Visually pretty, but the grid is completely non-functional. I don't know where to start looking to get at the information I go to Facebook to find. The other pages look better, but still seem to be a summation of current design trends rather than any sort of innovative new way to display the information (which is fine, but not interesting to me).
I also agree that it looks a lot nicer because of the high-end stock photos.
Edit: scrolling down further, there are some other UI refreshes that I do think improve the experience overall - the calendar and photo album views stood out to me. But I think it's important to use ugly people with weird names in your designs to gauge how it will actually look in production! The dark theme on pages, for example, looks very clean with Apple and Adobe as featured, but I imagine will look pretty dreary to stare at all day.
As someone that stopped using Facebook shortly after they rolled out the Timeline (ironically after I spent hours setting mine up in Developer mode), I have completely missed posts someone made on my wall, only to have to reply with an apology weeks to months later when I was more thorough.
I think my 'timeline' should be representative of photos I've uploaded, posts I've made that I want to highlight and events I went to. My 'wall' should be a straight-forward top-to-bottom feed of stuff I've posted and stuff people are sharing with me.
Maybe it's the way I've got my Facebook setup but I always get a notification on Facebook when someone posts to my wall, so there is no chance of missing it.
I've missed them even with this on, simply because I also wade through/ignore a lot of other notification emails from Facebook (birthdays, events) or just don't check my email during travel/vacation. I've also seen the email, gone to the site and thought the person deleted it before I found it. I'm fine blaming some of this on user error, but I still think it's bad design.
For an example, if you are on groups or many people wish you happy birthday, it is very easy to miss a lot of updates. I missed about fifth of them last year and even several distinct posts, which happened to occur same day as I got many notifications.
There feels like two Facebook designs, the timeline, and other user pages.
I hate the timeline, as I can't track two columns, and probably wouldn't like a grid also for the same reason.
I logged in to Facebook a minute a go just out of curiousity, and struggle to actually find my homepage, first I get badgered by Facebook, I then accidentally stumble upon my Timeline (which I hate), I then click the Facebook logo to go to a homepage, which happens to be a feed - or rather what I deem my own homepage. Confused! And it happens every time.
Scanning two columns is not easy at all. The right column has some fixed elements but it also has regular newsfeed elements scattered around. It's really a terrible design.
Not the above user, but the two column format was definitely jarring. I've since then gotten used to it -- and grown to appreciate it -- but it definitely took a lot of adjusting.
Not so much the timeline, but the constantly changing "Sort:[most recent / top stories]" setting is frustrating.
I really only ever want that to be on most recent.
My other problem with Facebook interface is that I just don't know where to go to "do stuff" - eg: if I want to unlike a company page. There's a bunch of little icons in the top blue bar (10 clickable things in that bar), and then there is the list down the LHS, and the almost hidden follow / report this post button.
I do like the fact that it's being refined; I notice the occasional difference. And the new privacy announcements were clear enough.
I guess I don't use FB like most people use FB. I only have less than 50 friends and I don't like a bunch of products or companies.
The fact that it's not easily scannable, when looking at someone's profile I'd much rather prefer it to be a top-to-bottom list of updates (status, photos, video's, likes, ...) instead of a timeline with boxes scattered left and right mixed with other nonsense like places, friends, ...
As an archive it's great, you can exactly see what someone liked/posted in previous months, but it's not a feed, and that's what I would like someone's profile to be, a feed of his activity.
Everyone points out two-column layout as problematic to read. I however don't have any issue with it. It's not in any way more difficult for me to scan, and it also looks aesthetically appealing (sans photo cropping errors from time to time). Recent popularity of Pinterest (5+ columns) would suggest that it's also a non-issue for many people.
Also, does that mean iOS and Android both fail with their grid designs for app buttons. I would be interested if someone can find an actual UX article with solid facts.
> does that mean iOS and Android both fail with their grid designs for app buttons.
Of course not. That's a highly efficient way to represent visual icons. Facebook has a much different focus: for one, it's a linear idea (in its current formulation), either by date or by how facebook decides to prioritize your stuff (grumble).
That said, I would probably much prefer to eschew all icons on android for a nice text list.
Not inherently; this is just another example of "correlation is not causation". There are plenty of ugly things/websites easy to use, and pretty things that are hard to use. There are also plenty of pretty things easy to use, and ugly things hard to use.
It's not a logical fallacy. People complain about 2-column layout of timeline and 2+-column layout of this "new look", because they have too many columns to follow at the same time, while I have yet to see anyone complaining about 5+-column layout of Pinterest.
The assumption is that because both designs share a common attribute they are both intended for the same purpose and therefore if one design is bad for a particular reason, the other design must also be bad for the exact same reason.
This isn't necessarily true with Pinterest, which has a different purpose to Facebook, and therefore likely requires a different UI.
>But I think it's important to use ugly people with weird names in your designs to gauge how it will actually look in production!
I .. I'm not sure if you're serious, but that is either smart, insulting or both. It's true that cleavage and nice smiles were there, but noting it as a non-production look, - that's a bit bleak.
The design looks great. I can't wait to hear my friends opinions as I don't use Facebook on regular basis.
My friends aren't overwhelmingly ugly, but they certainly don't take production-quality pictures. Judging a social app's beauty by the stock photos is like judging the fit of a shirt by how it looks on the model.
this is not a fair analogy. if a model chooses to wear a shirt that fit poorly, then you are allowed to question the model's ability to dress themselves.
likewise, if Facebook chooses to saturate their pages with images they know are generally poorly shot, you are allowed to question Facebook's ability to dress itself.
but facebook doesn't choose what photos get uploaded. They simply provide the platform for it and the content is up to the users. Most users take photos with camera phones, not DSLRs.
But to be fair, when you present your designs for the consideration of stock holders ( which this probably is) its important to make it look its best and since Facebook users technically can upload awesome DSLR style photos and it makes the design look far better, I forgive him and understand that this kind of presentation is more nessesary than really representing what it will look like.
your argument is fallacious in that i never made the assertion that Facebook chose what photos got uploaded. my point is exactly the opposite of that. (but i reserve some responsibility here- see my other response which clarifies a fallacy in my own argument).
a. Facebook does not get to choose what photos get uploaded
b. Facebook knows the overwhelming majority of these photos are of poor quality
as such, it would be short sighted for Facebook to incorporate a design which relied so heavily on shitty user generated photos.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Most comments above your's point out that the linked design prototype looks attractive mostly due to the high quality images. If implemented as the actual Facebook design, much of the appeal would be lost. That is, the prototype did not take "shit user generated photos" into designs at all. Facebook on the other hand, does.
> as such, it would be short sighted for Facebook to incorporate a design which relied so heavily on shitty user generated photos.
The point is, the new layout discussed here relies in some way on the pictures being not shitty. The discussion here is about a layout for content that is not under Facebook's control.
your confusion may stem from the fact that i mistook the original analogy. they were calling the shirt into question. my response was calling the model into question. my mistake should be clear if you read both posts carefully. i will elaborate just in case.
every photo on Facebook is user generated. an overwhelming majority of them are bad photos. Facebook is completely aware of this.
as such, it would be an irresponsible design choice for Facebook to create such a huge presence for those photos, like the design proposal does. likewise, it is irresponsible of the proposal author to only use high resolution stock photos of decent looking people for their design.
perhaps my original post was not crystal clear. in retrospect i maintain that it was a fine explanation, albeit terse- and out of context given my misinterpretation. regardless of my post's clarity, your response makes you sound like a dick.
You've descended to name calling, taking offense over people not realizing your "mistake should be clear".
I respectfully submit that had what you meant to say been so clear, or had you followed your own advice to "read both posts carefully", perhaps you wouldn't have made the mistake twice.
not offended by any realization or lack thereof. i conceded; my point was entirely backwards given my misinterpretation. but the parent reply didn't warrant an apologetic tone. snark begets snark. i don't think "your tone sounds dickish" is name calling. but you're right, uncalled for nonetheless.
I'm kind of joking about ugly (and completely serious about the names[1]), but using real photos in your mockup will give you a much better idea of how it will look in the real world. Sometimes the lack of consistent polish will make the whole thing fall apart, so something that looks great with high-quality stock photos will look terribly with everyday average photos. I'd bet that would be the case here, with the focus on "clean" design.
Of course if you're making a website for models or photographers, then ignore that completely. The take-away here is to know your audience, and design accordingly. Facebook should be (and currently is) optimized for getting a quick pulse on what's happening in your social circles, and the designs presented here are a poor way to accomplish that.
[1] Long names cause weird word-wrapping and overflow issues in many designs. India seems to have a high density of (by my standards) unusually-long names, so if you expect to have a lot of Indian users that kind of thing is really important to consider.
> It's true that cleavage and nice smiles were there
Well, 50% of the people on Facebook don't have cleavage. The other 50% are doing duck faces instead of smiling. You can't design around some abstract ideal.
>> but still seem to be a summation of current design trends rather than any sort of innovative new way to display the information
>> I also agree that it looks a lot nicer because of the high-end stock photos.
Exactly. This looks like a first-year design school project for these, and so many other reasons.
This design would fall apart without visually simple photography that tailor fits to the grid. The right way to approach a redesign would be to collect an aggregate of typical facebook photos, and use them as examples.
Exactly my thoughts. It's funny it ends with "lets focus on a functional and engaging user experience" - that's exactly what Facebook does right now.
In terms of graphic design, it's a huge improvement, not so for usability/ux. The timeline is chaotic. Small type. Navigation/content areas undefined, too much layering.
Perhaps I'm in the minority here but I never go to facebook to find specific information, it's more of just a perusal of crap to waste time. In the regard I believe a grid would be an adequate design to move to as it's more apt to visually scanning items which is typically what I do now. The only caveat I can see is that items in a straight line lend the eye to snapping back to the original position. Not sure if a staggered setup would fix that issue or if slight archs would help.
Although, the effort should be applauded none the less. While I don't agree with the execution, it doesn't mean someone shouldn't get any credit for the endeavor.
This navigation and grid layout looks ironically similar to the new and redesigned MySpace. When screenshots of the new MySpace were first revealed, there was lots of hype and praise for the new and aesthetically sharp designs. But now that users are able to access and use the product, haven't heard much more besides the usability being poor and product being an example of feature overkill. I would predict a similar result if Facebook were to implement this
totally agree, this has nothing to do with the function of facebook. The designers should follow more Dieter Rams 10 principle and less Design trends :)
I also agree that it looks a lot nicer because of the high-end stock photos.
Edit: scrolling down further, there are some other UI refreshes that I do think improve the experience overall - the calendar and photo album views stood out to me. But I think it's important to use ugly people with weird names in your designs to gauge how it will actually look in production! The dark theme on pages, for example, looks very clean with Apple and Adobe as featured, but I imagine will look pretty dreary to stare at all day.