Blackbird Pie is Twitter’s very own tool for embedding tweets on webpages without the cumbersome, semantics-killing screenshot method. It still lacks the dead-simple interface Twitter is notorious for, since you have to enter the URL of the tweet to grab the embed code and it’s not even built into the system yet, but that’s because it’s a rough prototype at this point.
Since Twitter is an ecosystem of early adopters, it didn’t take long before a bookmarklet surfaced, which sports only a minor difference with the original code in the date format, and seems to display better on this site.
Note that this method inherits your websites styles, which means you may or may not have to tweak your CSS to accommodate it. Unfortunately it still looks bad in feed readers.
Has progress been achieved here?
I’m not sure this is any better than a screenshot. Putting aside the long-winded user flow of grabbing the code since that can be remedied once it’s built into the Twitter system, there’s an overflowing amount of inline CSS to copy and paste. The advantage to this static code, however, instead of a JavaScript embed is that the text is preserved even when the tweet is deleted.
The question remains: should people go through all this trouble to use tweets as quotes? Is there really that much more to be gained by preserving the tweet “format” over a simple blockquote? I still don’t think so.
Amidst all the exciting and controversial new directions Twitter is taking since they’ve been announced at the Chirp conference, one stands out: Ev Williams admitting that “Twitter is too hard too use”, even mentioning that the phrase “I don’t get Twitter” is the second suggested search in Google.
After all these years of the pundits identifying Twitter’s strength and eureka moment to be its simplicity, Ev’s statement says a lot about the company. They could have skipped over this detail or worded it in some other way, but talked about it anyway. Sincerely and transparently.
We’ve known this for a long time, but it was growing too fast for us to address these issues.
There are several lessons rolled in here. Despite all of Twitter’s growth in usage and features, they still don’t want to drop the ball on simplicity even if other products probably would have, because they can afford to.
But simplicity doesn’t only mean keeping the number of features at a minimum; it also means being intelligent enough to anticipate what users need. The way Twitter is built makes it into “different things for different people”—hence the explosion of 3rd-party apps and the creation of its own jargon. Retweeting, hashtags, trending topics, recommended users, and lists were all created arbitrarily by the community later on integrated as real features. Now the company is pushing further in location awareness, mobile, infrastructure, and APIs.
As long as there’s this open dialogue among the founders, the users, and all the developers, Twitter will remain as inspiring and innovative as ever.
I’ve noticed this trend to screenshot tweets instead of copy-pasting their texts in blockquotes for some time now. On web design and technology blogs, no less. You’d think these sites who constantly write articles about HTML, CSS, web standards, usability, semantics would actually listen to their own advice.
What do people get out of doing it, though? Is Twitter really that much of a game-changer that you can now break the conventions of quoting people in articles on websites? Is it really that big of a deal to debate on how you should add tweets to articles—which is so obviously linkbait?
Are tweet pages designed so much prettier than your default blockquote designs that you feel compelled to use them instead (that’s definitely an “unsuccessful designer trend” isn’t it)? Though, consider the construction: large text, a clear indication of who said the tweet, and a fuzzy timestamp. Maybe that’s what blockquotes should aspire to be?
Are tweets such special data forms that you need specialized plugins and scripts like WP Quote, Twickie, QuoteURL to display them? Or do those exist to up one’s geek cred and feed the third-party Twitter apps machine?
Still, those aren’t as bad as web apps like tweetshots. Want to share a tweet on Tumblr? Use the Quote post type. WordPress is getting custom post types in its next major release too. But publishing platform or no publishing platform, that’s what the HTML tag <blockquote> is for.
Let me channel Steve Ballmer and say: Blockquotes, blockquotes, blockquotes, blockquotes, blockquotes. They’re not that hard to use, certainly not more than taking a screenshot and uploading it.
I understand why on some occasions using images instead of text and other data formats is preferred. They’re usually more portable when passed around in email, forums, social networks, and other communication platforms. More people know how to deal with images than URLs too. But for the purpose of quoting tweeple on websites, I see no excuse for displaying text as images.
I’ll spell it out for you in <strong> and <em>: display text as text, not as images, damn it!
Sure, screencapping tweets may not be as grave a sin as using tables for layouts, but back when that was the dominant method of creating websites, it was a pragmatic choice to make do with the technology available. The choice to use images for text is illogical today. It is confusing behavior that is inexplicably linked to Twitter’s success.
I started with this article about the decade that was in web design. (Note: an earlier version of this was done here.) It was not much more than a before and after look at the most popular websites out there. Of course, ten years is a long time in web design so the showcase is a satisfactory way to see how far we’ve come, but not quite enough. There was no discussion on the notable features from the different websites. We don’t redesign sites just because we want a different look, do we? We want them to improve. Answering how those sites improved over the years would be a worthy reference for all the web designers out there. This other one almost nails it, though it focuses on the business of these companies, not web design itself.
I hope the likes of Smashing Magazine or some fabulous curator of web design history would come up with an in-depth study illustrating how web design has evolved over the last ten years. Timelines like this and this could help with that, but still needs mention of developments like:
- the downfall of
<table> layouts in favor of semantic markup
- CSS sprites
- the growth of web typography, from sIFR to
@font-face
- Art Direction in web design
- mobile web design
- the HTML 5 Superfriends
- which website or company popularized which design pattern, from the glossy, candy-colored “Web 2.0 look” to the sleeker, more dramatic “Apple look” (though something tells me Apple is responsible for both)
Here‘s another approach to the timeline, and is more of a Q&A over the years, and anybody can ask and answer. It also hasn’t been updated since ’04, as it was part of the 2005 conference, A Decade of Web Design. Jakob Nielsen also did a backtrack that same year.
I’d also like to look forward. This prediction post is quite adequate (with pictures it would be perfect). I think this passage sums up what’s happened in the past decade and what will happen in the next:
While most these technological improvements tend to make the web a more and more homogenous place, at the same time, there is a tendency to create highly curated design setups that use different designs for each article.
There will always be a dichotomy between standardization and specialization on the Web but it’s only lately that we’ve been able to do so with less crap, more elegance. And I can’t wait to see how doing those two things evolve into even more exciting things in 2010 and beyond.
Need more crystal balls and time capsules? See also:
New year, new decade. But we still haven’t gotten past everything Web 2.0. We’re still dealing with the consequences of the social media revolution. The question is, which side are you on?
Pull the brakes?
We’ve seen people dumping Facebook and still not getting the Twitter mania, but here’s something pretty recent: the Web 2.0 Suicide Machine is making the meme rounds for those who suffer from social networking overexposure.
Most of the time we just hop on the bandwagon, publish the smallest details of our lives with abandon, and regret our actions only when it’s too late. Sites like My Parents Joined Facebook and Lamebook capitalize on those slip-ups, and we’ve all heard stories of people getting fired for something they posted online. A clean break from it all could be the answer. Or an exaggeration.
Interestingly though, Facebook has blocked the Suicide Machine. Thanks for playing!
Shift into high gear?
Tina Roth Eisenberg a.k.a. Swiss Miss tweeted that her unborn son already has a “gmail account, 3 domain names and a twitter account”. Pretty sweet, I’d say.
Again, this isn’t really a new phenomenon, but not many people are looking that far ahead. After all, who knows what the Web will be like in five to ten years. If domain names will still be the way to access websites.
Or maintain cruising speed?
Most of us probably lie in the middle and won’t think to axe their accounts or be so protective of their online identities as though they were real estate. Even if your new year’s resolution for social networking isn’t anything drastic, it’s still important to stay on top of your privacy concerns and online persona. Have you tweaked Facebook’s Privacy Settings yet? How about all the authorized third-party apps that have access to your Twitter account? Do you Google yourself every once in a while to see how other people find and paint a picture of you?
Bonus: try integrating a workout into those beloved websites. Now there’s a productive idea.
It’s not just about net neutrality or privacy anymore. Our future internet could be the very opposite of what it is today—free—specifically due to companies dominating their markets and the constant push to simplify the user experience.
Tim O’Reilly predicts a war is coming, one where we are at the mercy of the internet giants like Google, Facebook, and Apple: they stop making the services we are so highly dependent on interoperable.
It could be that everyone will figure out how to play nicely with each other, and we’ll see a continuation of the interoperable web model we’ve enjoyed for the past two decades. But I’m betting that things are going to get ugly. We’re heading into a war for control of the web. And in the end, it’s more than that, it’s a war against the web as an interoperable platform. Instead, we’re facing the prospect of Facebook as the platform, Apple as the platform, Google as the platform, Amazon as the platform, where big companies slug it out until one is king of the hill.
Chris Messina fears something similar as well: the death of the URL, as new formats for delivering web content are abstracting the website-going experience and letting ourselves relinquish control.
By removing our ability to navigate, choose, and share freely — these app stores are exchanging our freedom for a promise that they’ll keep us safe, give us everything we need, and do all the choosing of what’s “good enough” for us — all starting at ninety-nine cents a hit.
I know that if we always look at things with a worst case scenario in mind, we’ll never get any work done from here on out. But better to worry now than when it becomes impossible to undo things. I like how the Web is now, no matter how chaotic and crap-filled it can be.
That said, if the URL disappears, I know few people would be troubled by it, and an overhaul of the system may be needed anyway.
And as for the giants bullying us into a corner, it makes me wish the Long Tail would stand a chance.
I don’t think that Simler will be a Facebook or Twitter killer, but there are several features that interest me enough to not stop thinking about it. (That’s gotta be a good sign right? Knowing how that went for Twitter?)
- Instead of reading and discussing topics with your friends because they are your friends, Simler lets you find the topics (tags) that interest you, so you can consume and create content under them. You could say it’s a reformatted message board or chatroom, so is it really a new thing?
- The tagging concept keeps me on the fence as well. I like the idea of trying to define yourself with these keywords, but the novelty wears off when you realize it’s not much different from the way we list interests in virtual profiles and slambooks. And what does it mean when I add the IE6 tag to my profile? It definitely does not mean I like using it! What about the “Awkward Silence” tag? Eventually it will become a race to see who comes up with the wittiest name.
- I’m not sure it will actually scale. Will there be a way to organize the tags a user collects as time passes? Surely some people’s egos will find anything less than a thousand tags to be insufficient to describe their interesting selves. Then again, the Twitter era answer to that is: when there’s an API, there’s a way.
Simler poses interesting questions regarding how we pursue our interests on the Web. Do you join groups because your friends are in it? the cool kids are in it? or because you’re interested in the discussions? Are you tired of the insipid updates filling up their live streams? Should you take a more active role in choosing the content you see? Is the level of control for doing so enough?
Jacob Gube of Six Revisions has compiled 30 visually-stunning sites which are all formatted like virtual business cards. Tim Van Damme, whose dot-com of the same name sparked this trend, also maintains a list as well.
There’s little else on each page except a rectangular area found dead-center, filled with icons representing the tons of new ways we can be contacted, befriended, stalked. We have the Web 2.0 era and all the insanely creative social media icon designers to thank for this phenomenon. (Sometimes blogs and other related sites are linked to in these cards, but who has time for those anymore?) If you don’t have the chops to whip up your own, services like Card.ly come to the rescue.
But that’s just the visual side of the metaphor being brought online. Business cards are meant to be exchanged because of the information they contain, so what good would these sites be without technological mojo? We have great frameworks like vCard, hCard, and perhaps the open identity systems like OpenID and oAuth. We also have companies working in the mobile space or have devices of their own (more here).
Then there are the lifestreaming apps, like FriendFeed, Tumblr, and chi.mp, which blur the lines between keeping one’s social accounts in one place and keeping up-to-date with said person at the same time.
How does one unassuming professional looking to establish an online presence actually choose from these possibilities? Social media evangelists pretty much recommend we get on everywhere, as many as and as much as we can help it. The goal is to be ubiquitous rather than obscure.
I have to wonder when we’ll ever reach true unification. Home phone. Work phone. Fax. Mobile phone. Email address. IM handle. Static homepage. Blog. MySpace page. Facbeook profile. LinkedIn profile. Facebook Fan Page. Twitter username. Then this—all of this.
How do you identify yourself offline and online? Do you pick one, or unload a bunch of URLs, aliases, and digits on your potential new client/drinking buddy/love-of-your-life? Is this whole business card business even a suitable metaphor, or yet another idea startups can cash in on? And we’re not even bringing up identity theft here.
The World Wide Web created by Sir Tim Berners-Lee is 20 years old today. Even though I’m not the most qualified person to say this, its seems like several eternities have passed when you take a look at all that’s been accomplished.
And yet at the same time, it also feels like things have only started falling in place—ubiquitous and high-speed connections, uncompromised content delivery on mobile devices, live streaming and other real-time services, data portability and APIs, and so on. Some feel that the Web can be better, but it has to be rebuilt from the ground up:
Instead of merely jury-rigging fixes into the existing Internet, Peterson and Rexford believe much can be learned about possible improvements by designing a new network from the ground up — one that parallels the existing Internet, on which researchers can run their most innovative experiments.
If we have to revamp the Web it’s better to do so now, or sooner rather than later.
Maybe the infrastructure itself doesn’t need the overhaul, but only certain features. Thomas Baekdal considers a new domain system. Internet Explorer is reportedly getting a brand new browser rendering engine, taking a cue from Google Chrome. And dare I include the Web 2.0 phenomenon, which to its credit wasn’t a complete fad: we got YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter from it, after all. All address different aspects of the Web, but each one’s a game-changer in its own right.
The key here is people are rethinking rather than building on top of things. But will it come full circle, only for people to realize too late that starting from scratch was a much better way? The endeavor feels so large and drastic that it’s too daunting to even consider.
A recent interview at Daily Blog Tips showcased the thoughts of Coding Horror’s Jeff Atwood on RSS. It was an interesting viewpoint, and one that got me thinking.
RSS is a technology; it should be completely invisible to the average user. When it isn’t, you get stuff like Oprah redefining RSS as “Ready for Some Stories”. We should no sooner have RSS icons than we have HTTP icons.
The question I come to is: How necessary is it to display an RSS icon on a website? I’ve never really thought about it in depth before. After all, so many blogs and websites do it. It seems natural. And with the pros leaning that direction, what other example do we have to follow?
Practically the source of classy, relevant web tips and practice on the web, A List Apart features a link to their RSS feed in their main menu.
Easily the #1 model for thousands of bloggers, ProBlogger has a link to subscribe to their content displayed prominently above the fold.
The Feed Reader (no, the human kind)
At first glance, it seems there are two type of readers when it comes to RSS:
- Those who use it, and therefore don’t really need the icons and
- Those who don’t use RSS and don’t really care that there’s an icon on the page.
Granted, there are gray areas on the spectrum. There are those who use feeds but need to be reminded of their availability (though I don’t know why), as well as those who don’t use feeds but will after enough visual training.
Honestly, the whole issue makes me think of those Valid CSS and Valid XHTML buttons that I used to see every once and a while. I always think those are silly and unnecessary. Now I’m beginning to see feed icons in the same light.
Standard Technology and Non-standard Visuals
I recognize that an RSS icon standard does exist, to an extent, but there is still a lot of creative liberty taken across the web. As Atwood alludes to in his quote above, at some point this showing off of different versions of the icon becomes just that—showboating. How necessary is it?
Everyone does it—heck, I do it—so I can’t really talk. But at one point that was the case with table elements. So what excuses do we really have? And, more importantly, how long before this fad fades out, just like the rest have?
Xavier Damman
