and myspace has become an invaluable networking tool for that.)
The general public might not understand “good” design, and yes that is oh-so-obvious on some people’s profiles. (Their color choices and tons of animations make me cringe.) HOWEVER, there *is* an underlying structure to all profile pages. Even if someone has customized their page, you still know generally where to look for the links to comments, their friends list, their picture gallery, etc, and you know where to look for the tool bar back to the myspace interface. That does not change regardless of how horridly someone’s profile has been personalized.
A bigger issue for users is, new users have no clue how to get started or how to add friends. They get no comments on their page, because they have no friends, but don’t know that’s why. They don’t understand they need to build their social network, and don’t know how to go about that.
How would interface design help these folks? Being a technical writer, my answer would be, they need instruction on what to do next, or how to get started. But who reads the help!!?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Throw Away Everything You Think You Know About How Your Website Should Look…
Joshua Porter at User Interface Engineering notes:
You’ve got to hand it to MySpace. The designers there have done the impossible: they’ve created a site that tramples on the aesthetic sensibilities of nearly everyone while continuing to grow and b…
April 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Know what MySpace reminds me of? PowerPoint. People love making PowerPoints and using clip art, animation, and twenty different font types, colors, and sizes. Do you know the time and effort people spend on the worst-looking powerpoints? And how proud they are afterwards?
MySpace is like that, but on crack. You can add songs and movie clips and slideshows, not to mention font colors and clip art. And the whole world can see.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Couldn’t it also for some users be a case of ‘because’ of the design and not ‘despite’? Could MySpace’s prevailing visual mess curb inhibitions? It could be an antidote to any innate fears of spoiling ‘a clean white sheet of paper’. No worries about looking trashy and amateurish - everybody does. Dive right in - anything goes - it’s dirty and immediate.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:52 am
@J.K: That’s an interesting analogy. Both can be seen as tools for communication, and both can be abused so that communication is lost.
Every time I got to a MySpace page with music, my head hurts. But, I’ve observed users do it and they really enjoy it. In some ways the obscurity of disorienting music acts like a filter for the audience. If someone doesn’t “get” what you’re doing, they’re probably not supposed to.
And you’re absolutely right, it is very much about pride in ownership and creation…that’s an important point that isn’t talked about enough.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:55 am
@Bee: I’ve heard that argument before, and I’m still wondering about it. I liken it to a diner, where lots of people like to eat in an atmosphere that is completely disarming…not a formal element in sight. Sometimes it is the quirkiness of the place that people see as “charming”…which I think is the angle you’re going for here.
What I have found is that the argument you’re making really irks designers I’ve talked to…in the sense that “style” can be empowering but not the “unstyle” of MySpace. It’s a delicate balance…and a great topic for discussion. Thanks!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Perhaps what MySpace can teach designers, is that “sophisticated” interactive design is an oxymoron. Sophistication makes most people feel unconfortable and excluded from interaction. Think about a high Gunning-Fog index on aesthetical appeals.
I know many graphic designers that have bookmarked lots of cool, sophisticated websites for “inspiration”. But in their own experiences as users, they rarely visit a “sophisticated” or “cool” site twice. On the example of going for diner, you may like going to an special place once in a while, but end every other day of your life at McDonald’s or worse… where no one cares if you’re using the right fork
On another subject, MySpace users are not designing, but trying to express theirselves. They fill their pages not only with things they have fun showing to others, but many times just have fun stuffing there. I totally agree that MySpace is like PowerPoint on crack: “Hey, I crammed my page with 100 MP3 playing at once! Nobody else dares to do that! I rule!”
I also think that MySpace is like a club where the beat makes your head and stomach ache, the drinks are poisonous and expensive, restrooms are awfully dirty, and have only steamy hot water running from the faucets. But it’s crammed with people partying there. If you want to have a dance or a chat, that’s your place… and you will do better if you sing along.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:49 am
I think one very interesting point is that the main thing that attracts people at MySpace are its functionalities. The things you can *do* there, not how they look like. Also, those teenagers want to look “different” so they won’t try to be “formal” or have the site look polite nor polished.
But let’s not forget that, now, the main power of MySpace is that it has some kind of monopoly and “if you’re not in MySpace, you don’t exist”. I would bet that a lot of people are in MySpace simply because everybody else is there too (that’s how me and my friends ended up switching, with pain, to MSN Messenger from IRC a few years ago).
How did MySpace get to that critical mass point? Well, let’s not forget how MySpace originated and who created it—the key words are spam and marketing.
http://valleywag.com/tech/myspace/what-news-corp-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-myspace-condensed-edition-199668.php
May 17th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
People only feel uncomfortable with a nice design if they’re also invited to completely change it. The general population is not designers. So if they are presented with a beautiful design and told, “Go make something out of this”, they know there is only one direction they can take it: worse design.
But give them a crappy design and tell them to make something out of it and they’ll have no problem. It already looks bad. I can make what I want.
People DO understand good design. They LIKE good design. But they don’t want to embarrass themselves. MySpace gives users the opportunity to create something without embarrassment.
June 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Boxes. Normal people love boxes (with borders, that’s it.) MySpace has lots of boxes people can put stuff in. That’s all.
Designers love grids. Invisible grids, specially. That’s VERY different stuff.
(I always wandered why when non-designers try to “design” something they usually use so many bordered boxes…)
Regards.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
[...] Joshua Porter, de User Interface Engineering, dispara el tema en un artículo del que traduzco algunos párrafos: No me sorprende que cada vez que [los diseñadores] hablamos de MySpace, se producen discusiones muy apasionadas. (…) No podemos imaginar que surja valor de algo tan espantoso, así que tenemos que preguntarle a los verdaderos usuarios de MySpace porqué están tan conectados con el sitio. (…) Las conversaciones que hemos tenido con usuarios de MySpace han cambiado realmente la forma en la que pensamos acerca del diseño… así como toda la propuesta de valores del software social. [...]
July 12th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
[...] Joshua Porter at User Interface Engineer thinks MySpace is Good for Design. He’s right, it definitely sparks conversation. While some people think MySpace’s success shows that we designers don’t really know that much about other’s people’s definitions of good aesthetics, I’m not convinced. [...]
August 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
[...] August 18, 2008 Filed under: Uncategorized | Despite its popularity, there is definitely a UI constituency out there who don’t find the aesthetics of MySpace very appealing. For those perhaps seeking [...]