ReadWriteWeb has a weblog post that ranks highly in Google’s search results for “Facebook login”. The comments on the post are filled with complaints from confused people who think that this is the new Facebook login page.
This post on ReadWriteWeb has only confirmed fearful suspicions that we might have had all along. For additional context, be sure to watch this YouTube video that asks people "What is a browser?". These conclusions are evident:
- Most people don't know what a browser is. Nor have they ever heard of a "URL".
- For the average person, the informational hierarchy on the Internet is flat. There is barely any interlinking. There are only two ways people discover content on the web:
- By searching on Google.
- A friend sends them a link.
- The whole infrastructure behind the Internet is so out of reach it is considered pure magic.
As astounding as that is, there have been precursors, and I assume deep down we all knew it was this bad. When RSS came about and everyone got tremendously excited half a decade back, I already shook my head knowing that the joyful expectations for RSS to become the standard way for information consumption would never come to fruition. The system was too complex for the average person to wrap their head around.
But what are the options?
- Make the Internet easier.
- Make people smarter.
Number 1 sounds reasonable, right? Well, I have long been a supporter of turning towards intuitive and simple interfaces, which is why I am such a proponent of Apple technology. And many Internet sites have mastered the art of intuitive design, such as Facebook, Twitter and their likes.
But the fact is, it turns out that you tend to hit a wall pretty soon in trying to oversimplify a system that is inherently complex, a point where the intricacies of the system are irreducible. Take, for instance, a car. How can you simplify it? You can put automatic gearing on it, for example. Now is it simple enough for anyone to drive? No.
You need a driving license for that.
So what is the solution? Require everyone to take exams so they earn "computing licenses" (a vague concept that has been floating around adult education centres for decades)? That makes no sense, either. For one thing, to debunk the analogy, the dangers involved in driving a car are far greater than those involved in clicking a few links on Google. But on the other hand, there are dangers: phishing, viruses, malware in general.
I believe the answer, as with so many things, lies in the middle. Content providers (and by "content providers" I mean "website builders") must work to make their sites as easy to use as possible without losing core functionality or sacrificing usability. That means readable text, large, clearly marked buttons, as has always been the case, but also just as well appealing aesthetics.
But users must take action too. They need to educate themselves if they want to tap the Internet's vast breadth of information and profit from Web 2.0esque communicational tools. They can't just expect to get any of that for free without any effort on their side. It's not gonna happen.
Sure, technology shouldn't stand between the user and the content. But if the Internet really is magic? Then you better learn the right spells.
