Snapchat might be the image messaging app of choice for today’s teenagers, with 10 billion daily users, but in my opinion the UX and interface design is a confusing mess and others seems to agree (‘Why is Snapchat’s UI so bad?’, ‘The Generation Gap of Snapchat’, and ‘Snapchat Built to Be Bad‘ are just some of the top hits when you search “Snapchat UX” in Google).
It’s frustrating but even as a fairly technical 31-year-old who has mastered the likes of WordPress and Twitter, I don’t think I’ve ever found an app that is so un-intuitive. It seems the only way to learn how it works are by reading the various on-board prompts or through trial and error.
Take the home screen for example, my biggest issue for new users is that the majority of the icons are not universal. I’ve circled the icons I believe are fairly universal in green and highlighted uncommon/unknown icons in red:
So of the seven icons/functions, only three (camera rotation, messages and take a photo) are obvious, the others are all ambiguous. Snapchat actually tells me that the ghost icon is where my contacts and settings ‘live’ through a bit of on-boarding but as for the small circle at the bottom and the dots in the bottom right, I’d have no idea unless I clicked them. Even the ‘flash’ icon in the top right isn’t the standard lightning bolt flash that you would expect to see on most cameras. Why make it ambiguous? It seems totally illogical but is it intentional?
There are several theories to why it has been so successful despite having this seemingly un-user friendly design. One theory is the bad UX is intentional. By making it difficult for new or older users, its difficult for parents to look up posts by their children and their teenage friends without knowing their screen name. As a result posts remain personal. This theory was in part confirmed by CEO Evan Spiegel: “We’ve made it very hard for parents to embarrass their children. It’s much more for sharing personal moments than it is about this public display.” Similarly Amin Todai from Canadian creative design agency One Method wrote a blog post likening it to creating a new language that only under 30s could hear: “By virtue of it having an incomprehensible user interface, Snapchat has essentially created a new language that only people under the age of thirty can hear. Like a dog whistle for teens, except with more pictures of dicks and boobs.”
“Snapchat has essentially created a new language that only people under the age of thirty can hear. Like a dog whistle for teens, except with more pictures of dicks and boobs” – Admin Todai
That last comment brings me to the other reason that teenagers and others have flocked to Snapchat despite the poor UX/UI: dicks and boobs – the pornography aspect. It became an instant guarantee of seeing up to 10 seconds of nudity, whether it be horny teenagers wanting to see their love interests naked or glamour models sharing their goods, ultimately sex sells and Snapchat was offering it up , whether intentionally or not, to millions for free. In the same way that pornography is addictive, so is celebrity and there are a huge number of celebrities on the site, all offering instant snippets of their lives for all to see. The Kardashians, the Jenners, Justin Bieber, the Jonas brothers, are just some of the celebrity users who appeal to the teenage and young adult Snapchat audience.
The other theory is that Snapchat is basically more about fun than function and that is what gets people using it. Irrespective of how awful the UX is, youngsters will keep coming back because they find it fun to use, to share moments and stories, and to mess about with the different effects, filters and lenses to make funny photos and videos. Ultimately, I think all three of these theories have had some part to play in Snapchat’s success and there is clearly a generation gap in play here but maybe that’s the point, its popularity is down to it not being popular with my generation because we were never its target audience, it was always intended to be more fun for the younger generation it resonates with.