Tag Archives: Twitter

Why is Twitter so confusing?

[Note: I’ve turned off comments for this post, as it’s currently getting several spam comments a day. But if you want to leave one, feel free to tweet to me (@timtfj) so I can turn them on, or to use the contact form on this site.]

If you’re a Twitter user, you can’t have helped noticing a rash of articles and media coverage of Twitter recently. You probably also decided very quickly that at least 80% of the coverage [1] is written by people who haven’t even a rudimentary understanding of what Twitter really is and how it’s used.

The usual content of one of these articles is:

  • Twitter is suddenly very popular and everyone’s writing about it.
  • This is what they’re saying: [Insert scathingly negative quote from a similar article.]
  • The purpose of Twitter is for people to post 140-character messages about what they’re doing.
  • So it’s like a blog where all you can blog about is tedious minutiae of your life.
  • Nobody’s interested in reading that sort of blog.
  • Therefore it’s pointless.

And there typically follows either a rant about shortened attention spans, reality TV, the decline in intelligent conversation and so on, or some very puzzled thoughts about what on earth people get out of it and why.

If you’re not a Twitter user, you’ve probably encountered a fair number of articles like that by now and become equally puzzled.

As a user, I’ve sometimes been tempted be puzzled about where the confusion and ignorance comes from. Actually the source isn’t hard to find. More of that later. For now, let’s look at what Twitter actually is. Not what the articles say it is; not what Twitter describes itself as; but what it really is.

What Twitter is

Twitter is a setup where you can

  • post short, publicly viewable messages, which remain available indefinitely.  [2]
  • view a feed of the publicly viewable messages from a selection of other users, together with your own, with the most recent at the top. You choose whose to see.
  • address a publicly viewable message to a specific user.
  • view a feed showing the publicly viewable messages which have been addressed to you. These can be from anyone, not just people you’ve chosen for your main feed.
  • Send a private message to another user.
  • View the private messages sent to you.

There are other options too, such as searching the public messages for a particular phrase, viewing those from a specific user on their “profile” page, and viewing a snapshot of all the messages being posted at a particular moment. And there’s a widely-used unofficial system (“hashtags”) for labelling a public message by subject. But as far as the basics go, that’s it.

Also, rather importantly, you can do all this in a number of ways:

  • at the official website, http://twitter.com (not recommended, though you need to go there to sign up)
  • at the official mobile site, http://m.twitter.com/ (also not recommended, except for VERY basic use)
  • at other “client” websites, such as http://dabr.co.uk/ (highly recommended, especially for mobile phones: see my review)
  • by using various computer or phone applications, which often add functions not found on the official site
  • by sending and reaceiving SMS messages (for some functions, in some countries)
  • by Instant Messaging (I think).

So, what do we have? We have something like a speeded-up bulletin board or newsgroup, where posts can only be 140 characters long and you choose whose to see. Or a slowed-down chatroom where  you can  say 140 characters at a time and are heard only by the people who’ve chosen to be within earshot.  Another user described it as “being a fly on the wall of 20 different conversations”.

You can of course choose to be the person in the chatroom who only speaks and never listens or  replies to anyone; that would make it a bit like a blog of 140-character posts. But I, for one, probably won’t take much notice of you, because I enjoy the interaction. Like the people writing the articles, I mostly won’t see the point.

And there you have it. The basic idea of Twitter is actually very simple. A place for posting short messages, and a variety of ways of viewing them and responding to them. And not much like what the articles describe at all. Really, there are as many uses for Twitter as there are for a 140-character message.

So far I’ve carefully avoided using any of the official terms Twitter describes itself with. You’ll see why in a moment.

Why the confusion then?

How can something so simple cause so much confusion? I think there are three main sources for it:

  • The way Twitter describes itself.
  • The lack of any coherent introduction to the site when you sign up.
  • The impossibility of understanding Twitter from the outside.
Twitter’s self-description

When you first  visit http://twitter.com/, you are told

Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?

Well, that’s not true for a start. The messages—tweets— can be as frequent or as infrequent as you like. They can be about anything you like. Over 80% of mine are replies to other users. Only a tiny handful answer What are you doing? If my tweets answer anything, it’s What do you want to say? Yet, virtually all the articles quote What are you doing? to sum up what Twitter is for and why it’s not worth bothering with. Hardly surprising: the writers probably assume that Twitter’s description of what it’s for does in fact describe what it’s for.

Once signed up, you post a tweet by typing in a box which has What are you doing? above and an Update button below.  Because, you see, in their terminology you’re not “posting a message”: you’re “updating your status”. So, public messages are officially called updates or statuses, even though you’re normally not updating anything or talking about your “status” (and anwyay, shouldn’t status mean your standing in the community, not a piece of text?)

The Update button confused me at first: I thought it was for refreshing the screen (updating the view) and optionally posting some text.

Next, it turns out that a tweet addressed to another person (by putting @ and their username at the start) is known as an “@reply”. Except that very often, it’s not a reply at all: it could equally well be “How are you today?” or a piece of news you want to tell them.

Furthermore, the various message feeds are not called feeds, but given the rather grand name of timelines, as though their primary purpose were to tell you the dates and times of events, or maybe the route you’ve taken through the site. But it isn’t: they’re there to let you view various different collections of tweets. They’re actually views or feeds.

In other words,

  • What are you doing? is entirely the wrong question
  • the update button isn’t for updating anything
  • a status doesn’t represent the status of anything
  • an @reply doesn’t necessarily reply to anything
  • a timeline hasn’t really got anything to do with times
  • Twitter’s description on its front page is almost completely misleading

Is it any wonder people get confused?

And one of the most depressing things to see on Twitter is a series of dutiful What are you doing? answers similar to this:

Signing up for Twitter! Everyone says I should. Excited!
Getting confused. Now what? Help!
Eating dinner. Still puzzled.
Going shopping. Why would anyone want to know that? Very puzzled now.
Thinking Twitter probably doesn’t have any point to it. Is anyone reading this? How would I know? Hello if you’re out there!
Giving up on Twitter.

Lack of help

[Note: Twitter’s sign-up process is now somewhat different from what I describe here and it sounds as though things may have improved a little; see Stuart’s comment.]

Clearly, for Twitter to have any point, you need some tweets to read and you need some people reading yours. You need to be able to interact.

You make a person’s tweets visible on your home page (NB: this is different from your profile page) by following them. Your tweets show on their home page when they follow you. Twitter doesn’t tell you this: you simply end up on a home page which contains no tweets. None from you, because you’ve not tweeted yet, and none from anyone else, because you’re not following anyone yet. I think this is the stage at which a new user feels most completely at sea. Quite understandably: all they’ve got is a more or less blank page and the question What are you doing?, which is no help at all.

Initially, having people to follow is far more important than having people follow you. It gives you a starting point. You don’t really find followers by sitting there being lost. Generally, you find followers by following them first and having something interesting to say; they then see you in their follower lists and come to investigate who you are, so as to decide whether to follow you too.

What Twitter ought to do at this point is to give you a message along the lines

You aren’t following anybody yet, so you won’t see any tweets except your own. Here are some ways to find interesting people:

  • Visit the public timeline to watch for interesting tweets
  • Search for users near you
  • Search for users whose profile mentions a particular subject
  • Search for tweets mentioning a particular subject
  • View the friends list of a particular user
  • Find new contacts using Mr Tweet
  • Import contacts from your address book

with links you can then click to follow up the suggestions. Sadly, Twitter doesn’t do that. It leaves you floundering on your own.

And if you want suggestions on how to find people to follow—well, they’re in that list. Once you find someone interesting you can reply to one of their tweets, or simply quietly follow them until they say something you want to answer, and you’re away.

One exception to this though: if the person you find is famous, or has thousands of followers already, or has social media expert in their profile, it’s unlikely you’ll get a reply from them. (Unless it’s @kriscolvin, who has acquired over 19,000 20,000 21,000 followers largely by being friendly and replying to people. [3]) You’re mostly best talking to people who have a sensible number of followers and who show signs of replying to people (e.g. ther profile page contains a lot of tweets starting with @).

Incomprehensibility from outside

Twitter only really makes sense once you’re following and interacting with a number of people. If you’ve not joined up, you can’t see this happening. [4] All you can really do is visit the public timeline—a cacophony of unrelated tweets from thousands of users—or visit profile pages like mine where you’ll see one person’s tweets but not the people they’re addressed to. (If WordPress’ Twitter widget is working properly, mine are in the sidebar of this page.) Either way, you don’t see Twitter as it actually is. The views you can access aren’t the one a user sees most of the time, but ones they only use occasionally. They might visit someone’s profile page for reference or to catch up on missed tweets, or visit the public timeline as a way of finding random people. But the views that make sense are your home page, filled with tweets from people you’ve decided to follow, and your replies page, filled with tweets from people who are talking to you.

Summing up

Maybe I’m overdoing the bullet lists in this post, but here’s another one anyway.

  • Is it any wonder that Twitter confuses people? No.
  • Does Twitter need to confuse people? No.
  • Has Twitter done anything to make itself less confusing? No.
  • Does Twitter care about the confusion? I don’t know, but fear the answer to that may also be No.

I think this is a great shame, because the changes that would make Twitter seem as simple as it really is are fairly straighforward:

  • use language that reflects what Twitter really is
  • drop the misleading question What are you doing?
  • give new users a little bit of meaningful help in getting started.

I honestly think that’s all that’s needed, but sadly I see no sign of it happening.

Another article to read

I’m not too keen on autopneumotrombics so I thought a while before linking to this article which says very nice things about my own. But you may wish to read it. In it, Nancy Friedman takes up some of my my thoughts here and develops them further—particularly Twitter’s misleading opening greeting and the fact that people stick with Twitter anyway for what it is. She also picks up a few additional language points which I missed.

Notes

[1] A wild guess. It’s a lot, anyway. Back

[2] Theoretically. Back

[3] 19,000 was corrrect when I first posted this three days ago. Now, 20,000 21,000 is correct . . . Back

[4] Unless you’re in the know about applications like Tweetgrid; but you won’t be unless you’re already familiar with Twitter. Back

Dabr: making Twitter accessible

Twitter

In case you don’t already know, Twitter is a service which lets you send short messages or “tweets” to whoever chooses to read them. You decide who you want to “follow”, i.e. whose messages you want to see.

It’s described (mostly by Twitter) as “microblogging”, since the tweets do behave a bit like a blog, in that once posted they remain there for anyone to come along and see, but really it’s nothing like a blog: it’s experienced more like a cross between a speeded-up newsgroup and a slowed-down chatroom, but one where you get to choose who’s in it. (Though depending on the settings you’ve chosen, you may also see one-sided conversations between people who are in the room and ones outside who you can’t see.)

An important feature of Twitter (which the media so far don’t seem to have picked up on) is that there are many ways to access it. The official website, http://twitter.com, is one, but there are also a number of phone and computer applications able to send and receive tweets and to view them in various ways. In some countries you can “tweet” by SMS. There are websites too (both desktop and mobile). They’ve sprung up partly because of certain deficiencies in the site, and partly because of the wide variety of ways in which people use Twitter. For example, you might have several groups of people: core ones you want to keep up to date with all the time, others whose tweets you find interesting but don’t mind missing things, and several extremely talkative (“tweetative”?) ones who are best read individually rather than mixed in with everyone else. The website won’t let you set up such groups, but there are third-party applications which will. (So far I’ve not used one which does that, but I could do with one since I now follow too many people to keep up easily with them all.)

Twitter also lets you send direct messages, which go privately into someone’s inbox, and mark tweets as favourites so they appear in a special folder for future reference.

The day Twitter stopped working

Unfortunately, one thing Twitter seems prone to is the introduction of changes without any visible consultation with users (none has been visible to me, anyway), and these can sometimes be far-reaching. In my recent post grumbling about websites “improving for the worse”, I mentioned waking up one day to find that Twitter no longer worked in Opera Mini, which had been my main access to it. The changes were drastic, and included these:

  • The button for sending a tweet no longer worked, so I could no longer post (though I eventually discovered a backdoor way to tweet).
  • I could no longer send direct messages.
  • I could no longer mark a tweet as a “favourite”.

So, basically, Twitter was now just a service for letting me see what other people were saying, not for actually communicating with anyone. I’d been reduced to the status of an observer.

Twitter does have a mobile site, but its functionality is very limited: for example, one can’t even view direct messages, let alone send them.

I reported the problem six months ago at GetSatisfaction, and did receive a reply from someone at Twitter saying they’d filed a bug and would fix it as soon as possible, but at the time of writing, there has been no change.

Dabr

So, in order to remain a Twitter user, and stay in touch with my friends, I had to rapidly investigate other ways of accessing Twitter. The two or three Java apps which I tried were truly horrible and I won’t mention their names. There was a website which went some of the way towards what I needed, but still had important things missing (and also had a colour scheme apparently designed to lead the eye away from the text of any tweets, making it quite annoying to read). I was tweeting about this when the following tweet appeared on my Replies page, from someone called @Dabr:

@timtfj You want favourites available from a mobile Twitter site? Dabr doesn’t do that yet, but it could.

The tweet was from David Carrington, the developer of Dabr, which is a website at http://dabr.co.uk/. He had created the site for his own use, because the Twitter sites that were already available didn’t meet his needs. I replied along the lines that yes, I did want that, and went off to look at the site.

At that point, it was quite rudimentary; it was however operational enough to be usable and useful. Very soon afterwards—it may have been an hour or so, but I don’t remember—favourites appeared as a menu option.

Since then, many features have been added and I now prefer dabr.co.uk to twitter.com even when I’m on a PC rather than a mobile phone.

Dabr as I typically use it

Dabr as I typically view it. Text size is set to
smallest and the window is resizeable.
Tweets are copyright
of the tweeters.

I think the key is the way in which it was developed. What I described above is typical of the way David interacts with Dabr users. The web application is open-source; every feature has been added in close consultation with users; most, I think, have been added as the result of someone saying “I really wish it could . . .” or of somebody’s annoyance with the way one of the other apps does things. The users, after all, are the ones who know what they want to be able to do.

I don’t want to say too much about David’s excellent customer service, in case it results in his receiving a deluge of tweets to deal with, so I’ll just say that it involves the same level of interaction as the development of the site has done.

If you do have a look at http://dabr.co.uk/ and think it looks rather basic, don’t be deceived: there’s plenty of functionality there, but unlike many other websites and applications the functions aren’t accompanied by lots of unnecessary screen clutter. It’s designed to work well and display on small screens, not to look flashy. Once you start clicking things you’ll find out . . .

Here, for Twitter users, is a list of some of the things Dabr does which twitter.com currently does not:

  • Picture previews: if a tweet contains a twitpic.com or flickr.com URL, a preview of the picture is displayed in the tweet.
  • Picture uploads: pictures can be sent to twitpic.com direct from Dabr. (NB: this currently causes a bug in Opera Mini 4.2.)
  • Correct display of @replies: “In reply to” is only displayed for tweets which reply to a specific tweet, not merely ones with “@yourname” at the beginning, so following the link always takes you to the correct tweet.
  • Highlighting of replies: Replies to you, and tweets mentioning your name, are displayed against a darker background. (Though for some reason the highloghting colours seem to work better on my phone than my PC.)
  • Retweets: clicking the quotes icon next to a tweet copies it into a new one, with “RT @username” at the start. This is essential on phones like mine which can’t copy-and-paste.
  • Hashtags: Dabr recognises these, and clicking one takes you to the search results for that tag. If you tweet from that page you remain there, creating a “conference view” for people who are attending an event and posting tweets labelled with a particular tag.
  • Accessibility: It works in Opera Mini.

So it seems to me we have two opposite models of what these days is called “user experience”: one is to decide what users want, and give it to them without prior warning, with very little interaction; the other is to listen to users at every stage and involve them in the actual process of developing the site. I know which I prefer as a user.

A paradox: improving for the worse

Two things seem to be happening simultaneously on the Web.

  • More and more people are accessing the Web from mobile devices (phones, etc.)
  • Websites are becoming less and less accessible to mobile devices.

Take the example of Opera Mini. This is a brilliant web browser for mobile phones. In fact, because I don’t have broadband access at home, and my PC with a dialup connection is too old and decrepit for today’s websites, Opera Mini on a k750i phone is my main web access.

When you’re using Opera Mini, it feels like running a browser on your phone. It lets you display the desktop versions of websites, rather than the usually extremely cut-down mobile versions, beautifully converted for your particular phone screen. You browse pretty much as you would on a PC.

But really, it’s a remote-controlled browser on the Opera Mini server. You send instructions to it from the 206kB Java application on your phone, and it sends back converted pages for viewing.

This means that virtually all HTML pages can be viewed, subject to a few restrictions. The main one is that any change to what’s on the screen involves receiving a new page from the server: animations like Flash aren’t possible, and neither are interactive effects like menus which pop up when the mouse hovers over them.

Websites seem to be becoming more and more fond of these effects (often, I think, for no good reason at all, but merely to have fun with Flash or dynamic HTML, or to impress the person paying for the design), and thereby becoming less and less accessible. This is rarely announced: one simply visits a favourite website one day and discovers that it doesn’t work any more, or that a crucial function has disappeared.

The worst example I’ve experience was when I woke up one morning to discover that Twitter, which I’d been using for months to communicate with friends, (http://twitter.com) no longer worked. Well not if I wanted to actually send anything. But I’ve also become unable to bid on eBay items. A week or so ago, the lists of menu options in the left-hand column of my WordPress dashboard was replaced by a column of rather cryptic icons with popup menus; I don’t have access to those menu options any more unless I’m in the library.

Previously, apart from length limitations, I could use virtually all WordPress features from my phone.

This really puzzles me, since mobile access is surely becoming more important, not less important…! Surely improving websites would involve making them more accessible to more people, not more restricted in how they can be used? Is it not possible to simply use the most inclusive technology that will do the job for each task?

Edit (March 28th): OK, it turns out that I wasn’t quite right about WordPress. I’ve just discovered, by chance, that clicking the separators in the menu sidebar collapsed or expands the menus. When collapsed, they’re no longer accessible to Opera Mini’s Mobile View. But in Desktop View, which is like looking through a tiny hole at the PC screen, I can click the separators and get the menus back. Which I have just done 🙂

So it wasn’t a WordPress change, just a rather nasty feature of its interaction with Opera Mini.