Ok, one more quick comment about the thread on 'The Usability of Subscribing to Feeds' over on Jeffrey Veen's blog. The more I think about the discussion going on there, the more I think there are really two usability problems that are being debated (I think Jeffrey is on to this when he asks - "Should I help people subscribe?"):
1) How should a website explain what RSS is to a user who isn't familiar with it?
2) How should a website make it easy to subscribe to the site feed?
Here's a quick shot at answers to these questions:
1) How should a website explain what RSS is to a user who isn't familiar with it?
It shouldn't. Users who don't know who don't use aggregators shouldn't be bothered with evangelism in the website. They should just read the web page and enjoy it! At some point, someone will likely show them a reader, and they'll make up their mind that they're interested, and no evangelism or explanation will be needed. Think of how you were first exposed to IM or Email- someone shows it to you and you quickly understand it and are sold. At no point did anyone explain POP or SMTP to me when I was first exposed to email. No one listed the benefits either, I just tried it and got it. No salesperson called me and told me the benefits of email, so don't mess up my web pagee viewing experience by trying to evangelize syndication.
2) How should a website make it easy to subscribe to the site feed?
They shouldn't. They should make it easy for feed readers to allow users to subscribe to web sites. That way, browser toolbars, bookmarklets, GreaseMonkey extensions, embedded feed readers, or any other application has a consistent and reliable way to expose adding a feed to their users. The user can choose the application that makes the most sense to them, and use the 'Add Feed' capability built right into their favorite application. If they don't have an application because the user doesn't like using syndication/a feed reader, no worries- they aren't having to deal with it.
Comments