MappingTheWeb //

[The Overuse of Graphics] - Some web designers can’t help incorporating a myriad of graphics and images into anything and everything they do. Sometimes I feel that rather than enhancing the experience, they are simply determined to showcase their design prowess. Let it be known that I am highly critical when it comes to the use of graphics. I’m not saying that they should be outlawed, but they do have a time and place. I’m the type of person who admires a designer who can create a compelling, usable experience without the use of any graphics at all.

Obviously a photo-sharing site will be littered with images and photos. Icons and screenshots may also add to the usability of a given site. Often though, useless stock photos of office environments and happy workers do nothing to add to the overall experience. In fact, they do the opposite.

The two big downfalls of images are:

1. Increased page load times
2. Increased clutter and distractions

The focus should be on content. Think Craigslist, Wikipedia, Reddit, Kayak, 37signals, Digg, del.icio.us, etc… If an image fails to enhance the experience, then it shouldn’t be used. Exceptions include artsy sites, band sites, or any site where the art or design(s) may increase business.

What do you think about images/photos/graphics? Do you think they’re overused, underused, or used just enough in the grand scheme of things?

[Direction of the Web] - It is unclear to me where the Web is headed in the very near future. The big guys (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft) seem to be a bit lost. In addition, no clear trends or “hot spaces” are emerging. Social networking seems to have cooled down a bit and micro-blogging, though still rising in popularity, seems to be taking a breather.

A few categories are showing promise, but lacking overall direction. These include online video, wikis, podcasting, and personal finances (to name a few). It seems that interest in these areas is present as many players continue to enter the game. Having said that, no-one seems to know how each space will play out. Everyone is providing their own take on the situation, choosing a different audience, vertical, or worse yet, generalizing.

What I’m surprised about is the lack of focus around local. I truly believe this to be the most lucrative niche by far. After all, it relates to real people - think Craigslist or YellowPages. Let’s be honest with ourselves - blog aggregators and social bookmarking sites preach the choir.

With local, a revenue model is not only achievable, but feasible. It’s also sustainable as people can relate (and understand) the business model. Whether income is generated via targeted advertising or premium directory placement, local is an area that needs to be explored more thoroughly.

What do you see in the near-term future of the Web? What sectors will catch fire and which will fizzle out?

Some companies force potential users to sign up for an account before using the service, i.e. mandatory registration. Others immerse the user in the experience immediately. Obviously there are pros and cons to both approaches, but I would prefer the latter.

Obligating a new user (better yet, a first-time visitor) to register for a service they know little or nothing about is a big leap of faith. Many are unwilling to provide personal information simply to gain access to a service they aren’t certain they will ever use again. Such a structure acts like a barrier to entry.

In addition, a negative byproduct of the aforementioned approach is inactive accounts. Many who simply register to try the service will ultimately end up dropping their account after their first (and only) experience, skewing user data and statistics.

From an opposing point-of-view, it is clear why any company would want as much information from a user as possible. For this reason, I don’t think it is necessary to expand on this point.

Perhaps the perfect solution is a “tiered” registration system. For example, anyone can browse Digg and discover news stories without signing up for an account. But in order to submit a story, an account is needed. Such a system removes the initial registration disparity. Once the service is confirmed as being valuable by the new user, additional functionality may be sought. At this point, it is fair to impose a sign-up process. Last.fm is also a very good example of this situation.

Removing as many initial obstacles as possible expedites the learning process and maximizes the experience. This translates to a more desirable first impression, a more credible service, and (hopefully) an increased user base.

What do you think? Should registration be required before a user can try a given service?

In my mind, widgets have never been a business model. They are a marketing tool that provide exposure and funnel traffic back to a parent property. This is where a business model and subsequent monetization emerge. I think that companies (and VCs) are starting to realize this, and widget fever is nearing an end.

For clarification purposes, I believe widgets will be around forever. However, pure-play widget start-ups won’t be. The funding of these initiatives will die off as potential investors realize the risks.

Up until recently, it seemed like everyone and their dog was launching a widget-based start-up or a web 2.0 company that served up widgets. The hope was that these widgets would spur viral distribution, creating widespread exposure. In many cases, this did occur. But now what? Where is the monetization? How can revenue be generated via these eyeballs? Most held on to the hope that eyeballs would attract potential acquisitors. In other words, their revenue model was an exit strategy in disguise - the infamous “web 2.0 revenue model”.

VCs just don’t seems to be funding these start-ups like they used to - and for good measure. Without revenues, these companies are unable to sustain themselves. At this point, it becomes a time game. Will the cash run out before an acquisitor comes along? I would bet on it.

Today Mark Evans wrote a great post entitled “Taking Twitter Seriously”. In his post, he ponders whether Twitter can break through to the mainstream. Such a feat has proven very hard for most web 2.0 companies, and technologies for that matter. Even now, blogs and RSS are still just starting break the surface. Having said that, I think that Twitter has a better chance really good chance at achieving mainstream status.

As we all know, Twitter is a micro-blogging platform. Therefore, the technology is a subset of blogging - the main difference being the length of posts. These short messages take very little time and effort to produce. Sound familiar? Text messaging may ring a bell. The explosion of mobile may be a huge catalyst for Twitter. Other forms of posting do not bode well for mobile due to their length. Nevertheless, short status updates seem to fit very well into the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t seem like a huge leap of faith to conceive people transitioning from text messaging to micro-blogging.

Add to that the fact that social networks (most notably Facebook) have facilitated the evolution. How? Well, SN status updates are akin to Twitter. In other words, trying to explain Twitter to a newbie may prove to be difficult, but referencing the SN status update tool may help bring clarity to the process. After all, if people can relate to something they already know, it makes the education process much simpler.

The two aforementioned points around text messaging and social networks bring about a nice conclusion. The learning curve will likely be much lower than most web 2.0 technologies/servics. Adoption is much more likely.

Finally, the main reason Twitter may hit the mainstream is this: it relates to real people. This isn’t “pie-in-the-sky” technology. It’s actually useful and provides real value. The closer the connection with a given Twitter contact, the more important and pertinent their updates will be to you. Obviously, family members and close friends come to mind. The passive ability to check up on your close connections is extremely valuable. Establishing itself as the leader in the space will allow Twitter the opportunity to bring people closer together - a powerful concept.

What do you think about the future of Twitter? Do you think it has what it takes to break through to the mainstream? Or will the trend fall off and the service flounder?