You can’t please everyone, or what we learn from the 2006 redesign of the Facebook feed
Imagine: you are a software developer. You are included in the team working on the redesign of one of the central functions of the application created by the company. You collected user information for several months, made prototypes, tested them on the control group (everyone liked it!) And reworked the application. And now the updated version is publicly available.
Now imagine that thousands of people opposed the update. They began to create web pages for opponents of the new function. They decided to declare a mass boycott of the product. In the "Time" an article appeared with a detailed analysis of your failure.
')
In such a situation, you probably would have thought that it was time to refresh your LinkedIn profile (of course, keeping silent about this fiasco there): as soon as the director raids what you have done, he will immediately fire you.
Now imagine that all these people were wrong. You did a research. You tested the application on the control group (everyone liked it!). Imagine that while hundreds or even thousands of users protested, everyone else continued to use the product and profits increased significantly. Imagine that your redesign has actually changed the world and how people communicate with each other.
The story of Facebook news is one of my favorite stories from the design world. When the news feed first saw the light in 2006, I lived on a campus and the students literally organized protest marches in front of my eyes.
People ruthlessly hit Facebook. It seemed that everyone considered it his duty to speak, and the reviews were totally negative.
“Recently, in the world of Facebook, events unfold in such a way that one involuntarily wonders if Mark Zuckerberg is not writing the book How to spoil a social network,” the standard reaction of the average blogger in 2006 .
And, of course, now, ten years later, we all know how it all ended.
A source
The news feed has not disappeared, the timeline has replaced the mini-tape, Mark Zuckerberg ranks fifth among the richest people on the planet and some even say that he could run for President .
The expression "flipping through the tape" was firmly established in the lexicon of modern man, and the corresponding action has become an ordinary part of everyday life. The “ fucked up ” Facebook team actually created something so necessary, powerful and addictive that 99% of the population simply cannot tear itself away.
Now you’ll definitely mention this project on LinkedIn and in the summary.
Everyone did not mind - it just seemed so. By the time they rolled out the news feed, Facebook had 12 million users . Groups of protesters (which, no matter how funny, were formed just on Facebook) of the type Students Against the News Feed Facebook gathered “ more than 700,000 participants ”. For an angry crowd, the dimensions are decent, but still not enough to outweigh the silent majority, who looked at the update and thought: “Wow, great.”
These are the two main camps: users who think to themselves: “Wow, great,” and users who organize protest actions. For those who are satisfied and leafing through their news, you can’t write a good article in Time. Even if they constitute the vast majority.
Let's use the backward mind and see what factors led this radical redesign of the basic function to success:
The Facebook team prototyped, tested, iterated and re-tested the application on users. The test participants liked everything! The bloggers who got access to the application before the release gave it a “ positive rating .” All data spoke in favor of the introduction of the news feed.
However, when faced with a flurry of complaints, it is difficult not to succumb to emotions. I want to do anything, just to leave the line of fire.
But if in the early stages of development you laid out as it should, then you have nothing to fear. The storm will subside. Reliable data do not lie.
You need to be a good leader to stay on the side of the team and bravely tolerate criticism. Many company directors would not have had the heart to say more than 700 thousand users: “ Calm down. Inhale-exhale. We heard you .
In this regard, Facebook also did everything right. All the time, while the indignation remained at the peak, Mark Zuckerberg kept himself without arrogance. He listened to the complaints and set up the team to take more account of the interests of these users in the future. But at the same time, he did not give up, did not cancel what was done and did not offer ridiculous compromises (for example, make the tape an option).
He showed understanding, but remained firm.
I have to admit: the story of the news feed was remembered to me because I, and most recently, were flooded with indignant letters about the new CRM interface that my team from GHSI Technologies just released.
Old and new interface versions
We have a much smaller user base than Facebook, so I had the opportunity to work with each of those who applied individually. For the first few days after the release, I phoned a dozen disgruntled users.
At first, I wondered if I was doing the right thing, but then I decided to rely on the collected data. Talking with users, I sympathetically listened to what they did not like in the new version. Then he asked again . And yet, and more, until he reached the root of the problem and their needs.
In each case, these needs could be met within the framework of the new design. Someone had to suggest how to remove part of the data on their side (a more transparent new design revealed some old flaws related to working with data). Others required minor adjustments to make the interface optimally suited to their needs.
I turned to my inner Zuckerberg: I was understanding, but I remained firm.
Suppose that about 6% of your user base openly opposes innovations and boycotts the product, while the remaining 94% have accepted the change indifferently. In this case, things are going badly for you and indignation can outweigh, especially if the company is sensitive to the “image preservation”. But if the number of people who like the new version exceeds the number of the disgruntled (even if they are less actively expressing their opinion), the update will stay afloat, provided that the company follows the chosen course.
Again: I recently experienced it all on myself. The first two third-party reviews from users that I received on the redesign, sounded like this:
“Great, just great! Thank you and your team for doing so much to develop the system. ”
and
“We don't like it at all. Please return the old interface to us as soon as possible. ”
Both reviews came in handy. The first served as a small positive reinforcement, which helped once again to make sure that the data that we collected at the beginning of work can be trusted. And in the second case, I got the opportunity to immediately call the frustrated client and “have a pleasant conversation” (this is his expression) to solve his problems. At the end of the conversation, he even volunteered to participate in future prototype beta tests!
If opinions about your innovation are strongly divided, the main thing is that the number of its supporters (including the silent ones) be more, and then everything will be bypassed.
The team that created the news feed was probably shocked by these hundreds of thousands of negative reviews. But, I'm sure, someone immediately drew the attention of others to the fact that millions of users have mastered the new format and are happy with it.
When customers shout at you, arguing with you because of change - this is a painful experience. You may be tempted to put an end to this, to offer them a way out.
Pete Cashmore, head of the Mashable online publication, predicted that Facebook would give way under user pressure:
The Facebook team could make one of two disastrously wrong decisions:
The first option is bad because it is a decision that is based on pure emotions, and does not take into account the results of the study. The second one is even worse, because the team refuses to make a decision. Now she has no choice but to maintain two code bases, which will cost twice as much. Instead of throwing 100% of people to develop new useful functions, they will give 50% of the resource for the empty work of servicing the old code in an attempt to please 6% of the audience.
When Cashmore says things like: “Facebook just needed to provide the ability to disable the feature,” it seems that he never wrote the code himself and wasn’t even familiar with the process. If at least for a second to think about the consequences, such a proposal would immediately disappear.
Companies have to constantly struggle with the desire to keep outdated solutions as a sign of respect for traditions or because of nostalgia on their way to new iterations and improved redesigns.
Now Microsoft is experiencing this experience with its Microsoft Paint . Microsoft wants to replace the old product, which has been around for decades, with a new tool. And it seems that all users, without exception, resist this initiative - but is it really so? Do not most of them are people who are not included in the discussion, but would not mind working with a more modern program?
Many are in favor of the old solution, but maybe those who have not abandoned new, more effective methods are still more?
And if companies, fearing negativity from users, spend their resources on developing old technologies in working order, then innovative startups for whom such problems are irrelevant can take over the initiative and greatly change the situation on the market.
Our industry has no respect for tradition — only innovation.
Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft in 2014
But perhaps this is only the reaction of a small but very active group of the audience.
I do not urge to turn a blind eye to the response of dissatisfied users. Without a doubt, their opinion about the product should be taken into account and how they use it. But do not put even the most vociferous users above the most silent.
Therefore, although I collected all the negative reviews about our redesign, in addition to this, I turned to the user base and asked for feedback and from them too. And if we consider that all points of view have equal weight, it became clear which course of movement should be chosen - forward: decisively, with understanding, towards innovation.
Now imagine that thousands of people opposed the update. They began to create web pages for opponents of the new function. They decided to declare a mass boycott of the product. In the "Time" an article appeared with a detailed analysis of your failure.
')
In such a situation, you probably would have thought that it was time to refresh your LinkedIn profile (of course, keeping silent about this fiasco there): as soon as the director raids what you have done, he will immediately fire you.
Now imagine that all these people were wrong. You did a research. You tested the application on the control group (everyone liked it!). Imagine that while hundreds or even thousands of users protested, everyone else continued to use the product and profits increased significantly. Imagine that your redesign has actually changed the world and how people communicate with each other.
So it was
The story of Facebook news is one of my favorite stories from the design world. When the news feed first saw the light in 2006, I lived on a campus and the students literally organized protest marches in front of my eyes.
"Over the next 24 hours, hundreds of thousands of students across the country organized against the new design," - "Time" on September 6, 2006
People ruthlessly hit Facebook. It seemed that everyone considered it his duty to speak, and the reviews were totally negative.
“Recently, in the world of Facebook, events unfold in such a way that one involuntarily wonders if Mark Zuckerberg is not writing the book How to spoil a social network,” the standard reaction of the average blogger in 2006 .
And, of course, now, ten years later, we all know how it all ended.
A source
The news feed has not disappeared, the timeline has replaced the mini-tape, Mark Zuckerberg ranks fifth among the richest people on the planet and some even say that he could run for President .
The expression "flipping through the tape" was firmly established in the lexicon of modern man, and the corresponding action has become an ordinary part of everyday life. The “ fucked up ” Facebook team actually created something so necessary, powerful and addictive that 99% of the population simply cannot tear itself away.
Now you’ll definitely mention this project on LinkedIn and in the summary.
Where is the success, if all were against?
Everyone did not mind - it just seemed so. By the time they rolled out the news feed, Facebook had 12 million users . Groups of protesters (which, no matter how funny, were formed just on Facebook) of the type Students Against the News Feed Facebook gathered “ more than 700,000 participants ”. For an angry crowd, the dimensions are decent, but still not enough to outweigh the silent majority, who looked at the update and thought: “Wow, great.”
These are the two main camps: users who think to themselves: “Wow, great,” and users who organize protest actions. For those who are satisfied and leafing through their news, you can’t write a good article in Time. Even if they constitute the vast majority.
Let's use the backward mind and see what factors led this radical redesign of the basic function to success:
- Reliance on data
- Innovation that does not leave people indifferent
- Company response to user response
- Respect for innovation
Reliance on data
The Facebook team prototyped, tested, iterated and re-tested the application on users. The test participants liked everything! The bloggers who got access to the application before the release gave it a “ positive rating .” All data spoke in favor of the introduction of the news feed.
However, when faced with a flurry of complaints, it is difficult not to succumb to emotions. I want to do anything, just to leave the line of fire.
But if in the early stages of development you laid out as it should, then you have nothing to fear. The storm will subside. Reliable data do not lie.
You need to be a good leader to stay on the side of the team and bravely tolerate criticism. Many company directors would not have had the heart to say more than 700 thousand users: “ Calm down. Inhale-exhale. We heard you .
Company response to user response
In this regard, Facebook also did everything right. All the time, while the indignation remained at the peak, Mark Zuckerberg kept himself without arrogance. He listened to the complaints and set up the team to take more account of the interests of these users in the future. But at the same time, he did not give up, did not cancel what was done and did not offer ridiculous compromises (for example, make the tape an option).
He showed understanding, but remained firm.
I have to admit: the story of the news feed was remembered to me because I, and most recently, were flooded with indignant letters about the new CRM interface that my team from GHSI Technologies just released.
Old and new interface versions
We have a much smaller user base than Facebook, so I had the opportunity to work with each of those who applied individually. For the first few days after the release, I phoned a dozen disgruntled users.
At first, I wondered if I was doing the right thing, but then I decided to rely on the collected data. Talking with users, I sympathetically listened to what they did not like in the new version. Then he asked again . And yet, and more, until he reached the root of the problem and their needs.
In each case, these needs could be met within the framework of the new design. Someone had to suggest how to remove part of the data on their side (a more transparent new design revealed some old flaws related to working with data). Others required minor adjustments to make the interface optimally suited to their needs.
I turned to my inner Zuckerberg: I was understanding, but I remained firm.
Innovation that does not leave people indifferent
Suppose that about 6% of your user base openly opposes innovations and boycotts the product, while the remaining 94% have accepted the change indifferently. In this case, things are going badly for you and indignation can outweigh, especially if the company is sensitive to the “image preservation”. But if the number of people who like the new version exceeds the number of the disgruntled (even if they are less actively expressing their opinion), the update will stay afloat, provided that the company follows the chosen course.
Again: I recently experienced it all on myself. The first two third-party reviews from users that I received on the redesign, sounded like this:
“Great, just great! Thank you and your team for doing so much to develop the system. ”
and
“We don't like it at all. Please return the old interface to us as soon as possible. ”
Both reviews came in handy. The first served as a small positive reinforcement, which helped once again to make sure that the data that we collected at the beginning of work can be trusted. And in the second case, I got the opportunity to immediately call the frustrated client and “have a pleasant conversation” (this is his expression) to solve his problems. At the end of the conversation, he even volunteered to participate in future prototype beta tests!
If opinions about your innovation are strongly divided, the main thing is that the number of its supporters (including the silent ones) be more, and then everything will be bypassed.
The team that created the news feed was probably shocked by these hundreds of thousands of negative reviews. But, I'm sure, someone immediately drew the attention of others to the fact that millions of users have mastered the new format and are happy with it.
Respect for innovation
When customers shout at you, arguing with you because of change - this is a painful experience. You may be tempted to put an end to this, to offer them a way out.
Pete Cashmore, head of the Mashable online publication, predicted that Facebook would give way under user pressure:
“Honestly, I see the only possible outcome: Facebook will be forced to add a“ switch ”- and most users will disconnect from the new system, as a result of which there will be little confusion. Facebook is unlikely to remove the news feed completely, but it will have to come up with some kind of compromise that would satisfy the users. ”
The Facebook team could make one of two disastrously wrong decisions:
- Return to the old design and start working with a new layout from scratch.
- Or worse: to offer users a choice - "classic" design or "updated".
The first option is bad because it is a decision that is based on pure emotions, and does not take into account the results of the study. The second one is even worse, because the team refuses to make a decision. Now she has no choice but to maintain two code bases, which will cost twice as much. Instead of throwing 100% of people to develop new useful functions, they will give 50% of the resource for the empty work of servicing the old code in an attempt to please 6% of the audience.
When Cashmore says things like: “Facebook just needed to provide the ability to disable the feature,” it seems that he never wrote the code himself and wasn’t even familiar with the process. If at least for a second to think about the consequences, such a proposal would immediately disappear.
Companies have to constantly struggle with the desire to keep outdated solutions as a sign of respect for traditions or because of nostalgia on their way to new iterations and improved redesigns.
Now Microsoft is experiencing this experience with its Microsoft Paint . Microsoft wants to replace the old product, which has been around for decades, with a new tool. And it seems that all users, without exception, resist this initiative - but is it really so? Do not most of them are people who are not included in the discussion, but would not mind working with a more modern program?
Many are in favor of the old solution, but maybe those who have not abandoned new, more effective methods are still more?
And if companies, fearing negativity from users, spend their resources on developing old technologies in working order, then innovative startups for whom such problems are irrelevant can take over the initiative and greatly change the situation on the market.
Our industry has no respect for tradition — only innovation.
Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft in 2014
It seems that nobody likes the redesign
But perhaps this is only the reaction of a small but very active group of the audience.
I do not urge to turn a blind eye to the response of dissatisfied users. Without a doubt, their opinion about the product should be taken into account and how they use it. But do not put even the most vociferous users above the most silent.
Therefore, although I collected all the negative reviews about our redesign, in addition to this, I turned to the user base and asked for feedback and from them too. And if we consider that all points of view have equal weight, it became clear which course of movement should be chosen - forward: decisively, with understanding, towards innovation.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/340742/
All Articles