User Experience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for user experience researchers and experts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Is there any reason they're not using a face recognition tools to see if someone has uploaded an avatar or a non-person picture like nature, building,etc? Will this rule limit users or frustrate them? I'm designing a social networking site and want to be sure why other big social sites don't do this?
Is there any frustration if I implement such a functionality and prevent users from uploading non-person pictures?
I wouldn't be surprised if it continues to evolve in some way. They certainly recgnise the presence of a face and have been able to suggest an identity with some accuracy - providing you can see enough of the face. The technology is impressive in its ability though. Both companies have acquired facial recognition companies in the recent past.
See here: Facebook acquires facial recognition startup, may broaden tagging ability
This is a great example: 10 Creative Uses of the New Facebook Profile [PICS]
There were concerns about whether users would find it creepy/worrying. Plus some legal investigations. See here:
While I can't find any handy references, I've witnessed some user backlash by Facebook users when they feel an avenue for expression has been removed.
When designing online communities / social networks we strive to engender a sense of ownership. This is a signal that a legitimate community has formed. The stronger this effect, the more valuable your network is. One resulting effect is resistance to change.
e.g. Surviving Sudden Social Network Changes
To list just 2 wildly different examples:
I'd recommend that any restriction fit within the 'story' of your network. It must fit with the understanding of how it works and what it is for. For example if you ensure the profile picture is of a certain quality you can use this as a point of quality or security.
Though I cant speak from any existing research which FB or Google plus must have done with the logic of not enforcing that users have to upload facial pictures, I believe there are three primary reasons :
Lastly from an implementation perspective you cannot have perfect facial recognition as photographs are taken from all angles and you would not be able to get the key focal points to determine if this is a facial pic or not. Lastly also think of the nightmare in ensuring that people don't start putting up photos of celebrities (people do it by the way)
Of course limiting users would frustrate them - just a quick glance at facebook or google plus will tell you that many users prefer non-portrait photos as their profile photos.
You haven't listed any reasons as to why you would implement a feature like this. It's probably best to start by defining the benefits of imposing this restriction in order to see if it's justifiable.
I find it incredibly creepy and irritating when sites try to force me to participate at a higher level than I am comfortable with. That combined with a lack of privacy has resulted in me avoiding Facebook. But that is just my personal preference.
That said, and this goes to your question and 'user experience.' I think Google (and not just Google+) does a much better job of phrasing and making optional their requests for more info. I feel much less invaded by Google even though they have way more info.
For instance, I created a google account (and hence a profile) for a client the other day. I tried to use their logo as an avatar but it was too small (as per Google) so I uploaded a picture of a landscape that has local character--mainly because it was roughly square and big enough. A message popped up (clear facial recognition) that maybe I should consider uploading a different picture because my friends might have a hard time recognizing me, but when I opted not to, it was not an issue. I was able to use it and continue doing what I was doing.
