By Peter Ramsey

24 Jun 21

YouTube Shorts: a clone of TikTok Company Logo
YouTube9 min read
Listen

YouTube Shorts: a clone of TikTok

YouTube Shorts: a clone of TikTok Featured Image

YouTube has a history of releasing features which sound promising, but after a lack of sustained engagement, are either killed off, or just fade into irrelevancy.

YouTube Red, YouTube TV, YouTube Premiere, YouTube VR, to name a few.

But after seeing the explosive growth of TikTok, YouTube reacted, launching an almost identical concept under the title of YouTube Shorts.

But to convince creators to invest time into this new format, YouTube will need to generate serious engagement.

So is the user experience of YouTube Shorts as good as TikTok? Is it intuitive enough to convince people to use it?

Summary

  • 🧠

    The importance of selective attention

  • 🤣

    How YouTube is pranking their users

  • ⚡️

    The power of a live search

  • 💡

    How to avoid frustration with a simple message

  • 🍩

    Why you should always close reward loops

Please rotate your device to view this slideshow

Note, this won’t work if ‘rotate: lock’ is on in your device settings.
59151
59152
59153
59154
59155
59156
59157
59158
59159
59160
59161
59162
59163
59164
59165
59166
59167
59168
59169
59170
59171
59172
59173
59174
59175
59176
59177
59178
59179
59180
59181
59182
59183
59184
59185
59186
59187
59188
59189
59190
59191
59192
59193
59194
59195
59196
59197
59198
59199
59200
59201
59202
59203
59204
59205
59206
59207
59208
59209
59210
59211
59212
59213
59214
59215
59216
59217
59218
59219
59220
59221
59222
59223
59224
59225
59226
59227
59228
59229
59230
59231
59232
59233
59234
59235
59236
59237
59238
59239
59240
59241
59242
59243
59244
59245
59246
59247
59248
59249
59250
59251
59252
59253
59254

👇

That’s all for the slideshow, but there’s more content and key takeaways below.

Slide 1 of 105

5 key takeaways

1. Selective attention

Like computers, the human brain can only process a limited amount of information at once. So in a world full of stimuli, how do you know what's important?

Psychologists call it selective attention—the automatic and subconscious method of selecting what to pay attention to.

👀 Selective Attention is necessary for survival. It's what helps us focus on traffic while crossing the road, or to listen out for the rustle of a predator while foraging.

And that's where UX design comes into play: to help your automated processes focus on what's really important.

Or rather, when designing products, you need to be aware of where a user's attention will be—and often more importantly, where it isn't.

For example, below are two screenshots, one before adding music into your video, and one after. 

Before Music
After Music

Notice how the 'Adjust' tool appears in the right menu after adding music. This is how you change the part of the song that's playing.

But many people won't notice this new tool, because they're not looking. They'll have assumed that nothing has changed.

This is for a few reasons:

🧑‍🤝‍🧑

The pages generally look similar

It's not immediately noticeable that anything has changed.

🙇‍♂️

They're not expecting a change

They've already seen that page, and there's no reason why you'd expect there to be a new tool.

👀

The change is subtle

The specific change is very subtle and blends in with the existing design.

In this situation, YouTube would likely increase the use of this tool by providing the user with a prompt. Something to trigger the automatic part of their brain into thinking "wait, something has changed, we should pay attention".

2. A sticker of a button

A few years ago, a prank where people stuck images of power outlets onto walls in public spaces went viral.

People would see them from a distance, and without thinking, attempt to plug in a charger.

Someone would be secretly filming, and catch the disappointment and confusion wash over the victim's face.

null image

This worked so effectively not because they looked so realistic, but because people weren't paying attention.

i.e., people see what looks like a plug socket, and they just assume it is a real one.

Note: this is similar to the selective attention bias above, but the point I'm making is slightly different. I could have used this example to demonstrate both concepts.

YouTube are accidentally playing a similar prank on their users, because once you've added music to a video, the button goes slightly more transparent and inactive.

It essentially turns into a sticker of a button. You even get this circle appear where you've tapped—which acts as a focus for the camera.

null image

Instead, the button should still exist, but tapping it should do something that explains the context behind why it's inactive.

Without this, how would you know the difference between an intentionally disabled button, and a broken one?

When implementing search functionality, there are two main approaches:

☝️

Static search

When you need to press a button to initiate a search.

⚡️

Live search

When results start appearing while you're typing the query.

And despite the occasional infrastructural benefits of a static search, the user experience of a live search tends to be considerably better.

One reason for this is that with a static search, the user has to make two decisions: what to search for, and when to click search.

Note: An example of where a static search would be better is if the process of searching literally slows the user down—i.e., if hitting the server with loads of queries has a noticeable impact on the front end speed.

Let's look at the experience of adding music to a Shorts video, as an example:

null image

Imagine that you had a song stuck in your head, but couldn't remember the exact title.

"Oh, it's 'rolling in the dark', or 'riding in the dark', or maybe 'riding in the deep'".

It's possible that none of those searches will show the result that they wanted; 'Rolling in the Deep', by Adele.

But if this were a live search, they'd have a higher chance of finding the correct result, and do so with much less effort.

Plus, in the instances where a live search is more efficient at showing users their desired results, it'll also be more enjoyable to use, and likely see higher engagement.

4. Deleted without warning

Imagine that you've just recorded a rare moment on camera—say, a baby's first steps—and you want to record a second clip of your reactions.

You go to press the record button, but in your excitement you miss by a few pixels, and accidentally delete that first clip forever.

This scenario is entirely possible on YouTube Shorts, because the delete button is perilously close to the record button, and there's no 'are you sure' modal.

null image

This could easily be avoided by adding an 'are you sure' message, like TikTok and Instagram do.

TikTok

TikTok

Instagram

Instagram

If they want people to capture original, moving and engaging content, then don't make it easy for people to mistakenly and irreversibly delete all their hard work.

More generally, when building products you need to be aware of where the points in the process are that people can accidentally lose data.

For example, if clicking 'back' during a sign up form will clear all the fields that they've already entered, you need to warn them.

5. Completing the reward loop

The journey of uploading content to YouTube Shorts is likely to be:

🧠

Deciding

Creating the concept of what to film.

🎥

Filming

Actually filming those scenes.

😬

Editing

Adding effects and filters.

☝️

Uploading

Naming the video and clicking upload.

🏖

Reviewing

Watching it back live.

That final step may sound arrogant, but content-creators know that this is an important part of the process.

Aside from checking that it has uploaded correctly, and that it looks good, it completes the reward loop.

It's the end of their natural journey, and the content that they created is out in the world.

Which is why I'm surprised that YouTube don't immediately take you to your own video after uploading it.

Instead, they take you to someone else's content, and then display a banner asking you if you'd like to watch your own video.

null image

This is a perfect example of how data can be misleading. The immediate conversion rates of this process will be unaffected by this annoyance—because the user has already uploaded the content.

But, if they found the experience less rewarding, then it's possible that they'll not feel as incentivised to upload more content in the future.

And tracking that hypothesis between platforms will be difficult, given the many other variables (i.e., audience size, content length, monetisation).

One thing is for sure; a rewarding loop is addictive, and the YouTube loop doesn't feel as gratifying.

In other words, by never completing this reward loop, uploading to YouTube is probably less addictive than uploading to TikTok.

Closing thoughts

In my opinion, YouTube Shorts is considerably less addictive than TikTok, both as a viewer and as a content-creator. And that's a problem for YouTube.

Shorts may still succeed, but if it does, it's down to the sheer size of the YouTube community, not because the experience was world-class.

TikTok isn't perfect, as I demonstrated in my TikTok case study, but they've undeniably created a product that people love.

If you've used both YouTube Shorts and TikTok, you may get a vague feeling of one being better without being able to put your finger on why.

This is why—it's a perfect example of how impactful thoughtful UX can be.

You’ve finished this study

+1

Become a BFM+ member to track your progress, create a library of content and share learnings within your team.

You’ve finished this study

Other studies picked for you

The Complexity Paradox of ChatGPT, AI and UX

The Complexity Paradox of ChatGPT, AI and UX

As the underlying technology improves, interfaces like ChatGPT get harder to use. Does this explain the strategy for Apple Intelligence?

What Audible Gets Wrong About Repeat Purchases

What Audible Gets Wrong About Repeat Purchases

How to create a flywheel of discovery, purchase and satisfaction that leads to repeat purchases.

BFM+ Exclusive

Unlock all 74 case studies with BFM+

View Plans
Is This Why Users Are Ignoring Your Features?

Is This Why Users Are Ignoring Your Features?Preview this content

Simple techniques to increase feature usage, retention and ultimately alter how users perceive the value of your product.

All of the UX analysis on Built for Mars is original, and was researched and written by me, Peter Ramsey.

Never miss the free UX analysis

Free case studies, the moment they’re released, plus a digest of the best UX Bites every few weeks.