Web Schizophrenia
I’ll admit to being schizophrenic in my web usage. This explains why plain-vanilla Google is set as my default browser homepage. On the one hand, I don’t want anything pre-defined for me when I start web browsing. The idea of a personalized page with feeds from sources tailored to my interests feels limiting to me. That may sound counter-intuitive because the point of such personalization is to save me time and effort by aggregating what I’ve defined as important. But it just doesn’t work for me precisely because it’s pre-defined. I prefer to start knowing that the whole web is my oyster.Google’s simple search box respects this sentiment. It stares back at me, daring me to query. It’s a much better starting companion on a journey into the web because it allows me to start anywhere I want.
For example, I often use it to type in the URL for a favorite sports site. I use Google’s box like a keystroke command. I find that easier than navigating to the address bar on the toolbar and mucking around with the entire address. Of course, I can just enter some query terms in the event I ‘m casually or seriously looking for new information. Like you, curiosity strikes me about a half dozen times a day and having Google there as my homepage is my zero latency strategy.
Another way to frame the issue is to say that web schizophrenia comes from the fact that I want nothing and everything at the same time. Google is the only product that offers that to me right now.
You might understand the motivation for wanting everything, but why nothing? In a word, it’s about inspiration. I need nothing imposed on me at time zero of a web session because that would limit where my inspirations can take me. How in the world is a personalized page that I configured once a few months ago supposed to serve as my gateway to the web on a recurring basis? I am a different person today than I was yesterday or the day before. What occupies my mind and what I find inspirational at this moment may be different than what was the case an hour ago.
So it’s no surprise that when I see the personalized page it’s a totally stifling experience that kind of guilts me into clicking on one of the links. The thinking is, “well I configured and selected these great feeds, so if I don’t use them then maybe I won’t be living up to my previously defined digital identity.” But that can be disruptive to the original impetus for going online to begin with.
The whole point of the web is that there’s infinite content which is always changing. That’s why it continues to work to meet the many, many dynamic interests that comprise who you are.
An extreme example of this are professionals who need to stay on top of industry news and find it convenient to program instant access to their top 100 sources right into the main page. If your business is the financial markets then you will be easily inspired by breaking news on a stock you own. Other professionals who are short on time and measured on current knowledge also do this. But as for the rest of us, I would argue against allowing a professional identity encroach on individuality. Concentrating information consumption into a routine, mechanical activity is boring.
Another thought on how make personalization work relates to the user experience of set-up. In some ways, there’s emotional baggage associated with a priori configuration of personalization services. It makes the act of personalizing more committal than it needs to be. I prefer approaches that are, instead, contextual. By contextual, I mean to log or identify your interests as you consume. When you integrate the set-up of personalization tools into content consumption, you create several benefits. First, the feedback loop can be continuous as opposed to a less recurring activity (usually prompted by dis-satisfaction with initial set-up). Second, you can derive more meaningful user input because you can learn from actual usage patterns. And finally, users can feel less guilty when ignoring “personalized” content because it wasn’t a separate, dedicated effort.
For those of us developing web apps, it’s hard to think of ways to parallel this accidental genius demonstrated by Google (give users nothing and everything all at once). But we should all be striving to create apps which carry microcosms of this schizophrenic appeal. Accomplish that and even a schizophrenic will become your most reliable friend.
Related Links
- Google Ramps Up Personalized Search
- Google Blog on Personalization
- Homepage for NetVibes
- Homepage for PageFlakes
- Yahoo Says Search is History!
Filed under: Google, Search Technology, User Experiences, Web Apps, Innovation
Email It
Digg This!
Slashdot It!
Tags: Browser Homepage, Personalization, Feeds, iGoogle, Schizophrenia,
Interesting comments. It's certainly a matter of personal preference. The blank screen, that you call "inspiring," is considered by many as overwhelming - a sort of writers' block. With nothing on the canvas, you could be dared to create your own picture, but there are many who need some dots to provide a starting point.
The reason portals have done so well is exactly this: they bring to the users what they are most likely to need. I have been involved with the design, development and deployment of several portals (or dashboards) that provide up to 80% of the required features/options to all users. They can customize an additional 10-15% of the contents. For the rest of the stuff, they would just have to go and fish independently, outside the domain (or confines) of these portals.
Outside of corporate environment, however, the general populace has certainly not embraced them with the same zeal. How many people manage a MyYahoo page, as compared to the size of the entire community.
You are absolutely correct is asserting that news/contents based on a pre-selected criteria is very limiting. I, for one, like to be surprised with things I know nothing about, that could contribute a different perspective. Hence my fondness for NPR and for some special interest websites that can be termed as obscure at best!
As regards the genius of google, I'd like to reserve my comments. Despite their phenomenal success, and off-the-charts stock performance, I'm still on the fence as to the stay power of their search prowess. It's all in the algorithm, right? If so, what is stopping some guys and gals in a garage (or, more appropriately, in the computer lab of a well-funded university program!) to go one over? I've been asking this question of a lot of folks, from varying backgrounds, and it does appear that my views form a minority. Still ... I choose to stubbornly cling to my reasoning!
Thanks for many stiimulating topics. Where do you come up with them? Mind sharing your background??? Feel free to send a private email (nmoghal==AT==cccinternet==DOT==com).
Nadeem