Facebook has just rolled out a new piece of functionality allowing you to comment within your friend’s minifeed.

http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=20877767130

“Now you can easily converse around friends’ statuses, application stories, new friendships, videos, and most other stories you see on their profile. Just click on the comment bubble icon to write a comment or see comments other people have written”

Although this may not sound particularly interesting, it signifies an important step for Facebook in further positioning itself as THE social network, challenging the rise in FriendFeed (a growing online lifestream). This notion of lifestreaming is where social networks are heading because it allows for the aggregation of information from multiple sources meaning people can comment/ discuss/ debate things (essentially their life as it happens) at one destination without having to go to multiple sources.

What does that mean?

It means that Facebook is quickly establishing itself as the one-stop social network allowing you to DO everything in one place. What will be interesting is to see how ‘lifestreaming’ will take off once the iphone is released, and people use their Facebook minifeed from their mobile.

The iphone will allow for even greater portability of information as people can update their mini feed (their life) ‘on-the-go’. As you walk out of a clothing store, you can tell all your friend’s about your new jeans as well as upload a photo. This will obviously integrate with GPS which Twitter is already doing, allowing you to access Facebook and find out if any of your friends are in your geographic location and see what they are doing RIGHT NOW.

This signifies an even greater shrinking of time and faster distribution of conversations as micro updates on our life transform the way we articulate ourselves to others via a data stream.

What are the implications of this?

Technology is transforming our consciousness in a profound way. Many are saying we are seeing an ‘atomisation of information’ which is exactly what lifestreaming is about. I may not have spoken to you in 2 years, but I am still keeping tabs on your life and engaging with you in some way - I know what people in my year are doing, how they FEEL, where they’re travelling, if they’re struggling in life etc. I know what you had for breakfast, I know where you work, and if you like your work, if you’re lazy at work. It disconcerting to allow ourselves to be so trackable. How is all this data collected and organised?

I think lifestreaming fundamentally undermines meaningful conversations and connections in the real world though some believe data portability and aggregation into feeds facilitates conversations which would otherwise never occur (keeping up to date with people you rarely see).

Will technology/Facebook eventually become the facilitator of all our anecdotes to our friends?

Will we get to the point where lifestreaming is so integrated with our lives that we feel the need to post something online as soon as it happens?

I believe we will, and mobile phones will allow this to occur at an absolutely micro level.

Eg.

‘on bus stuck in traffic’

‘out at club and beer just cost $8, what a rip off!’

‘just did a poo’.

I think lifestreaming is going to have a profound effect on our relationships with others, and it brings us one step closer to living in the virtual world. The anthropologist Leroi Gourhan described humans as an orchid, having a big beautiful flower (brain) and an atrophied body - a genetic monstrosity. As our bodies continue to atrophe and our lives continue to be articulated through technology, our need for a body diminishes.

Eventually, our consciousness will just be downloaded onto a hard drive and we will become the world wide web. Although first we need to identify what consciousness is.

People like to look good

People don’t like to look bad

These two phrases underpin most people’s behavior in life and are especially relevant in advertising and usability/ information architecture.

The other day I was sitting in a park which had a drinking fountain in the middle. Now this drinking fountain has quite the reputation as the water stream is way too powerful and when people drink from it, they get a squirt in the face.

I sat on the grass in anticipation, waiting for someone to come and cop the money shot. I was soon rewarded by a businesses man dressed in a nice charcoal suit, with a big round face providing more than adequate surface area to be splashed. He put his face down to the metal (first mistake) and then turned the water on. A powerful stream of water came out like a firehose all over his face, and all over the top of his suit.

He jumped back in horror and his first reaction was to look around the park to see if anyone was looking. I was of course and I laughed, fairly uncontrollably. He had been made to look bad and he tottered off shaking his head and cursing the fountain. It’s like when people trip on a crack as they’re walking on the pavement and they try to cover it up by doing a little jog “hey, I meant to do that”. Or else they look behind them at the pavement as if to say “who’s the idiot who put a crack there”. You my friend, are the idiot.

We exist in a state of equilibrium, and when that is destabilized, it is possible to undermine someone and make them look or feel bad/stupid. This is the basis to great comedy like Commedia d’Arte and is the reason why we love Funniest Home Videos and The Chaser’s War on Everything.

People hate to look bad and when they do, they react with anger, embarrassment and shame.

So how does this relate to the digital world?

It’s the reason Apple invests so much in usability testing. When I pick up the iphone (which is damn sexy) I know exactly how to use it, and it makes me look good. When my mum asks me to show her how to use her Samsung phone I struggle and it makes me look bad. It makes me look stupid and I think Samsung phones are stupid.

The catch phrase to web usability is Steve Krug’s line “don’t make me think”. I’m sick of seeing self serving agency websites which are supposed to show the creativity of the agency, but are so difficult to navigate and find information that I feel stupid when browsing them. In my opinion, people won’t be impressed by the form if they can’t work out the function. Be creative with web design, but don’t detract from the usability.

The same is true with social networks. Facebook took off because when you go to Facebook, it’s easy to work out what you are suposed to do. I find Twitter fairly intuitive too which is why I use it over Plurk which I find has a daunting interface. Plurk probably has better functionality, but ease of use will win over technology most of the time.

This extends to virtually everything - when I walk into a shop, I want to find things easily or I will get frustrated and walk out feeling like an idiot - like when I go into trendy Sydney shops and can’t tell the girls jeans from the guys and the shop assistant laughs at me (though that warrants another rant on the state of masculinity).

When building websites, writing copy, concepting campaign ideas or even pitching an idea in to a client - make them look good and don’t make them look bad. If you squirt water in their face they will go somewhere else. Another website is one click away, and once you make someone look bad, it’s hard to turn them the other way. Whether online or off, test your assumptions rigorously against these two catch phrases:

Are you going to make your users/target audience look/feel good or are you going to make them look/feel bad?