From the tool to the protocol
One of the most difficult, but interesting, things to spot in the adoption of technology are the protocols and etiquette involved with a particular app. Hence the significance of this article in The Wall Street Journal entitled “The new dating no-no: asking for a last name”, about dating site Tinder.
Tinder is particularly interesting, and I have used it on other occasions, because it is extremely easy to use and understand: as the screenshot above shows, it could hardly be simpler: swipe, match, chat. Images appear on your screen of people interested in dating: you swipe the image to the right or left depending on whether you like them or not, wait for a match to appear, and start chatting. It is one of the simplest interface designs that exist, leading to the neologism tinderization to describe a process of maximum simplification. Anyone, absolutely anyone, can understand Tinder immediately, without any need for explanations.
Behind that simplicity, however, there are any number of more complex factors: the algorithm that decides which profiles to show you and which not, based on the information you’ve provided, which acts not only on what you do, but also based on what everybody else using the app is doing. Each phase of the process is important: your attempts to establish contact that come to nothing, or dates that are broken. Finally, there are the set of protocols, patterns and behaviors that take shape as the application is used: a set of social norms that undoubtedly evolve over time depending on context and customs — imagine what it was like trying to find a partner in the nineteenth century — and that Tinder itself has contributed hugely to, and that are very difficult to grasp. Tinder’s huge cultural impact is evident every time I use it in my classes, and what’s more, I never have to explain what it is. The discussions that follow are always interesting and informative, with comments usually reflecting generational differences.
As the WSJ article notes, one of the fascinating things about Tinder is that people do not give their surnames. Does this design decision condition the fact that, even after a couple of dates, it is still largely regarded as inappropriate to ask somebody’s surname? Obviously, once you know someone’s last name, along with some data easily obtained through conversation, it is possible to find out much more about them through internet searches, which might then impact on the relationship in unpredictable ways. Today, we are what we are, together with what Google says we are. By eliminating surnames from its interface, Tinder leaves it up to you to share your surname, thus deciding if the relationship is to be a series of casual encounters or if it will progress to something more stable.
The important thing about technology in its adoption phases is not the technology itself, but the use protocols it generates, protocols that, in many cases, are driven by design or operational decisions. Tinder is just one example, useful for its extreme simplicity, but the use of such protocols can be identified in many other adoption processes, and are much more important than we tend to assume. Protocols also explain the importance of responsible adoption: the use of technology has been greatly simplified and has eliminated many entry barriers, but this does not necessarily happen with use protocols, so that it is very likely we will misuse an app and make important mistakes that condition our use. The development of protocols is often more important than the technology itself when defining how it is adopted and its impact on society.
(En español, aquí)
