<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>almostnothing &#187; zen</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.almostnothing.org/tag/zen/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.almostnothing.org</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:26:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Design your network. What has become of Twitter aesthetics?</title>
		<link>http://www.almostnothing.org/2009/10/05/design-your-network-what-has-become-of-twitter-aesthetics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.almostnothing.org/2009/10/05/design-your-network-what-has-become-of-twitter-aesthetics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[add]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aesthetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hdadd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imagery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interface]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mapping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pop culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social networks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steven wright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter bird]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web2.0]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.almostnothing.org/?p=46</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;My nephew has HDADD: Hi-Definition Attention Deficit Disorder. He can barely pay attention, but when he does it’s unbelievably clear.&#8221; &#8211; Steven Wright Since Twitter came out it was pretty obvious it was something else. Its minimal, quasi-zen approach (short haiku-style posts, ultra-light interface, a very &#8220;carpe diem&#8221; real-time nature) won many users over. But [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>&#8220;My nephew has HDADD: Hi-Definition Attention Deficit Disorder. He can barely pay attention, but when he does it’s unbelievably clear.&#8221; &#8211; Steven Wright</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.biojobblog.com/uploads/image/facebook-vs-twitter.jpg"><img alt="" src="http://www.biojobblog.com/uploads/image/facebook-vs-twitter.jpg" class="alignnone" width="435" height="200" /></a></p>
<p>Since <a href="http://www.twitter.com">Twitter</a> came out it was pretty obvious it was something else. Its minimal, quasi-zen approach (short haiku-style posts, ultra-light interface, a very &#8220;carpe diem&#8221; real-time nature) won many users over. But why would such a restrictive, limited social network become so popular? There are so many more things you can do via <a href="http://www.myspace.com">MySpace</a> or <a href="http://www.facebook.com">Facebook</a>, where you can easily embed everything possibly embeddable.<br />
Nonetheless, although <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg">Mark Zuckerberg</a>&#8216;s well-tested money-making machine is still bigger than Twitter (I&#8217;d go as far as to say it&#8217;s almost necessary for internet users), the social colossus has been learning a lot from its younger, smarter brother.<br />
The &#8220;<a href="http://mashable.com/2009/07/05/facebook-twitterification/">twitterification</a>&#8221; of Facebook has raised some perplexities and the opening of that once closed and well-guarded environment wouldn&#8217;t necessarily be a good thing for their business. I like the definition of Facebook as a &#8220;gated community&#8221; (read <a href="http://mashable.com/2009/06/30/facebook-twivacy/">here</a>): you can easily do everything you need on the internet inside of it and forget about the outside web. This has been part of the network&#8217;s strenght in the past, one more reason why it is both scary and addictive.<br />
While Twitter&#8217;s openness (making information public and searchable in real-time) has definitely played a major role in the social network&#8217;s rise to pop culture phenomenon, replacing Facebook as the next internet thing, I think there is another factor worth analyzing (and no, it&#8217;s not journalist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder">A.D.D.</a>).<br />
<span id="more-46"></span></p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://pixterdust.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/spoongraphics-twitter-birds-sm.png" class="alignnone" width="450" height="525" /><br />
<em>(Image from <a href="http://pixterdust.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/spoongraphics-twitter-birds-sm.png">pixterdust.com</a>)</em></p>
<p>If we compare the aesthetics of Facebook and Twitter it&#8217;s easy to notice there are many differences.<br />
First of all, the logo. The first site timidly features a textual and cold corporative stamp, the second sports the cute-looking illustration of a blue bird, easily entering the popular internet imagery and embodying an image of lightness and speed (as opposed to the heavy and bulky &#8220;fail whale&#8221;). Also, once we get to using the site, it&#8217;s blatant it is far more open in terms of background customization, colors and so on. And that&#8217;s just the beginning.<br />
If we use Twitter long enough (and by this I mean as soon as any of our contacts tells us about <a href="http://tweetdeck.com/beta/">TweetDeck</a> or any other Twitter client) we find out the 140-character limit is not really an issue and, if we need to post pictures on our feed, we can easily upload them on <a href="http://www.twitpic.com">Twitpic</a>.<br />
As Twitter co-founder Biz Stone points out <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/twitter_open_platform_advantage.php">here</a>, the possibility for users to develop their own Twitter-based platforms has been key the network&#8217;s success. While Facebook apps and the &#8220;share on Facebook&#8221; feature on many sites tend to have everything converging into the standard, <a href="http://mashable.com/2009/03/22/facebook-redesign-revolt/">visually uptight</a> Facebook interface, Twitter is far more de-centered and image-curious.</p>
<p><a href="http://screenshots.en.softonic.com/en/scrn/70000/70669/3_twittearth01.jpg"><img alt="" src="http://screenshots.en.softonic.com/en/scrn/70000/70669/3_twittearth01.jpg" class="alignnone" width="467" height="416" /></a></p>
<p>With a single account, Twitter users can access many extended interfaces (like <a href="http://www.twitterface.com/">Twitterface</a>, <a href="http://monitter.com/">Monitter</a>, <a href="http://www.retweetradar.com">Re-Tweet Radar</a> and countless more), some of which can get really elaborate and aesthetically spectacular (see <a href="http://beta.twittervision.com/">Twittervision</a>, <a href="http://trendsmap.com">Trendsmap</a> or <a href="http://twittearth.com/">Twittearth</a>).<br />
Of course such open-ness has also generated some <a href="http://www.joedawsons.com/2009/01/twitter-hit-by-phishing-scam.html">scams</a>, but it looks like Twitter development is basically an everybody-wins practice.</p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://thezeninyou.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/twitter-bird-thumb9383796.jpg" class="alignnone" width="300" height="300" /><br />
<em>(Image from <a href="http://thezeninyou.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/twitter-bird-thumb9383796.jpg">thezeninyou.com</a>)</em></p>
<p>After browsing through all of these different platforms, graphs and interfaces, one question remains. What has become of Twitter&#8217;s eastern-flavored aesthetic appeal? How many users are really thinking tweets over to stay in the 140-character limit, instead of just stuffing anything in via <a href="http://www.friendfeed.com">FriendFeed</a> or other transversal means?<br />
Twitterers using the site are less and less numerous compared to the overall <a href="http://www.twitstat.com/twitterclientusers.html">client-enthusiasts</a>, and it appears like, instead of sucking everything in its own mini-internet Facebook-style, the blue bird is flying all over the place, re-territorializing its social network on the whole www. But the internet has also been affecting Twitter usage, spoiling much of its micro-blogging potential.<br />
The 140-character challenge might still be a good way to learn how to weigh words before using them, to reclaim some of the juice dispersed in the web&#8217;s information cauldron and focus on REAL communication, stripping it off all the viral applications, animated puppets and vacuous statistics.<br />
Twitter could have helped us all develop HDADD, like Steven Wright&#8217;s nephew.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.almostnothing.org/2009/10/05/design-your-network-what-has-become-of-twitter-aesthetics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

