I recently attended the annual conference of one of our major content management system vendors, which for the most part was very enjoyable and quite inspiring.
Until we were asked to contribute our questions by Twitter.
I took a look around the room. Very few people seemed to have brought a laptop or netbook, a few started checking their iPhones or Blackberries. I suppose it is safe to assume that most people have a net-connected mobile phone, at least. But I wasn’t surprised when very few questions came in via Twitter… they gradually dribbled in, but not in the huge flood that the presenters had expected. Probably others were sitting there, like I, thinking “What’s wrong with just talking to your audience?”.
On the whole I’d say I’ve embraced in my own way what seems to have become known as ‘Web 2.0′. I enjoy the technology, I like to develop what you’d call Web 2.0 interfaces and I love jQuery and the various scripting languages that have come along with much of Web 2.0 design. Yet even the speakers at the conference still seemed to have difficulty defining what this whole Web 2.0 thing is. To me, Web 2.0 in a nutshell is simply two-way communication with the user. Software where the user can interact and contribute, rather than sit and read static web pages. It’s been around for years, developers have used wikis, blogs and forum software to work across national borders but with recent developments in web technologies now has a nice glossy look and feel and has become accessible for practically any non-computer user to enjoy. Great idea. And as far as accessibility goes, Web 2.0 has done great things in enabling people who might otherwise be restricted by disability, illness or isolation, such as the You Be the Difference website where people with cerebral palsy are encouraged to share their stories, meet others and join an online community.
Except that corporate web development seems to have jumped on the bandwagon, and to everyone I speak to, Web 2.0 == Twitter.
Why do I hate Twitter so much?
Social networking software brings with it all the baggage of interaction in the outside world. Sure, people can create themselves an avatar on SecondLife and roleplay an alternate personality. You can log into WoW and make yourself a female bloodelf, statistically, most of which are played by males. You can explore aspects of your personality that you didn’t know were there – or, as many seem to do, become the stereotypical jerk when anonymity is combined with the internet – just because You Can. Because there’s no way you’d dare to act like that IRL. But when social software is brought into the workplace, there is no room for exploring a user-defined world – you have to be the same ‘you’ online that you are in the office. (Which of course may or may not be the real ‘you’ – many people have ‘office personas’ as well).
Twitter is microblogging, which means it is fast, immediate and tends towards total information overload. After a few minutes of trying it out with it’s linked SMS services I just wanted it to shut the f*ck up. I still have a Twitter page, under a different name, but I don’t post – I use it to subscribe to other people’s pages and check what they are up to.
I don’t doubt it’s value in marketing and communications – US President Barack Obama uses Twitter and YouTube to communicate news in a format relevant to the younger audiences he wishes to reach. I’ve subscribed to a number of authorised ‘tweets’ from my favourite musicians to catch updates on their work. But I still don’t log in very often. Around once a month at most… which isn’t what the tool was designed for. Those advocating its use in the office would like to see us link it to our staff Intranets and read live feeds… something I’d find unbearable unless subscription was optional.
The trends in social networking software seem to be being led by the sort of extraverted, socially oriented personalities one would expect to work in marketing. Ask a software developer what they think of Twitter and you’ll often get a harsh response. Possibly because coders are not always extraverts. The stereotypical geek doesn’t really fit the picture of ‘life and soul of the party’ and from the personalities I’ve seen embracing Twitter in the workplace, you’d have to enjoy partygoing to make the most of the software, or at least, be the sort of person who enjoys large crowds.
I’ve recently set up a Facebook account, where I can log in when I want, and update frequently or infrequently. I do the same with this blog. Some months I write nothing, sometimes I’m prolific. But I’m not, by nature, an extraverted, fast, or immediate sort of person. I like to sit and think before I compose a piece of music or write. I edit, a lot (which makes for messy forum posting). I prefer to be behind the camera taking the picture, rather than in front of it making an ass of myself. I don’t like to be inundated with phone calls or bombarded with information.
Web 2.0, since it hit mass media and corporate development, seems to be being driven by marketing, and has inherited such a social environment – it needs to recognise that not everyone has an extraverted personality or enjoys being bombarded by the increasingly frantic pace of modern life when they log in. A wise friend said to me once that just because email was an immediate medium, it did not mean that I had to feel a pressure to respond immediately. The same should be taken into account with Web 2.0 development – if you want me to interact with you, give me a piece of software that allows me to choose how I want to interact with you.
