I have this standard joke because it’s my line of work, which really didn’t exist too long ago: “The internet’s a fad, it’s just going to go away.” While it might be dramatizing it, I do feel that it is if we don’t improve the user experience of applications and websites, like Facebook, so they aren’t just marketing spam. While end users may not be the brightest bulbs in the world, they’re not stupid, and they know when they are being fooled.

I like FaceBook. I’ve hired people off of FaceBook, and find it more useful from a profile standpoint (but less entertaining) than MySpace, but not as useful as LinkedIn. However, I had to do some housecleaning the other day, and I deleted over 100 applications.

Part of the problem is how most of these application developers design the applications, and nothing is a better illustration than what my online budy Andy Sternberg pointed out using an application on my own profile — that since I’ve installed an application, there’s this implicit “wow, Patrick must really like it.”

No, I don’t like it. My friends are selling me, and I’m not getting any of the profits.

A lot of these applications and even some websites, like Reunion.com (I’m not just bringing them up because I interviewed there years ago, but because I know the CEO knows better, and the David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times also brought it up) are using shady ways to promote themselves, like harvesting friend lists and so on.

Note to application developers — if the applications are usable, engaging, and cool, people will use it in droves. They’ll tell your friends. They won’t worry about being forced to tell 10, or 12, or 20 friends. Facebook probably doesn’t know how it’s damaging their reputation, or if they do know, how to fix it.

That Scrabbulous application is engaging.

Texas No-Hold ‘Em Poker is engaging.

FriendFeed is engaging.

Selling friends is not.

I attend user groups occasionally, and last night was the Orange County MOSS User Group (I think that’s the title). I do it because it’s good to get out to actual users as opposed to design’y people that worry about the color of the button, where most people just want a button that works.

Long story short, one of the people had an interesting paradox: how do you get people to use SharePoint when they are using the voice mail system for everything?

He works for a local restaurant chain, and most of the users are restaurant managers that are too busy managing their restaurant to report on issues. They are supposed to log the going’s on in MOSS, and now instead of using a diary, they use the voice mail system, because it records all the messages.

He’s talking about some of the issues, and there are some very interesting patterns, most of which are cultural because of the nature of the users he’s dealing with.

I suggested that instead of trying to force them onto SharePoint, do the opposite and let technology do all the work — there’s some voice mail software that will transcribe the message to text, and save the audio message. You can probably hook that up to MOSS, and thus save the messages and the voice mails themselves for archival. Sure, there’s a loss of potential meta data, but that could be cured other ways.

But it brings up an interesting point: how many of us have run into an environment where user adoption issues are so severe, the technology just doesn’t get used? Square hole, round peg, right? That’s why we write personas, so we can understand the culture of the people that we work with.

In this case, the restaurant managers are not computer users — if you studied their usage patterns, they are probably recording their voice mails on the way home after a long day on their feet (and they would drive home and record the message instead of sitting in front of a computer). So sitting them in front a blog probably wouldn’t happen.

Any suggestions?