So you click again, and the same thing happens.

Rinse and repeat.

Just wanted to write some things about Facebook.

First, putting photos onto Facebook is really dangerous as it regularly changes security settings without telling anyone. In the . . . → Read More: Why you shouldn’t use Facebook for personal stuff]]>

I wrote this email to some friends about Facebook versus a personal password-protected website for photos and personal stuff. Thought it might be of use to others

Just wanted to write some things about Facebook.

First, putting photos onto Facebook is really dangerous as it regularly changes security settings without telling anyone. In the last 5 years, Facebook security has been regularly downgraded and people have had to make serious effort to lock their profiles down again.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline

http://flowingdata.com/2010/05/07/evolution-of-facebook-privacy-policies/ – a graphical representation of the EFF link above

The April incident where they implemented a service called “Social Graph” meant that everyone’s profiles were open to the world. The idea from Facebook was so that you could be found anywhere easily and simply, your identity could be shared with “3rd party providers” (that they had deals with) to advertise at you. Supposedly this meant you could just log in with your FB profile information and this would make things easier. In reality it meant everyone had to scramble to lock their profiles down from prying eyes.

http://geekshuiliving.com/2010/04/23/facebook-privacy-how-to-secure-your-profile-from-the-social-graph/

http://blog.backupify.com/2010/05/17/the-problem-with-facebooks-open-graph-isnt-privacy-its-security/

Further, With Facebook, you might be able to lock your profile down, but you also have to consider the profiles of your friends — if they’re not locked down as tightly as yours, or if they’ve got apps which can see their profiles then there’s a security issue there too.

Apps are a problem. Any time you use one, you’re giving free access to your entire profile to a third party. There are no guarantees what they do with this information.

Last, Facebook owns EVERYTHING you post on their site. You can’t ask for your profile to be truly removed from their servers — you can only get it turned off.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20004511-83.html

Photos are the same:

The Age, 13 October 2010 – Facebook keeps photos

The advantage you have with a website is that you can lock it completely down. No-one can see anything without the appropriate password. You own the content and you control who can go in and out. And if things go badly or something odd happens, you can take it down completely.

You can also implement a feature called “nofollow” which means the site won’t be included in search — Ultimately, however, google needs to see the site and the text on the site to index (include the site in search results) which is impossible if it’s password protected as soon as you arrive and the site won’t even display without the appropriate username and password.

The bottom line is that on the web, it being an “information superhighway”, it is actually possible to run across the road without being hit — you just have to be very wary of the way you do it, otherwise it’s all-over!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_help

Soon, tools sprang up to make the job of the people writing the documentation easier. Products such as Robohelp, . . . → Read More: On Online Help]]> In the 1980s (or thereabouts) user manuals started to be made available on the computer in a way that it was easy to access. A pretty accurate history of this phenomena can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_help

Soon, tools sprang up to make the job of the people writing the documentation easier. Products such as Robohelp, Author-IT and XDK to name but three.

These were used to translate and imitate the structure of print documentation, with distinct Tables of Contents, Indexes, but gave the additional “wow” factor of search.

And the documentation had to then be translated from (usually) MS Word documents to the help system, which was then compiled into standalone files. These could also be integrated into the computer applications they were designed to help out with – this was the incidence of “Context-Sensitive” help.

Slowly over the decade that followed, additional types of help output were created, HTML, Webhelp, Java, etc.

Then, in the late 1990s, the internet started to grow, and the world became enamoured of the concept of the search box.

Simply put, searching on a set of words you think apply to your situation has become the mainstay of the information revolution. And as the search engines (google, Yahoo and now Bing!) have matured, so the results they return are more and more accurate.

How does this relate to online help?

Well, it doesn’t. But the online help community and those creating the applications for online help, seem not to have realised this.

Subsequent versions of help systems still retain the old qualities of Table of Contents, Indexes (albeit less and less because they have to be manually assembled if you want to make them really accurate), and finally help systems packaged with the applications they apply to.

And the problem with this kind of help is that each change you make has to be rolled-out to every user individually. If it’s presented in an online environment, the help system still has to be opened, new content added, then compiled, then placed in the right place so the people who need it can access it easily.

These kinds of help system aren’t designed to be easily modified. They’re cumbersome and often locked to a single platform (usually Windows). Innovations such as Adobe Air help have begun to address this underlying problem, but for the most part, they’re embellishing a system that’s fundamentally flawed; guilding the lily if you like.

And the lily, to use a metaphor, is now well and truly out of season. Google has proved people search differently now. The internet doesn’t have a table of contents. It certainly doesn’t have an index.

There are better ways to provide online help to users. There are easier ways to provide information to the people that need it. And there are much better ways to spend time than endlessly compiling.

One simple solution is the WIKI.

Many deride the concept of WIKI systems thinking they’re a free-for-all. That attitude must change if information is to be provided efficiently and easily for all concerned. Ease of use doesn’t automatically mean less control – ease of use means time can be spent better. And a centralised system for updating and obtaining help on things you need must be considered if online help is to remain relevant and topical.