Facebook and Twitter have a ton of information they're trying to make sense of.
We want the reading experience of digital comics to be as simple as tapping a tablet or an arrow key or mouse button to move forward or back.
We set up a situation and let you interact with it and see the consequences of your choice. That's what gaming does.
While a lot of what is on Facebook is a better amalgam of what AOL, Yahoo, Amazon, and other Web pioneers introduced long ago, with a nice dash of connection and really identified community, this kind of thing is not a new idea.
The Internet is full of choices, and nobody is going to make the choice to use a product that is hard to use or unattractive.
In design it is important to shoe the effect of an action. ... Feedback is critical.
DOS is ugly and interferes with users' experience.
I enjoy the process of adding elaboration into games and like to communicate with users through the details I create.
A design isn't finished until someone is using it.
One of the things I've been working on for the past few months is a radical simplification of the interface.
The problem is not software 'friendliness'. It is conceptual clarity. A globe does not say, 'good morning'. It is simple and clear, not 'friendly'.
It doesn't matter how good your product solution is if users don't enjoy or understand how to use it.
Well Web services are nothing more than a way for users to interact with applications.
The association of books with their readers is unlike any other between objects and their users.
Nothing really says ... interactivity - which was so exciting and captures the real, the Web Zeitgeist of 1995 - than 'Click here for a picture of my dog.'
We make tools for people. Tools to create, tools to communicate. The age we're living in, these tools surprise you. ... That's why I love what we do. Because we make these tools, and we're constantly surprised with what people do with them.
Foursquare's adoption of a game dynamic when it launched is a particularly clever implementation of a social hook.
Figure out the people part and the technology gets a whole lot simpler.
Twitter didn't make up the hashtag. Twitter didn't make up the retweet. It's our users. And people started using them so much that we decided to weave them into the product. I can't think of another company that has taken its users' actions and said, 'We're going to make them useful to everybody.'
Make sure you like, comment and share other people's items. That teaches Facebook what kinds of things you like to see in your feed.
WhatsApp only wanted to focus on how current users were engaging with the product. Like how they did not use advertising and kept the experience uncluttered.
Why do people deserve a penny when they update their Facebook status? Because they'll spend some of it on you.
The idea of harnessing the intelligence of the readership has been lost in the quest for Facebook likes. For many, readers have become synonymous with hateful commenters. It's time for a renewed push to realize some of the original dreams of the web.
I would consider...Google Plus a push technology. It's closer to Twitter than to Facebook.
Unfriend people who do not post to Facebook or engage with anyone else. You'll find your posts start getting reach they never did before. Why? Facebook only releases your posts to a few people at first and watches what they do with it.
