Affordances of Facebook User Interface and Its Effects on User Actions
This Research Paper was first submitted on 05.01.2020
Abstract
Facebook has reached a point that for the vast majority of the users it is a central force in their life. Being one of the most popular social platforms, Facebook succeeded to stay relevant and useful for the vast majority of the people in the world. To understand the company’s achievement in 2020, the relationship between user interface design and the time spent within the platform is scrutinized. Through the walkthrough method analysis, FB5 UI design of Facebook examined in terms of user interface arrangement, functions and features, textual content and tone, symbolic representation. This research paper investigates the effects of user interface design on users based on the grounds of affordances theory. It is argued that “the new Facebook” intends to increase user engagement within the platform through calculated design choices which facilitates the increased time spent in the platform.
Introduction
At the F8 developers’ conference (2019), Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg has introduced a new user interface design which is called “FB5”. Newly introduced design structure and changes in the company targets have led the platform to downplay the Newsfeed feature and to create “a privacy-focused vision for social networking” (Zuckerberg 2019). The new vision of the platform centralizes groups and events and helps users to grow their social circles (Robertson 2019). After the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, Facebook was displaced by negative coverage in the next two years (Vaidhyanathan, 2018). Nevertheless, Facebook, considered as a whole eco-system of social platforms including Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp, “did not see a decline in monthly active users, nor in its vast network of business partners (Helmond, Nieborg, and van der Vlist 2019, 123). The continuous growth of the platform eco-system in terms of user activity and time spent is arguably the key promoter of its success. Bedjaoui et al. points out that persuasion analysis of Facebook demonstrates persuasion techniques to “involve the user into an engaging loop, to keep him online as long as possible” (Bedjaoui, Elouali, and Benslimane 2018, 23). It is important to understand the relationship between what changes FB5 user interface design brings to the platform and how the new design choices shape user actions.
In January 2020, 98 percent of active user accounts worldwide accessed the social network via any kind of mobile phone (Statista, 2020). By the agency of the mobile use trend, the new interface rollout has started with the mobile application of Facebook and continues to be introduced in the desktop version to only selected groups of people. The desktop version of the FB5 is in the Beta stage and it is expected to be rolled out worldwide by the end of 2020 (Robertson, 2019). Considering 2.5 billion monthly active users as of the fourth quarter of 2019 (Statista, 2020), Facebook has become a centralized force in our lives. It has been widely studied that physical interactions within the user interface may result in addiction (Noë et al. 2019), but it is not certain, if we are going to see a similar pattern in the recently designed Facebook user interface. It is important for us to understand how the new design choices of Facebook are deliberately forcing users to get their attention for the longest time possible. Due to FB5 UI having recently been introduced, research on affordances of the user interface has not been conducted. Understanding what the new UI design affords will decipher the impacts on user actions that have aroused. Actions could be exemplified as liking, reading, clicking, playing, watching, commenting, posting, friending…
In this research by aiming to fill this gap, FB5 user interface design (both mobile and desktop) will be examined in order to discern the association between the time spent on user practices and UI. Therefore, the research question of this paper is how the new user interface design of Facebook shapes what Facebook affords in user actions in 2020? In order to answer the research question following subquestions will be answered throughout the paper: What are the function and feature changes that Facebook UI design brings in terms of user actions? What are the affordances of FB5 UI, and what actions does it afford for users? How the user interface design of Facebook increases the time spent on the platform?
Theoretical Framework
As Goggin pointed out, Facebook’s mobile career opened a new chapter starting from 2010. “Facebook’s strategy hinged on its platform becoming central to the evolving reference points of the mobile, online and social media universe” (Goggin 2014). Facebook aimed to be the first choice of users for user-generated content which disseminates amongst the social circles. Even though social circles are made of diverse groups of individuals, Facebook friends are treated as a single homogeneous group (Nasim et al. 2013). Commenting feature on Facebook can be named as one of the core elements of the user social media experience. In the aim of recognizing the commenting behavior of users, Nasim et al. point out that “people change their behavior to align it with the behavior of their friends” by referring to social influence (Nasim et al. 2013, 179). According to the data set analysis, Nasim et al. observed that “friends belonging to a particular community of friends are more likely to comment on a status post if a large fraction of prior comments are by other Facebook users belonging to their own community” (Nasim et al. 2013, 183). From this perspective it can be argued that in 2020, FB5 design of Facebook aims to extend the friends social circles with Facebook groups feature. An increase in social belonging feeling on users may result in higher interaction within the platform. Research findings of Nasim et al. confirms this claim. In their words Nasim et al. says that “design improvements in visibility/non-visibility of comments to other communities may allow more user engagement and encourage user interaction on online social networking sites” (Nasim et al. 2013, 183).
Understanding the design development of Facebook requires us to examine sharing picture behavior of users. Cherubini et al. point out that “people share pictures online to increase their social presence” (Cherubini et al. 2010, 985). Sharing pictures is one of the essential features of the social media platforms. This Facebook feature “allows their users to keep a constant level of awareness on their peers’ activities” and it enables “a one-to-many communication style which targets trusted members of the social network” (Cherubini et al. 2010, 985). Visual representation has become more and more important on Facebook in the following 10 years. Today, the new FB5 design of Facebook promotes visual context in order to preserve the attention of the users. For instance, while writing a post on a friend’s wall on Facebook, the platform prompts users to select one of the offered background images to embed the text. This way the platform increases the chance of the post to be read from another Facebook friend of the user to ultimately increase the user interactions. Cherubini et al. makes a qualitative self-promotion experiment which confirms my previous claims. “Introducing a quality control mechanism to select the photos that appear on a certain feed increases their persuasiveness” (Cherubini et al. 2010). From this result we can deduce that different types of presentation of multimedia may affect the preference of the users in terms of its persuasiveness (Cherubini et al. 2010) therefore, UI design choices contribute to increasing user interaction. Attention manipulation of the user interface could be recognized through the agency of affordances theory which recognizes the elements of increased user interaction.
Affordances concept emerged as an integral analytic tool within media studies along with science and technology studies, communication studies, ecological psychology and design studies as well as others (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 241). In a broader sense we can define affordances as “the dynamic link between subjects and objects within sociotechnical systems” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 241). The first emergence of the affordance was within ecological psychology and it was defined by Gibson (1979) as what the animal is offered by the environment which has to be measured relative to the animal (Davis and Chouinard 2016). “Norman (1999) went on to distinguish between real and perceived affordances. Real affordances are the functions attached to a given object — what, potentially, that object affords. Perceived affordances are features that are clear to the user” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 242). As affordances vary by the degree that they indicate, Davis et al. propose that “artifacts request, demand, allow, encourage, discourage, and refuse.” Requests and demands refer to bids that the artifact places upon the subject. Encouragement, discouragement, and refusal refer to how the artifact responds to a subject’s desired actions” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 242).
From this perspective, Facebook UI structure will be assessed in terms of its affordances.
“Requests recommend one line of action, but workarounds remain possible and plausible. Requests invite subjects to engage the object in a particular way, evoking particular outcomes over others” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 243). “An artifact demands when its use is conditioned on a particular set of circumstances” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 243). Formulation of affordances as demands creates the risk of technological determinism, therefore it is important to point out that “subjects may rebuff these demands” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 243). “Artifacts encourage when they foster, breed, and nourish some line of action, while stifling, suppressing, and dissuading others” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 243). From this perspective it can be argued that user interfaces of platforms encourage users to take certain actions by using encouraging design choices. Due to the fact that certain design choices can reflect on certain user actions, it becomes crucial to understand in what sense the UI structure of FB5 UI design encourages users. “Artifacts discourage when one line of action, though available should subjects wish to pursue it, is only accessible through concerted effort” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 243). “Artifacts refuse when they make certain actions unavailable to users” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 244). “Allow is distinct in its neutral intensity and multidirectional application. Artifacts allow by remaining indifferent to if and/or how a particular feature is used, and to what outcome. Allow applies to bids generated by both artifacts and subjects” (Davis and Chouinard 2016, 244). Allow in this sense can be considered as the ability of the user in terms of which actions they can perform within the platform and what unique features are offered for the users.
Research Methodology
In this research, the walkthrough method will be used to understand the user interface impact on user practices. According to Light et al. “The walkthrough method is a way of engaging directly with an app’s interface to examine its technological mechanisms and embedded cultural references to understand how it guides users and shapes their experiences” (Light, Burgess, and Duguay 2016, 882). This shows a clear definition of what the walkthrough method is by putting the emphasis on how interface structures promote certain user actions. UI analysis method which integrates goaldirected design could be named as an alternative approach to the walkthrough method. UI analysis employs qualitative and quantitative methods and techniques in order to examine design problems and improve design choices. The walkthrough method “built a more detailed analysis of an app’s intended purpose, embedded cultural meanings and implied ideal users and uses” (Light, Burgess, and Duguay 2016, 881) rather than filling the gap of research needs during the design process of UI. From this perspective, the application of the walkthrough method to interpret the UI design effect on user reaction within Facebook is more appropriate and accurate.
This research will be grounded in the principles of affordances theory (Gibson 1979) which is used to determine “what material artifacts such as media technologies allow people to do” (Bucher and Helmond 2018, 3). Structuring the affordances of Facebook UI will help to understand the effects of FB5 design structure on user practices. According to Gibson, affordances constraint and control behavior rather than being a cause (Rogers 1984). Basing my research on affordance theory will help me to recognize how user interactions are shaped by the design choices of Facebook and influence users on consuming more time on the platform.
In the light of “perceived affordances” (Norman 1999), a comparison between FB5 UI and the previous version will be made to determine how the new UI structure evolved. The transformation of the platform reflects how the research artifact prompts or forces specific actions. As a starting point, the Facebook ecosystem will be analyzed in terms of which actions users can take and how they can spend their time on Facebook. Time spent will be categorized according to what Facebook sub-services such as Messenger, Groups, Pages, Friends, Stories, Events, Comments, Public and Private profiles, Videos, Live, Marketplace, Games and Fundraises afford for users. This categorization then will be used to understand how the new design of the platform aims to increase the time spent on Facebook and the expansion of the platform to the new subcategories (such as Facebook Dating) leads users to develop addiction over time.
In other words, the power relation between the design choices and willpower of the users will be acknowledged. While identifying what Facebook user interface shape user practices by using walkthrough methodology, interpretation of the user interface will centralize the affordance concepts.
Analysis
As Light et al put it, mediator characteristics of a platform can convey technical and cultural influences on users (Light, Burgess, and Duguay 2016). Configuring relations in between the platform and the users bring the need of interaction with the user interface. Scrutinizing the user interface design requires interpretation of the mediator characteristics: user interface arrangement, functions and features, textual content and tone, symbolic representation (Light, Burgess, and Duguay 2016).
User Interface Arrangement
One of the salient design changes of FB5 UI is creating an immersive user experience compared to classic Facebook design. This user experience effect is ensured by the adaptation of the Newsfeed into the different ratio aspects. The post sequence of the newsfeed is centralized in the homepage by cropping out unnecessary boxy design characteristics of the previous user interface. Ultimately, the first glance of the FB5 UI offers a clear vision for the users by adopting user friendly and uninterrupted design. Compared to classic Facebook design, FB5 allows users to take different actions without interrupting one another. The balance between familiarity and interface improvement is ensured by the placement of the buttons: Like, Comment, Share, New Message and Shortcut Bar. Bigger texts and sleek icons are the notable differences of the new Facebook. As Gibson pointed out, the understanding of the surrounding environment is through in the context of their surfaces, layouts, colors, and textures (Bucher and Helmond 2018). Considering the perception of the environment through its affordances, the investigation of the possible actions through the interface will illuminate the perception of the users. In this sense, it can be argued that the FB5 UI design builds on the perceived affordances.
From the first launch of Facebook (2004), the platform has brought features that would become fundamental in every social platform that we see today. Layout arrangement of the new Facebook navigates users in the same authentic structure, but allows no distraction when user take an action. Larger font selection enables bringing the post to the gaze perception. The dropout menus of the interface such as notifications, friend requests, search or chat do not clash with the Newsfeed content, therefore, the users are enabled to take different actions while the main content is ready to be consumed. As the content is centralized in the gaze perception, the aim is to constrain the attention of the user within the platform by surrounding the main content with countless perceived affordances. Thus, the users always have a new action to take and react on what they see. The arrangement of the user interface prioritizes the features like Groups and Watch, but these sections are placed on top of the Newsfeed as a different section together with Marketplace and Gaming. The purpose of the structure is not to overwhelm the user with content choices but to create an environment that places the user in an endless engagement cycle.
In the home section, the Stories are placed right on top of the page. Stories function, which works with optional integration with Instagram, has become a part of the Facebook structure in recent years. Even though stories are aimed to share the everyday practices of users with each other, the feature is used by the Facebook pages to gain more interactions by users.
A full-screen interface opens up when users urge to navigate through stories. As the stories section is placed upon the post publish section in a way that it stands out by its rectangular structure, the urge is created on users by colorful design choice and personalized order of the content. The personalization is fundamental for FB5 UI design. Complex affordances of the user interface are made more relevant to its users by adjusting and changing the content of the menu structure according to the “needs” of the users. The needs of the users are understood by algorithmically collected and processed behavioral data which facilitates the changes according to most time spent feature and content type in the platform.
Looking from the affordances perspective, the FB5 user interface arrangement of Facebook encourages reactions within the platform. Posts, stories, chat messages are designed to encourage sharing user “feelings” by using reactions embedded in the UI. Fullscreen interactions are centralized in the FB5 design. Various functions such as Stories, Marketplace, Groups, Watch are designed to captivate the user within the UI. For instance, Groups interface not only shows the recent posts from the joined groups, but requests users which groups to join. These requests do not compel the user to take the desired action, but they look for feedback to understand the reasons to hide the action and ultimately make more accurate recommendations for the future. Understanding the user behavior and tweaking the UI structure by means of the behavior patterns is crucial for the user interface arrangement of FB5.
Functions and Features
“Platforms change continuously and evolve alongside external contributors who integrate platform functionality into their own software tools and products” (Helmond, Nieborg, and van der Vlist 2019, 127). In this sense Facebook not only extends the offered services but also anticipate user interaction in a longer span. FB5 user interface reimagines the classic Facebook interface alongside external contributors such as games. Games function of Facebook offers thousands of options for users to spend time on the platform. New Facebook interface goes beyond the playing games and offers a meeting hub for gamers. Users can follow specific game content or content creators. Tournaments feature enables users to join or create game tournaments and expand their social circle around their interests. Users can watch Live gaming videos of Facebook content creators or start one themselves. Going live is not only an embedded feature of Facebook gaming but it is considered as a whole new type of content that is ready to be consumed in the platform. Users can go live by using a stream Key, camera or paired encoder and they can start a live video in their newsfeed as well as groups and pages that they belong to.
New Facebook affords multidimensional context creation for sake of increasing the user engagement. While creating a post a user is expected not only to reflect “What’s on their mind” but add a photo or a video, do a check in to mark their geo-location, add their emotional state or the activity that they involve in, raise money for a non-profit organization or start a Watch Party with their friends. Gaver (1996) points out the implications of these practices with technological affordances theory. Gaver identifies the sociality of affordances by speculating how different affordances can shape social structures that besiege them (Bucher and Helmond 2018, 8). From this perspective, we can argue that the FB5 UI design of Facebook aims to create a sense of belonging to a community that may create a complex social interaction chance for the users. In this sense, Facebook Groups feature which is centralized in the new design remains as a mediator between users and factors that shapes their social interactions. One user can join up to 6000 different groups and as Zuckerberg explained in 2019 F8 conference, there are more than 400 million active group members on the platform. Looking from the social affordances perspective, it can be claimed that Groups feature as an influence in the daily life of users and aims to create a familiarity bond that will eventually start the cycle of content consumption.
Recent introduction of the Marketplace feature allows users to create their own Commerce profile which is used to sell and buy products within the platform. Marketplace feature adopts certain characteristics of shopping platforms such as filtered search options for different categories of products, seller rating system to enable users to shop through “trusted” sellers, managing your listings and saving your favorite items in a list. Considering heavy shoppers can spend more than 40 hours per month for online shopping (Statista, 2017), Marketplace feature of the FB5 design encourages users to spend more time within the platform. In light of perceived affordances (Norman, 1997), we can argue that new functions and features of FB5 UI design constrain users to stay in the engagement circle. Facebook watch feature that enables a continuous video watching experience for the users. Continuous video watching experience is combined with persuasive design structure of FB5. Personalization of the content and attractiveness of the Watch UI design aims to focus
the users attention in the recommended content. As the user starts watching a video, UI transforms itself to an endless video circulation source which shows recommended content to its users. The design choices of the UI encourage users to watch the next video and the next one until they quit and go back to the Newsfeed. FB5 UI structures the affordances of the platform in a way that the user navigates through new functions and features by placing the user in the maze of attention hacking by priming the user. Facebook uses this technique to trigger interaction and create habits. For instance, events function of Facebook prompts users to create a new event or discover new ones by priming users with imperative word use embedded in the UI. The purpose of the UI structure is not only to trigger specific actions but also to create a commitment among users by involving them through a process. For instance, users can use Recommendations to get information about any topic by asking locals in their area. The user is prompted to ask questions as well as commenting on other posts or possibly expanding their social circle. In the ascendency stage, the user could be recognized by the engagement rate within the platform. FB5 UI design prolongs this stage of user engagement by making adjustments within the structure in the aim of generating more pleasure feeling to the user.
Looking from the affordances perspective, functions and features of Facebook encourage interaction within the platform by allowing users to spend more time within their algorithmic social circle. Facebook Notifications, which is implemented as a hub for the latest updates for users, allows users to “add new friends” by presenting the list as “people you may know”. Facebook integration with other social media platforms such as Instagram enables the platform to allow users towards calculated actions. Every expected action is placed within the FB5 user interface not only to encourage users but also to make accurate predictions for the future encouraged behavior. FB5 user interface of Facebook encourages users to relevant functions and features of the platform. In this sense, it can be argued that Facebook algorithms calculate future user actions and configure the Newsfeed to increase the time spent within the platform. While the user is scrolling through the newsfeed, they may encounter an algorithmically suggested function or feature which allows user to spend more time or money within the platform. For instance, a user may be suggested to watch a live gaming video without a previous engagement needed. This algorithmically suggested content allows users to watch the live content and follow the content creator, furthermore, it demands engagement from the user by sending Stars.
As it is reflected in the example, FB5 UI restlessly looks for ways to create engagement within the platform by allowing, demanding, and encouraging users to take certain user actions.
Textual Content and Tone
Looking at the textual context embedded in the FB5 UI design, we can argue that Facebook moved towards visual representation of the menus. Users are encouraged to fill in as much information as possible about themselves. The biography section which is placed under the profile picture of the user profile seeks for a “description of who you are” in 100 words. Vague choice of textual content aims not to put a pressure on the user about how to use the platform, consequently the aim is to create an open UI structure for users to tag their personal information deliberately. Categories for selfidentification can be specified as ‘contact and basic information’, ‘work and education’, ‘places you’ve liked’, ‘family and relationships’, ‘details about you’ and ‘life events’. During the registration and entry process, Basic information such as user’s gender, birthday is required. In later stages FB5 UI encourages the users to fill out their contact information, connect other social media and websites with user profile, languages that user speak, religious views, which sexuality the user interested in and political views. While the registration process is arranged as simple possible, Facebook expects users to give more information about themselves in later stages of use. A user may choose not to give their contact information, but this may result in being logged out from their account unless no “security” information is provided by the user. Users are allowed to custom their gender information depending on their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, men and women options are given as prioritized and the user needs to select the “other” menu to be able to define themselves as they wish. On the contrary the users can only select men or women as they are interested in. “Other” category as embedded in the Facebook user interface reflects the discursive power of the UI design which shapes the use of the platform. When we look at the general structure of Facebook, as mentioned before, textual content is minimized as possible to allow users to navigate and experiment with the content. Users perceive these affordances through notifications that they receive about which information they should provide next or what is missing in their profile. The FB5 layout is structured as not to force users to provide their information, rather highlight the actions that they need to take to achieve a “complete” profile. For instance, If the user chooses not to share the information of their working experience, every click to their profile will remind them that there is a missing gap in their profile. Through the agency of perceived affordances, it can be argued that the tone of the FB5 UI design enables and constrains certain actions.
Looking from the affordances perspective, textual content and tone of Facebook request users to share the location where they live. Users are regularly reminded that they have not yet shared where they live. However, the absence of location information does not have a direct effect on the participation on the platform. On the other hand, Facebook demands users to share their birthday before signing up. Complete profiles as explained previously allows Facebook to understand the user interests and create algorithmically calculated behavior on the user. From this perspective, it can be argued that textual content and tone of FB5 UI encourage users to take certain actions by using encouraging design choices. For instance, the user may be shown an advertisement of KFC based on the location information of the user and previous search history. This content allows the user to engage and demands the user to order the food. The goal may not be achieved by receiving the order at that moment instead, it aims to create a behavioral pattern on the user
which will be effective in another time when the user is feeling hungry. Textual content and tone of the UI structure may also refuse certain actions. Considering the FB5 UI security structure, if the user has enabled two-factor authentication, logging in by using username and password combination will be refused due to the authentication code being required to log in.
Symbolic Representation
Looking at the semiotic structure of the platform and its affordances requires to imagine user profiles. Liu et al. points out the purpose of user profiles as “to recognize or learn about the real user by presenting them with a description of a real user’s attributes” (Liu, Osvalder, and Karlsson 2010, 64). Examining the look and the feel of the platform may require evaluating the age difference between users. Age difference may influence the “error frequency, the number of interaction steps, the rigidity of exploration, the success of physical operation methods, and subjective perception of temporal demand and performance” (Liu, Osvalder, and Karlsson 2010, 65). In lights of these findings, we can evaluate the new color and design choices of the F5 user interface. While white background choice allows a clear vision, users are allowed to change their display preferences. Appearance of the user interface can be changed to dark mode which turns the background and layout to darker color tones. Dark mode affords users to see the screen better in a dark environment. Users can switch the density of the layout by choosing between standard and compact organization of the design. New Facebook aims to limit any physical distraction which users may encounter. For instance, an older user may choose to use Facebook in standard density due to the fact that it provides the contents in a bigger and legible context.
Looking at the symbolic representation of the platform requires being
alert of cultural differences. Examining the affordances of the FB5 UI compels us to think about “how to incorporate and accommodate cultural differences in interface design” (Liu, Osvalder, and Karlsson 2010). Cultural associations of the imagined users are essential considering that Facebook operates in most countries in the world. From this perspective we can observe that Facebook uses a naive way of representation. Icons are polished and familiar for the users. Looking from the affordances perspective symbolic representation in Facebook allows more flexibility towards different user profiles. The new design of the icons encourages users to increase their presence within the platform by increasing engagement. Symbolic representation is intertwined with user experience therefore it enables the users to create logical associations with the affordances of the user interface. These associations in return translated into user actions and increased time spent on the platform.
Conclusion
In this research paper recently introduced FB5 user interface design has been analyzed in terms of its affordances. The affordances of the FB5 UI design has been conceptualized in six main components: request, demand, allow, encourage, discourage, and refuse (Davis and Chouinard 2016). Walkthrough methodology has been used to identify the user interface design choices that prompt users to increase the time spent on the platform. Mediator characteristics of the FB5 UI design have been evaluated in terms of its user interface arrangement, functions and features, textual content, tone and symbolic presentation (Light, Burgess, and Duguay 2016). Mediator characteristics facilitated the evaluation of how the design choices afford certain user actions. Throughout the research analysis, it has become clear that the new vision of FB5 UI design increases the features and functionality of the platform while adopting a new design language. While the main design structure preserves its authentic design scheme, users have myriad ways to engage within the platform. Constant interaction with UI transforms user actions according to algorithmically calculated user behavior. While the main concern of the user interface is to increase user engagement, the users mostly find themselves in the maze of content consumption.
Understanding the addiction and increased time spent can also be understood through persuasive technology (Captology). Fogg introduced the term “Captology” (Fogg 2002) and defines it as “the design, research and analysis of interactive computer products created to change the attitude or behavior of individuals” (Bedjaoui, Elouali, and Benslimane 2018, 3). While this research has been based on the grounds of affordances theory, I believe future research should include a “HumanComputer Interaction” analysis to further investigate the correlation between development of addiction and user interface design. Recognizing the built-in purposes of interface designs has become crucial considering the gained momentum in web platform services in 2020.
Bibliography
Bedjaoui, Mohammed, Nadia Elouali, and Sidi Benslimane. 2018. “User Time Spent Between Persuasiveness and Usability of Social Networking Mobile Applications: A Case Study of Facebook and YouTube.” In , 15–24. MoMM2018. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282353.3282362.
Bucher, T., and A. Helmond. 2018. The Affordances of Social Media Platforms. Sage Publications. https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=149a9089-49a4-454c-b935-a6ea7f2d8986.
Cherubini, Mauro, Alejandro Gutierrez, Rodrigo de Oliveira, and Nuria Oliver. 2010. “Social Tagging Revamped:
Supporting the Users’ Need of Self-Promotion through Persuasive Techniques.” In , 2:985–994. CHI ’10. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753473.
Clement, Jessica. n.d. “Facebook Users Worldwide 2019.” Statista. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/.
Davis, Jenny L., and James B. Chouinard. 2016. “Theorizing Affordances: From Request to Refuse.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 36 (4): 241–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467617714944.
“Facebook Users Reach by Device 2020.” n.d. Statista. Accessed February 19, 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/377808/distribution-of-facebook-users-by-device/.
Fogg, B. 2002. “Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do.” Ubiquity 2002 (December): 2. https://doi.org/10.1145/764008.763957.
Gibson, James Jerome. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston ; Houghton Mifflin.
Goggin, Gerard. 2014. “Facebook’s Mobile Career.” New Media & Society 16 (7): 1068–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543996.
Helmond, A., D. B. Nieborg, and F. N. van der Vlist. 2019. “Facebook’s Evolution: Development of a Platform-asInfrastructure.” Internet Histories 3: 123–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2019.1593667.
Light, Ben, Jean Burgess, and Stefanie Duguay. 2016. “The Walkthrough Method: An Approach to the Study of Apps:” New Media & Society, November. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438.
Liu, Yuanhua, Anna-Lisa Osvalder, and MariAnne Karlsson. 2010. “Considering the Importance of User Profiles in Interface Design.” In User Interfaces. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/230.
Nasim, Mehwish, Muhammad U. Ilyas, Aimal Rextin, and Nazish Nasim. 2013. “On Commenting Behavior of Facebook Users.” In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media — HT ’13, 179–
83. Paris, France: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2481492.2481513.
Noë, Beryl, Liam D. Turner, David E. J. Linden, Stuart M. Allen, Bjorn Winkens, and Roger M. Whitaker. 2019. “Identifying Indicators of Smartphone Addiction Through User-App Interaction.” Computers in Human Behavior 99: 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.023.
Norman, Donald A. 1999. “Affordance, Conventions, and Design.” Interactions 6 (3): 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168.
Robertson, Adi. 2019. “The 5 Biggest Announcements from Facebook’s F8 Developer Conference Keynote.” The Verge. April 30, 2019. https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/30/18524068/facebook-f8-2019-keynote-highlightssummary-news-feed-messenger-instagram-oculus.
Rogers, Sheena. 1984. “Reasons for Realism: Selected Essays of James J. Gibson (Book Review).” Leonardo 17 (3): 220–220. https://doi.org/10.2307/1575202.
“What Is UX Research?” n.d. The Interaction Design Foundation. Accessed March 1, 2020. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/ux-research.
Zuckerberg, Mark. 2019. “A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking.” Facebook. March 6, 2019. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-socialnetworking/10156700570096634.
