Live Q&As

No one -- least of all fine designers like Paddy Harrington, or art critics like me -- want bells and whistles. As designer Stephen Doyle said in the article, Facebook has too much visual clutter already. A more pared-down design would probably be the direction we'd move Facebook in -- but pared-down does not by any means mean bland.

I agree with Blake. There's this idea that design is about a superficial addition of flourishes of something. That's an old idea. Good design is about optimization and purpose. Why are we doing what we're doing? What's the end goal? Right now I think that facebook is ultra efficient, but to what end? And, in terms of the visuals, why not consider making it cleaner, more beautiful?

I guess I'm arguing for more than a "spruce up." And many people who've commented on the article seem to think that the design is simply irrelevant, since ALL that matters is the functionality.

I can't buy that -- but hey, I'm an art critic, so what things look like matters to me. And I think 500 million people are being short-changed, by not being given something worth looking at.

I don't know that there's a "problem" with how the layout of Facebook works.  (Although I think Paddy's right in thinking there are social and cultural dangers hiding in there.) The question is, do we have to settle for something so visually unsatisfactory. As a society, we care enough about the "visual" to fund art museums. DOesn't that mean we should care enough to ask Facaebook to look better?

The reality is that the site is likley the most efficient website on the planet, in terms of usability. Our redesign was purposely intended to work against that efficiency. The reality is, if we were to work with facebook on this, we'd maintain all that efficiency. It'd be crazy not too. But we'd also try to figure out ways to make the connections between friends richer.

This was never intended to address functionality. That's a different kettle of fish. That's the nuts and bolts. The piece, in my view is meant to answer the question... to what end?  Facebook is ultra efficient, but what effect does that have? There's a great article on slate called 'seeking' that people should look at if they believe that there's no negative effect of the online world.

Hmmm. Interesting. So do I want Facebook to have even MORE power and authority, by looking better?

I guess I'm willing to risk that, for the sake of beauty!

Sorry, as I said in my article, I believe that looking good is a crucial function of any object in the world -- no object can claim optimal functionality if it looks bad. Facebook only "works" half as well as it might, just by virtue of looking so bad.

It's a false choice to imagine that we have to choose. Apple products work just fine -- AND they care about how they look.

When you actually really examine what facebook has done on their page there is a lot of redundant and superflous functionality. One thing we did was to eliminate some of that redundancy and distill functionality into graphic buttons on the top of the page. Why the two toned blue? Useless. If we're truly committed to functionality then we should look at all aspects of the design, including the visual. To your point, I do think that the time is coming where we need some sort of hierarchy to organize the friends. Everyone can acknowledge that facebook is evolving from a focus on actual friends to more of a networking tool. To me, that means it has lost some of its charm.

The amazing thing about facebook is that it's an active prototype. Constantly evolving. Imaging Coca-Cola, ten years ago, playing with their recipe in the public eye constantly. It'd never happen. Facebook is super interesting because it makes decisions with the community. And it's not easy. Every change they make is going to alienate somebody. It's the beauty and curse. Beautiful because it's democratic. Scary because it's about finding the average... some might say mediocrity.

You may be right, but I'd argue that a really WONDERFUL redesign might attract as many users as it would alienate. After all, Apple electronics  (to cite them again) clearly get a good part of their appeal from their look. And I feel that a redesign is almost a moral duty, for any company that has so many our eyes on its product so often.

It's an amazing phenomenon. And what's also amazing is the level of passion people feel for the protection of something that's in a constant state of flux as though it is something that has been around for decades and must be protected. The site is, what, 6 years old? I LOVE facebook, and certainly wouldn't change it in the way that we proposed. But I also think that facebook has a major opportunity to do even more to bring people together in meaningful ways.

You could very well be right. And it obviously can't keep growing forever -- last I checked, it only has another 5.5 billion people to draw on.

I do wonder if there won't be a moment when Facebook users start leaving in dramatic numbers...

If you look at the (short) history of facebook. It started that your home page was your profile page. They quickly realized that the way to get people coming back more and more was to get them what they want: more updates from their friends. So things evolved, and continue to evolve. It will absolutely continue to evolve. My concern (though it makes me sounds like a crotchety old man) is that the site promotes addictive behaviour. I think that that's bad. I'd love to see facebook find purpose in the same way that google does (more or less).. Focus on actually bringing me closer to my friends and family rather than spitting a continual (and HIGHLY efficient) stream of updates from a growing group of friends, acquaintances, and others.

We definitely work through UX as a part of our work. That, to me, is a given. It's the basic mechanics of the problem. Far more important is to answer the question: what's our purpose? Right now, I think that facebook's purpose is to get people on the site as much and as often as possible. Fine. But why not give us more? I think aesthetics are one part of that, and that new and innovative ways to encourage real world connections is another.

For me that's a lost battle. At least for my generation. I've got my email, and I'll keep it. One thing I feel we must all be wary of is the population of the entire web by facebook. When my kids get to the age where they're online, I'm sure facebook email will likely be the best option, but my concern is that they become this all encompassing mega enterprise that filters everything I do. AND, I'D BE OK WITH THAT if I saw that they were adding true value to my life. I'm not quite convinced that that's the case yet.

It will be interesting to see how profoundly linked Facebook email will be to Facebook itself. Will it simply be a competitor for Hotmail and Gmail, or a more profoundly "connected" email service.

I guess we'll know by tomorrow or so.

I agree. For me, there's a strange connection between google and facebook. Where I feel that google innovates for the sake of improving our lives in some way, it feels like facebook does it to make money. That's a radical generalization, but I feel like it's a HUGE opportunity for facebook. If they can demonstrate a desire to enrich my life somehow, then I'd be a permanent disciple. Right now they're more of a passive filter than an active participant in my world.

Yes, Bing came up in interviewing for my story. It does look as though someone at Bing was thinking long and hard about visual issues. (Which is amazing, because Bing is a Microsoft product, no? And those aren't exactly known for their beauty.)

Another locus of "beauty" on the Web is Tumblr -- depending, of course, on whose Tumblr site you go to. (Disclosure: My own Web page is on Tumblr... and I chose its spare design from a number that Tumblr made available to me, for free.)