Do we have freedom when the interfaces we use are rigidly designed?
Just more random musings.
In some respects, the statement above does have enshrined within it, some validity. However as with most forms of DIY media that have manifested themselves on the Web, there is a demonstrable lack of the fact that sites such as WordPress, Facebook or YouTube, offer the illusion of autonomy to its users, without carrying through the goods. To illustrate this point, let us first explore the number one social networking Facebook as an example of how this ‘illusion of autonomy’ is carried through.
Since its launch, Facebook has generate an enormous mass appeal based on the fact that it allows it users the opportunity to socialize with friends and peers, upload photos and express ideas in a relatively unbiased, and user-free terrain. In some respects this is true, however let us critically analysis to what degree this is true.
It is a fact that Facebook allows people to connect with one enough socialize with people in free environment. But when discussing the other features that it propagates: uploading of photos, adaptability to change the interface to reflect your own personal tastes and preferences, the contradictions become more illuminated.
All Facebook profiles follow a uniform pattern, which cannot be adjusted. A personal image is displayed along with information about the users (the extent of information displayed is at the digression of the user), but the colour, layout, font, positioning and links are all uniform and cannot be adjusted by the user. This rigid outlining of a users profile was one of the largest deterrents encountered by web users when Facebook began creating momentum back in 2007-2008, at the expense of its then, main rival – MySpace. Those that used MySpace were hesitant to jump the social networking boat, as they saw the dogmatic rules that Facebook instilled upon its users. MySpace encouraged, at its users detriment, the ability to use JavaScript and hypertext, to personalize profiles with backgrounds, music, moving images and many other appliances. Facebook does not allow for such an ungoverned system.
To further this point, let us look at a MySpace interface in comparison with an original Facebook interface:
MySpace allowed users to change backgrounds and fonts, embed photos into their profiles interface and play music, Facebook doesn’t.
Another example that Facebook represents a rigid system of controls is the fact that will often change the layout and presentation of profiles without prior warning to the users and will not offer much recourse in changing back. These upgrades include changes to the size of font, layout and distribution of information as well as a new cataloguing of information. This has spawned many groups within Facebook to attack this changes and their rigid settings against users preferences. Taking into account the image of facebook profile interface from 2007, the image below shows just how much the profile has undergone a change that is set in stone and cannot be adjusted.
While the changes might be so drastic from this image, for users who regularly use the site, changes to what they’re used to, particularly in regards to navigating through the site, an unmediated change can cause much dissatisfaction and confusion, particularly when the option change make is not given or not easily accessible.
Furthermore, Facebook allows its users to upload images, but these images must meet the censorships rules and regulations in order to be approved. Facebook has received a bad reception recently for its removal of images depicting same-sex attraction kissing as being against the rules and regulations. The fact that users are at the disposal of these rules is indicative of the fact that their autonomy comes within a system of protocols and rules.
In regards to WordPress, autonomy is more noticeable, however the layout and structuring of the page is set to design that WordPress instills within all its profiles. While a user can customize a profile like MySpace, like the latter, it is still within the bounds of the domain they are using.
Its not the intention of this blog to create a discourse that presents these DIY sites as dogmatic or imperialistic in any way. It just to show that while some concessions have been made in allowing users to make pages and sites that are a reflection and extension of themselves, the rules and regulations entrenched within the sites do indicate that what could be occurring is the creation of ‘avatar’ profiles – profiles that are a constructed reflection of someone, but not necessarily indicative of all that encompasses that person, due to the restrictions imposed upon that person.
photo references:
geo0033 