I've seen a few "Tinder for <X>" apps out there that try to emulate the swipe model for things like hiring, events, business connections, etc. I haven't found any of them useful; I think they overgeneralize the Tinder model.<p>Tinder works because the criteria the user is selecting for, physical attractiveness, really can be evaluated in a split second from a single photo.<p>On the other hand, the question of "do I want to hire this person" requires carefully evaluating their skills, credentials, education, location, availability. "Do I want to go to this event" depends on the kind of event, location, time, and other plans I might have that day. In both cases the photo is irrelevant. Once you have to look through each item for 10-20 seconds bare minimum, the Tinder model doesn't make sense anymore.<p>Another key UI consideration is filtering. In the hiring and events examples, you can easily filter algorithmically by skills, years of experience, event type, or location. But physical attractiveness can't be algorithmically filtered on. So Tinder occupies a unique niche where the selection criteria is 1) impossible to automate because it's vague and subjective but 2) easy for each individual user to evaluate in a split second.
The secret to Tinder's success isn't that they use a swipe-based interface. It's that they solved one of the biggest pain points in dating: users never have to talk to anyone that hasn't already expressed mutual interest in them. Since the app discloses romantic interest only after both parties have reciprocated, Tinder offers a fundamentally better way of meeting new people than has existed previously. That was a game-changer for the entire dating scene, and that is why they are successful.
There are so many holes in this piece it's amazing. It's especially apparent when it's boiled down by the author:<p>"There are many reasons why this makes for a better user experience:<p>1.Cognitively, you can only evaluate one option at a time. Seeing all the options laid out in front of you at once is just noisy and distracting, since you’ll have to consider each one in turn anyway.
2.Making swipe-happy snap judgements allows you to make better choices, faster. See Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking for much more on the adaptive unconscious.
3.You can do it one handed."<p>There's no reference to cognitive theories dealing with various interface types. I'm doing an independent project this semester with user eye-tracking through a Netflix-like interface. Iris Vessey's theory of Cognitive Fit shows that there are some tasks where the-part-in-relation-to-the-whole is the main consideration. In those cases, a matrix interface is a better fit, leading to better (faster, more accurate) task performance.
2. Malcolm Gladwell as main reference? ...no wonder no cognitive theory was explored.
3. Why stop there, you could also do that with blinks or eye gestures, further isolated into a bubble of laziness.
One big false generalization.<p>I mean Netflix's interface sucks for discovery, and the suggested improvement in the article is to force me to look at one suggested movie at a time? Seriously!?
Following this "small data" concept I was also working on an app that works with a kind of "binary communication". You guys (and girls) seem quite critical, so I'd be really curious to hear what you guys think of this concept (sorry if this is considered self promotion, it just seemed appropriate to mention it here.)
The idea is a messaging app where recipients can only reply Yes or No, and is intended for quick questions when you don't need an excuse (i.e. "Have you sent the file yet?"), the idea is to gear for wearables and provide a swappable tinder like interface for quick questions.
<a href="http://www.getmoshimoshi.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.getmoshimoshi.com</a>
Alan Kay once said something to the effect of: the best UIs are the ones that make the process of rejection as fast as possible.<p>So, “yes”, Tinder-like apps are the way of the future, but we could have been living in the future a long time ago if people had been paying more attention to the lessons of the past.
I really hope not. For anyone not above average looking, Tinder, et al, are a bunch of apps that basically show you everyone in your area that would never talk to you. I'm fairly positive that at least in my area, anyone who even matches with me is a robot.
This is so dumb...
One paragraph they're introducing the concept of "small data", the next paragraph they're talking about how getting the swipe information for huge numbers of users helps them train their collaborative filtering algorithm...<p>Ultimately it's a big data hype article... GASP we can infer your preferences from your behavior... Written by someone with a Medium tagline of "Sassy futurism. Tech and words."