Facebook and MySpace: Comparing Visual Designs

Based on the controversy it stirred up, many of you have by now probably read "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace", Danah Boyd's article about the class differences between Facebook and MySpace (she also posted a response to critiques here). I think it is a courageous article, but I'm not going to write about her views here. I want to comment on one particular section that sparked some thinking for me, and it's around the differences between the visual designs of Facebook and MySpace. Danah says the following in her essay:

Most teens who exclusively use Facebook are familiar with and have an opinion about MySpace. These teens are very aware of MySpace and they often have a negative opinion about it. They see it as gaudy, immature, and "so middle school." They prefer the "clean" look of Facebook, noting that it is more mature and that MySpace is "so lame." What hegemonic teens call gaudy can also be labeled as "glitzy" or "bling" or "fly" (or what my generation would call "phat") by subaltern teens. Terms like "bling" come out of hip-hop culture where showy, sparkly, brash visual displays are acceptable and valued. The look and feel of MySpace resonates far better with subaltern communities than it does with the upwardly mobile hegemonic teens. This is even clear in the blogosphere where people talk about how gauche MySpace is while commending Facebook on its aesthetics. I'm sure that a visual analyst would be able to explain how classed aesthetics are, but aesthetics are more than simply the "eye of the beholder" - they are culturally narrated and replicated. That "clean" or "modern" look of Facebook is akin to West Elm or Pottery Barn or any poshy Scandinavian design house (that I admit I'm drawn to) while the more flashy look of MySpace resembles the Las Vegas imagery that attracts millions every year. I suspect that lifestyles have aesthetic values and that these are being reproduced on MySpace and Facebook.

It's that last sentence that got me thinking -- the notion that lifestyles have aesthetic values and that these are reproduced in online identities and the way we use the Internet. I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think that it paints the full picture. Could it just be that MySpace pages are ugly because users have such control over their pages that they can make it look however they want, and to be frank most people are pretty bad designers? If you look at the color schemes, layout and readability of most MySpace pages, it's pretty horrible, but I suspect it's just because users don't know any better. And the inconsistency everywhere you look is what makes it look so "messy". People's mental models are set up to look for patterns, and when they don't find it (like on MySpace) it leaves them with a pretty uneasy feeling, even if they're not sure what exactly it is that they're feeling...

Facebook, on the other hand, gives users almost no control over look and feel. You have immense control over the content on your page but you're pretty much stuck with what it looks like. There are even certain content containers that you can't move around on the page, which, in my opinion, is a good thing. It means that pages have a consistent visual design and users know what to expect and where to find information, which dramatically increases the ease of use.

When it comes to personalization, you can give users control over design and/or content. MySpace allows both, Facebook allows mostly content personalization. I think Facebook chose the better route...