Finding your own flocks — a Twitter case study
Unlike Instagram and Facebook, Twitter is a social media platform where interacting mostly means connecting and in many cases with strangers. There are so many different forms of connection on Twitter from designers networking to fandoms raving about the latest song.
But a huge problem with the platform happens when your audience is a mix of these people with different interests. Who do you post to? Is it a good idea to post about the newest Harry Styles album if your audience is mostly professionals?
Instead of being afraid to tweet because of conflicting audiences, is there a better solution?
To figure out how to solve this problem, I knew I had to do some research.
The Daily Life of a Tweeter
For my user interviews, I asked about how people browsed, found content, and interacted on Twitter. Here’s a summary of the insights I found:
The research revealed that users post on Twitter for multiple people — friends, network contacts, and fandoms. They’re constrained by factors like time and image in their usage.
Because Twitter has a sprawling user base, I made user personas to better understand the audience and different use cases.
The Problem Statement
When people use Twitter, they find it difficult to be able to tweet/reply what they want because:
- All their tweets/replies are public and they don’t want their entire audience to see them
- They don’t want to sound too unprofessional/uninformed
- They have niche interests where their tweets would only apply to a certain group of people
Also, users already seem to want a space of their own. In many fandoms, there are “group chats” where users can interact with others interested in the same things in a private space.
Although it’s a great way to get content and to meet people with similar interests, my user research found that these group chats could get awkward and often dissolve quickly.
Introducing Twitter Groups (or perhaps… Flocks)
Users wanted a private space, one that they could define in terms of content and visibility. Introducing… Twitter Groups!
How Did I Get There?
A Brainstorming Session
Brainstorming with a couple of pals revealed some problem spaces to tackle- specifically how do we increase privacy and engagement at the same time?
Out of many solutions, I narrowed it down to three…
Twitter private conversations would allow replies to be only seen to the poster, but it lacked any feasibility for community engagement. After all, we tweet because we want to be heard.
Twitter shower thoughts would allow users to post whatever they wanted to a select number of people, almost like a private Twitter integrated into a public one. However, that would limit posts to be mostly about the user's life. What about a space for other topics?
Twitter groups would allow users to post whatever they wanted, but also provided the perfect degree of customizability as to who would see the post. The user could use groups to rant to their close friends but also post the latest fandom news with fellow internet users at the same time.
Figuring Out Where the Pieces Fit
Entry-points
Ultimately I decided on option D because user research indicated that users were less inclined to use features that were hidden in the sidebar (such as Lists). Also, options B and C were ruled out because that was how Twitter currently integrated Lists and Special News Features into the feed.
How do we view groups?
I ultimately settled on option D. User feedback indicated that it was important to quickly and easily navigate between each group’s content. They didn’t want another cluttered feed like the home page.
This posed another problem, how do we still ensure the user can view all the content in a single stream? Users indicated they still wanted an option to see an unfiltered view.
Integrating an Unfiltered View
Although option A was similar to how Twitter integrated Lists onto the homepage, I went with option B in the end because the interaction was more seamless while swiping would provide a break in the interaction.
Also, since the default Twitter feed is organized by highlights, the user would implicitly understand that the Twitter groups feed is organized the same way.
How do we find these groups?
Iteration 1: Integrating Your Groups, Explore, and Create
Initially I had the idea of having Your Groups, Explore and Create all be accessed through the same tab system, indicating they had equal importance. However, through user research I learned that:
- Users will only use Explore on Twitter once or twice in the beginning when setting up the groups they wanted to follow.
- Users would use Create once, twice, or even never, meaning it didn’t need to be as accessible as viewing the feed.
Iteration 2: Integrating Explore and Search
For a while, I was stuck on trying to integrate both searching for all groups on Twitter (Explore) and searching within your own groups (Search). After user research, I learned that my explorations in my second iteration weren’t enough because:
- The difference in function between Your Groups, Search, and Explore was confusing from first glance
- If users really wanted to look for groups ALL over Twitter, they always went to the bottom bar when prompted
- Users wanted a way to access a list of groups they were currently in instead of solely relying on the carousel
Iteration 3: The Final Solution
For my final solution I simplified exploring and searching into one action.
- Because users would only have one or two groups under a keyword, it allowed space for an option to explore groups from the search button on the bottom
- The empty state would make room for a list of all groups a user was in, which made sense because that was when a user would want to access a specific group anyways
What makes these groups so different anyways?
User testing showed that leaving the presentation of groups to be the same as a user profile proved to be very confusing, ruling out option A. Option C would make viewing the follower count difficult if the cover photo was a detailed photo.
In the end, I chose option B, however there was still a major problem- users didn’t know the difference between following and joining at first glance.
What’s the difference between joining and following?
The point of joining and following was to allow people the option of passively following a group and to also allow for more control over posting privileges. Only people who joined a group would be allowed to post and follow at the same time. This would allow more customization in the usage of groups.
To explain the difference I took inspiration from how Twitter currently explains its features, through a bottom pop-up modal.
Bringing Back the Twitter Aesthetic
Understanding how Twitter currently designed various functions in their system was important in terms of consistency and helped me decide which design decision to pursue for creating groups.
Forming the Flocks… I Mean Groups
Although the content requirements for this feature were straight-forward, I went through several iterations to make it match Twitter’s design system and increase usability.
In my original version, it was difficult for the user to know where to click to input their information. Also, the invite was a scroll within a scroll which would add poor usability.
I then split it into three steps and provided context to each so the user felt more guided in the group creation process.
Representing Groups in Unfiltered Feed View
Although it was minor, I went with option A because option B made it seem like the @ referred to the username of the tweeter rather than the group. As for option C, the solid triangle wasn’t visually seen anywhere in Twitter, and I wanted to keep consistency.
Create Iconography
Option A is the most clear that it’s a create group button, but option B keeps more in line with Twitter’s current aesthetic (symbol and shapes). Option C is a simplified version but sacrifices any context. I ultimately went with option B.
Final Flow
Browsing Groups
Searching for Groups
Creating Groups
Conclusion
I didn’t realize it at first, but users don’t need a lot of followers to experience this problem. Recently, I started tweeting more and I realized that I had professionals following me and underclassmen from high school and close friends. I didn’t know what to post and so I didn’t post at all.
Ultimately, if there were more time I would look into how users interact with others within groups. Besides retweets and posts, what else would make Twitter Groups different from any old group chat or shared account? Would it be possible to integrate discussion boards, polls, or collaborations?
In the end, Twitter Groups is a solution that at the very least makes Twitter a comfortable space for everyone.
This was my first full-length case-study and boy it was wild. Shoutout to Cornell AppDev’s Introduction to Digital Product Design Class and my wonderful TA Femi for pushing me to test out all my ideas. I’m a rising sophomore at Cornell and I’d love to connect! If you’re interested in learning more about me find me at connieliu0.github.io
