Now I have no idea whether Google+ will succeed or not, and I’m still not quite sure how it’ll fit into the already saturated social media stage. And for now I’ll leave that to those who like to opine on such matters and believe they’re smarter than me.
I just wanted to point out one small thing.
Putting screenshots of Google+ and Twitter next to each other (as above) you’ll notice two things. One, there’s a lot more density on the Twitter side. That means more stuff, and stuff is good, as long as stuff is ordered, which it generally seems to be.
Secondly, take a look at how each service shows you the difference between things. In twitter’s ordered world there’s a basic unit of measurement: a tweet. Highly restrictive by nature. The differences are easy to spot. Some have links, some are retweets, faves, etc. But because the basic unit itself is so uniform, the stream is incredibly easy to scan, even read. The differences between each unit are things you catch out of the corner of your eye.
Google+, on the other hand, wants you to know that these objects are different types. It’s all about leading with the differences, rather than creating a scannable, understandable whole. It’s function over form. Cognitively, I have to figure out what type of object it is before I can read it.
Make everything that CAN be alike as alike as possible. Let the differences between stuff jump out as accents. Because ultimately, people may come for the difference, but they stay for the stuff.
| 
18 comments so far. Add yours below.
Amish S says:
Very interesting. Curious what your take is on Google+ vs Facebook, which has a more similar experience containing a variety of objects.
July 5, 2011 10:31 PM
Anonymous says:
Agreed Amish. I'd say google is targeting Facebook at this stage and deferring an assume on twitter for a later date. So really side by side comparisons should be focussed in that direction too.
July 5, 2011 10:55 PM
twitterbot says:
I like you better when you limit yourself to 140 characters.
July 5, 2011 11:01 PM
lia says:
also true of tumblr/facebook compared to twitter! the difference is why I enjoy twitter so much and have let tumblr & facebook fall by the wayside, and will probably let google+ do the same.
July 6, 2011 12:12 AM
Henry Webb says:
You may have a point, but it would be very easy to skin or theme G+ - either through official Google themes like they have for Gmail, or through browser extensions. (I think I saw there's already an extension that makes G+ look like Facebook.) If you prefer the density and link vs. media content of Twitter, you could just make your G+ look exactly like Twitter. (I suppose Google could even give you an option to limit G+ posts to 140 characters if that's what you prefer.)
July 6, 2011 12:15 AM
Lino says:
I cannot understand why everyone is comparing Google+ with Facebook. The comparison with Twitter on the other hand suggests itself. Why?
1. In Twitter and Google+ you follow people. It's common to follow people you don't know.
2. Twitter and Google+ focus on content sharing.
Sure, there are hangouts, sparks and chats. But on Facebook there is a whole platform with different third party apps, public events etc.. It's a lot more integrated. So, at this stage Google+ certainly is "the better twitter" rather than "the better Facebook".
July 6, 2011 12:35 AM
Ash says:
Could this be an intentional design decision on Google's part, based on the fact that they have intentionally limited the number of users allowed to participate in the initial rollout? How barren would the average user's stream look if it was a dense Twitter's?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Google+ stream becomes denser over time as the user base grows.
July 6, 2011 8:22 AM
Chris Hiester says:
The tweet stream is what Tufte calls "small multiples" (if I'm interpreting correctly).
July 6, 2011 10:34 AM
Indra says:
I want to +1 that!
July 6, 2011 10:48 AM
David Gómez-Rosado says:
intrstng tht wht not lng ago cnstituted cryptc lngge, now dmed "scnnable" OH http://j.mp/nuzUzh #itsironic #rotfl @dahveedgr RT muledesign via pyronicide HT hasslunsford
(I don't have the energy to remove the extra 31 character to fit an actual Tweet)
July 6, 2011 12:01 PM
Ash White says:
Have you considered that this might have been an intentional design decision on Google's part during this initial rollout? The infancy of the service means that there is significantly less content to go around. It would look like a barren wasteland if it was as dense an your average Twitter feed.
I wouldn't be surprised if Google reduces the density of the stream as the user base grows.
July 6, 2011 8:49 PM
Mantoa says:
From your image, I see two thing:
(1) Google+ puts images inline. Many Twitter clients do that also. That's a good thing, in my opinion, unless and until image posts increase beyond their current small percentage (on both Twitter and Google+)
(2) The Google+ design is wasteful of vertical space, in a Web 2.0 manner. This is easily fixed. Put the comment/share buttons in a menu like Twitter, decide on images or handles for @ references, not both, put Join This Hangout in the left column perhaps and reducing the padding, and so on.
July 6, 2011 9:41 PM
Biffster says:
I've gotta disagree with you. I think that the variety of elements is an enhancement. It's much like using a photo in a blog post can be very beneficial. There's something to break up the flow of a page, something for the eyes to settle on.
Twitter's long list of tweets can be wearisome after a bit. To the eye, there's just a series of identical blocks repeated as far as can be seen. It doesn't take long for everything to blur into everything else and boredom to set in.
The design in Google+ breaks up that visual boredom. It is still easy to tell the breaks between each share via indentation and the horizontal rules between each entry. But there's also tons of whitespace and non-text elements to keep one's eyes entertained.
July 7, 2011 2:23 PM
Dan Wasyluk says:
@Mantoa - He is talking about native web clients for Google+ and Twitter: of course 3rd party clients will display items any number of different ways.
Hi Mike,
Just stumbled across this post, very interesting. I think that this might be somewhat comparing apples to oranges-
Twitter displays things with the *same style* for each entry and then attaches icons to indicate different types of related media but does not display the media inline (until you click the tweet and the second pane is revealed).
Google+ on the other hand takes a more top down approach- they *style each entry differently* based on the type of related media, and then displays that media inline. Facebook takes a similar approach (with less success imo).
I can't speak to who's is best but I do agree with @Mantoa that Google+ wastes a lot of vertical space- maybe some of that is to help them differentiate themselves from the cripplingly-cluttered brand feel of Facebook? I still think they could tighten it up a bit without losing their identity. Also I think the visual organization within each entry could use some work to better utilize the real estate, much as @Mantoa said.
July 18, 2011 7:33 PM
Martin P says:
"Cognitively, I have to figure out what type of object it is before I can read it".
But doesn't Apple have a patent on that?
July 18, 2011 11:26 PM
foobar says:
Glad to know I am not the only one who has this opinion..
Google+ should also try to play around more with the font size for diff content.. and have a background color for headings such as "Hangouts", "Suggestions", "In your Circle" etc..
theres too much white space, i feel..
Henry Webbs suggestion of personalized theme is very good.. but the default basic theme culd also be made better..
July 19, 2011 12:40 AM
May says:
Personally I find the density of Twitter overwhelming so I only use Flipboard to peruse Twitter (and I also prefer the way G+ and FB display content inline).
The problem with not showing images / videos inline is that it forces you to read a (sometimes cryptic) tweet to determine whether or not it's worthwhile to click and see whatever is being shared...this takes more time than scanning an image and often, the tweets used to describe content being shared aren't convincing enough to compel me to click (it's not until I see the images and video on Flipboard that I realize how much I've missed!). When people share an image, video, or link, what they generally want their audience to see is that content first and foremost...their tweet is usually just a caption. But twitter reverses this hierarchy by showing you the caption and not the content.
With the G+ and FB feed, my eyes only have to scan down vertically, and I only need to tap the "page down" button instead of using my mouse to click on links and then look to the right before scanning down again, clicking and looking to the right...that action does does get tedious so I end up missing a lot on twitter
July 19, 2011 9:40 AM
Etienne says:
I agree with @Biffster, @May and others. I think the twitter feed is actually impossible to scan, except for authors. By the way, there is keyboard shortcuts for Google + (try J and K).
July 30, 2011 11:18 AM