This morning I took some time to briefly browse a few prominent social networking sites to get a feel for their user interface. Specifically, I was interested in how different sites tailor their interface to their target audience, and whether or not this seemed to be a contributing factor in their reign as a successful (that is, populated) networking tool.
Beginning on the more conservative side of things, I signed up for an account on LinkedIn. I won’t argue with the fact that LinkedIn is a great concept and a powerful platform, but to me it feels way too cluttered and claustrophobic. There is something distinctly messy about the layout, and rather than feeling encouraged to enter all of my experience and education data, I felt thwarted and bored within about 5 minutes. To those for whom the site seems to have been intended however – business and industry professionals – I’m sure the information-saturated, network-focused tone and organization of the website is perfectly suited. The profiles, at least once you get them set up, are very simple, professional, and to-the-point. More so than an opportunity to connect and collaborate over new business, LinkedIn acts pretty much like your CV on steroids: a highly useful and powerful human resources tool.
MySpace is a great example of a user interface tailored to a target audience. MySpace is a pretty great resource for checking out new bands quickly, easily and most importantly for free (though of course the site is by no means limited to this use and audience). They make it easy to completely tailor and revamp your profile to suit your own concept or style – a perfect fit not only for bands, but for creative/rebellious young teenagers looking to forge a space of their own on the web. I don’t think the MySpace profiles are the most visually appealing on the web, they in fact often look downright cluttered and can be hard to read depending on the background and font selection. But there is a specific sense of freedom associated with their site that is directly evident in the user interface.
Twitter has a truly simple and unique concept driving its success: succinct micro-blogging to keep those with the Internet at their fingertips constantly informed of each other’s daily thoughts and actions. Although it is perhaps strange to think that someone is interested in what you are having for lunch, Twitter provides a fun and casual way to connect with old friends and to forge relationships with new ones. I love the clean, streamlined look of Twitter’s interface – the profiles are very tidy and display only what’s necessary – and it’s pretty easy to use and browse unless you are following too many people at the same time. Here the user interface doesn’t reflect a target audience so much as it does the networking tool’s mantra of keeping things short. Twitter is appropriate for and applicable to a wide audience, and thus so is their friendly interface.
The aesthetic appeal and organization of a website says a lot about its values and target audience. Some sites do well to narrow their scope of focus, like LinkedIn, while others thrive as a democratic space for communication, like Twitter. I think it would be interesting to look at some sites where the user interface is completely mismatched to the site’s concept, but due to the inevitable lack of success for such sites I’m sure a good example will be hard to find. If you know of any please leave a comment!
