Google Circles and Path 2.0: How good UI design cannot fix a broken solution

Yes, good UI design cannot fix a broken solution. But how can this article talk about a "broken solution" when it doesn't even mention the <i>problem</i>?! If you don't see the problem, the solution isn't "broken"; it's just solving a problem you don't have.<p>I would have expected this article to actually discuss what problems they are solving and exactly why their solution is wrong/broken. Instead it just says "meh, it doesn't solve anything!" without any justification.<p>How can you even talk about "solutions" to social networks and not mention privacy at all?

I've argued for a long time that Facebook has the huge advantage of having even reach most of the laggards. All other social networks that don't focus on an entirely different niche (like Instagram) will probably fail or stay small.<p>However, a social network doesn't necessarily need 800Mio users to be relevant. Even a small social network with an avid and interested user base can succeed.<p>And this could be the main differentiator here: A user base consisting out of people that love fantastic design. If they and their design-loving friends are on there, and don't require the facebook-laggard-surplus, then Path can succeed.

I could not agree with this more. I really love the Path UI and played with it for a few days, but I just uninstalled it entirely from my iPhone because I was tired of being notified on two separate social networks.<p>I had to decide, "Where should I check-in?" or "Where should I post this photo?" and it all came down to my 10 or 12 'nerd' friends on Path vs. my large circle of friends on Facebook. That decision is what killed it for me.

<p><pre><code> people don’t buy products – they buy the benefit. </code></pre> People also can't differentiate needs over desires, they also can't help themselves against the herd mentality, otherwise they wouldn't be using social networks and playing Zynga games in the first place.<p>This emphasis on benefits is exaggerated, as clearly if people thought really well about it, a lot of companies would go out of business.<p>Also, great software in usage goes beyond the purpose imbued by the creators. Sometimes the creators don't even know the problem it's trying to solve. I'm pretty sure the creators of software like Excel couldn't envision the myriads of ways in which it will be used and why it would be of any usefulness versus a custom form / listing developed by somebody in Fox Pro / dBase in an hour. Facebook is also great because it is different for everybody - for some it is a vanity contest, others like to keep contacts to old high-school buddies, others like playing stupid games, others like to be notified of events and so on and so fort.

tl;dr for the below: If it's too much work with their UI, it's a UI problem.<p>&#62; The problem is that it’s just too much work. I’ve long since given up trying to maintain my Circles, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone. Circles also lost its core utility for me. After I put about 100 people into different buckets I couldn’t remember who I put where, and what I was supposed to share with which Circle. So I just gave up and started sharing everything publicly.<p>&#62; It doesn’t matter how great and fun an experience is, good UI design cannot fix a broken solution.<p>I actually think Google Circles' problem <i>is</i> poor UI design, not a broken solution. Lists are a great way to manage things, but you need to have powerful operations on top of lists. I said it when they came out that I was disappointed with their lack of a Venn-diagram interface where I can define sets of people in terms of other sets and their operations. (Why then "circles" and not "groups"?) On-the-fly one-time-use circles would have been nice to have, too. And they didn't have an API for a long time so it's not like someone could straightforwardly go implement such things in a third-party app. (I haven't been following the API so I don't know if someone could do this now, but I'm pretty sure their first version of the API didn't even allow POST requests--awful developer UI.)<p>On a second note, I think good UI can cover up a broken solution. Look at the mobile world with "everything-is-an-app" largely thanks to the iPhone.

I really do think Path can retain its users past this initial "ooh shiny!" phase if it can continue to add features to differentiate itself as a mobile diary and solve that user need -- it is not trying to compete directly with Facebook

OK. UI is great. But whats the app doing?<p>Telling you it is your own journal and allowing occasional sharing? So a personal blog that works from your smart phone and thus lets you do stuff that Wordpress won't?<p>I like it, I must say. But why would users use it? Self gratification? What is their business model? A la four square? Will they eventually have checkins and deals?

I would love for Path to be a tightly integrated Facebook client. The interaction is great and it's really a joy to use. The problem is, I don't want to have to keep up with another network, even if I'm supposed to use this one differently than I would Facebook or Twitter.

Path excludes me because I don't have an iOS or Android device (yes we do exist).

I completely disagree. This is the classic Silicon Valley echo-chamber view of Path. Path is not made for the Silicon Valley technorati.<p>Path is more like iMessage than it is like Facebook or Twitter.<p>I go for a run. No one knows I'm going for a run. I post to Path. Now if I get mugged, my sister will know where to dispatch the cops to.<p>I post a photo of a family member. I get a "so-and-so visited my Path" notification. I can then go and chat with them about the photo cause I know that they have seen it.<p>I go to sleep. My friends check my Path before they SMS me to make sure they don't interrupt my sleep.<p>The problems it solves for me:<p>- Did so-and-so see that photo I posted? They can view it on their own time. Once they've seen it I'll have a conversation with them about it.<p>- I live on my own. My family knows where I am if I accidentally disappear.<p>- I am asleep. Don't wake me up.