Often asked questions like, what do you think of a social app?

I'm often asked the question, "What do you think of a social app like that?" "Usually the next question is, how do you usually design a social app?" I often talk about it from the story "Super Normal", which is my favorite Japanese design philosophy.

When designing products, the starting point of people's thinking is not a whole new thing. To the world, the new product or concept you're thinking of is just a "normal" thing, and then you fix it slowly, and eventually it grows into the existence of a decaying (Super normal).

For example, now you need to design a daily, but creative metal barrel, in the beginning of your mind should be a metal barrel. The metal barrels we know become the same as they are in fact the result of years of evolution. It is usually made of durable metal, the surface is corrugated, it is easy to grip and hold, and a curved metal handle makes it easy to put on one hand. This design is very practical.

According to Super Normal, we should start with the study of commonplace things and ask ourselves: what are the key issues in the current design? In the case of metal drums we can find some. First, when the bucket is filled with water, the metal handle will cut into the meat, and secondly, the metal surface is cold when filled with cold water, and three, it is difficult to control the flow when pouring, so it is easy to spray.

On the basis of considering these problems, we will come up with some innovations that may improve the metal drums. First, add a plastic shell to the metal handle, extending the area of force will be more comfortable, and secondly, adding a layer of insulation to the whole barrel, so that it is no problem to lift the cold water or to heat it; third, the design of a nozzle on the side to facilitate control of the flow, it will not sprinkler.

Next we let the consumer test the bucket, which looks like a bucket, at first glance familiar and ordinary. But in the event of interaction, a new experience arises. Users are happy because we have changed their established worldview about a bucket.

The same rules apply to the design and innovation of social software. We tend to make mistakes at the starting point, to increase the probability of success, to start with the concept of their habits. Add friends, concerns, tags, publishing, sharing, liking, commenting, chatting, editing, uploading, downloading and other concepts in their columns.

Over the past dozens of years, each of these concepts has been practiced by social software tens of billions of times. The first development of a new social app starts with these conventional concepts and then
You add original adjustments. Successful products on the market have already validated this.

Friendster is to make friends;

MySpace makes you pink your favorite band.
Facebook is about college students making friends (and then facing the world);

LinkedIn is a professional social network; Nextdoor is an online neighbourhood community;

Twitter is a 140-word micro-blog;

Tumblr expresses content through 5 kinds of media form;

Yammer is writing micro-blogs for colleagues;

Instagram share photos through beautiful filters;

Path's friends Circle no more than 150 people;

The photos on the Snapchat burn in 10 seconds;

Mac is a PC that can run a graphical interface to the app;

The ipod is a runner with 1000 songs. Interactive interface MP3 player;

The iphone is a multi-touch smartphone capable of running touch-type apps;
The Tesla is a car with an electric trigger and a multi-touch screen;

In each case, innovators are not creating this category. They are all reformed from the basis of conventional things. These innovations address a key issue in the "General" use scenario. Sometimes the key to these problems is how people interact with technology. Sometimes, practicality and creativity can be promoted by adding restrictions. Sometimes it is necessary to remove certain limitations; sometimes technology gives us a whole new kind of interactive context.

In each case, innovators are built on the concepts that have been repeated billions of of times. Too many cases, we commit to put these concepts into the product, so the word is also in the interactive interface, but for the user does not have practical significance. As a resource-limited innovator, it is not cost-effective to create a new concept. Each product frees up significant value by eliminating the barriers to user engagement in new ways of interacting.

As innovators, we need to constantly perceive the user's need for innovation, which makes the whole innovation process so stressful. In the process of developing new projects, I tend to keep this simple philosophy in mind. Always ask yourself: what is "conventional"? How can we turn it into a miracle?