Who Is This Guy Who Liked My Picture?
Privacy Control Mechanisms on Facebook for Generations X and Y
Glauce Borges
1
, Thaíssa Ribeiro
1
, Cristiano Maciel
1,2
and Patricia Cristiane de Souza
1
1
Instituto de Computação, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, MT, Brazil
2
Programa de Pós-graduação em Educação, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Cuiabá, MT, Brazil
Keywords: Facebook, Privacy, Social Networks, Generation X and Y, Usability.
Abstract: The abundance of personal data exchanged through social networks has caused internet users to
unintentionally expose themselves to others, which may lead to unpleasant consequences. This statement
fuels the debate on user privacy in social networks. In this context, the present study seeks to investigate
how Generations X and Y distinctly employ privacy controls on Facebook by evaluating user interaction by
means of usability testing. In general, the study showed that users of both generations found it difficult to
use privacy configurations of Facebook, mainly due to usability issues. However, Generation X users
displayed less ability handling these features and, furthermore, were less concerned with privacy of their
shared data. Tests suggest that few users are familiar with all the resources available in privacy tools
currently offered by Facebook. Some redesign solutions were discussed that seek to mitigate problems and
thus contribute to more accessible and user-friendly features for both generations.
1 INTRODUCTION
Social networks enjoy ever increasing popularity
and are already present in the lives of most people
with internet access. People from different age
groups have been using social networks to maintain
social interaction with friends and family members
by sharing information and interests with one
another. Thus, users produce and manage a great
deal of information in social networking
communities. However, it is not always possible to
know which path this information travels through
and it is difficult to measure the extent that the
information may reach.
This context sheds a light on one of the main
debates concerning social networks: user privacy.
Given the abundance of information published out
there, social networks can overly expose the lives of
its unsuspecting users. In order to mitigate potential
problems, it is crucial that social networking
services provide appropriate mechanisms according
to user needs, by taking usability principles into
account, in order for internet users to gain control of
the privacy of their information.
Given this context, the present study seeks to
investigate how different generations employ
Facebook’s privacy control features (Facebook,
2012). Usability tests were administered using
qualitative-quantitative analysis, with users
belonging to Generations X and Y (Generation X
includes people born between 1965 and 1976 and
Generation Y includes those born between 1977 and
1997). The evaluation through the perspective of
different generations considered the fact that they
had different contact with technology throughout
life, which could lead them to nurture different
understanding and abilities regarding the assessed
features. Tests were conducted on Facebook features
that were useful in managing the privacy of data and
postings, especially ones that could lead users to
expose their personal information and share pictures
and messages. The present article shows the results
of this investigation.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Due to the abundance of information published
online, social networks may overexpose the lives of
its users beyond their expectation and thus disturb
users’ privacy.
The definition of privacy, according to the
Oxford Dictionary, is the state of being free from
public attention (Oxford Dictionaries, 2012).
179
Borges G., Ribeiro T., Maciel C. and Cristiane de Souza P..
Who Is This Guy Who Liked My Picture? - Privacy Control Mechanisms on Facebook for Generations X and Y.
DOI: 10.5220/0004570201790186
In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2013), pages 179-186
ISBN: 978-989-8565-61-7
Copyright
c
2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
However, the concept of privacy is very subjective
and can vary greatly across cultures and depending
on the person. This concept is thus closely linked to
personal values and people’s perception of ethical
issues. Unauthorized use of user data, publication of
user information and third party posts that lack user
consent because of lack of knowledge or negligence,
are all illustrative examples of situations in which
violation of privacy occurs. Privacy is a fundamental
human right recognized in the Declaration of Human
Rights, proclaimed at the United Nations General
Assembly (United Nations, 1948). However, owing
to the large number of connected users who access
posted information practically in real time,
maintaining absolute control over the information
shared on the web may prove to be difficult.
The lack of user awareness and proper privacy
control tools have resulted in the inappropriate use
of social networks. Thus, a large quantity of user
data is being appropriated by authorities, strangers
and criminals, leading to unpleasant consequences
(Aïmeur et al., 2009). Moreover, it is becoming
more and more common to witness people losing
their jobs or missing college access opportunities
because of inappropriate material available through
social networks (Kim et al., 2009). On the other
hand, although social networks provide efficient
privacy control mechanisms, these tools must be
accessible and user-friendly by meeting basic
usability principles. Usability is a concept directly
associated to the ease with which users interact with
a tool’s interface, resulting in fast learning and
memorization, the ease with which one finds desired
information, and the likelihood of making a mistake
when using the tool (Nielsen, 2007). How easy it is
to understand privacy levels and how to configure
them is directly related to how user-friendly the
tools are. Any difficulty can lead users to stop
managing their privacy level or, moreover, can lead
them to choose options that do not meet their
expectations.
According to data from the Pew Internet research
institute (2012) on social network users in the U.S.,
Facebook was used by 66% of Internet users in
2012, followed in terms of popularity by LinkedIn
(20%) and Twitter (16%), although the latter two
networks are most used by young adults. On the
other hand, 83% of Facebook users are between 18
and 29 years old. In Brazil, data from the Brazilian
Internet Steering Committee (Comitê Gestor da
Internet no Brasil – CGI, 2011) also revealed that in
2011 83% of young people aged 16 - 24 use social
networking sites, such as Orkut, Facebook and
LinkedIn. However, between young adults, 65,5%
use this sites too. Then, there are a significant
number of users of the X and Y generations.
As a focus of this study, the next section
addresses both generations of members considered
in this research: X and Y.
2.1 Generations X and Y
Tapscott (2010) classified the last generations
according to historical periods, as shows Table 1.
Table 1: Generations according to Tapscott.
Generation name Year of birth
Baby Boom Generation
(TV Generation)
1946 – 1964
Generation X (Baby Bust) 1965 – 1976
Generation Y
(Internet or Digital Generation)
1977 – 1997
Generation Z (Next Generation) 1998 – present
Generation X entails a Generation lacking many
discoveries, preceding the Internet and personal use
of technology. Generation Y, in turn, is considered
the first global Generation in history, which
established contact with technology from birth and
was able to teach it to their parents. It is also known
as Internet or Digital Generation and has attracted
the attention of society as a whole. Internet and
technology have brought many behavioral changes
to Generation Y. One of the differences observed
between current and former generations is that the
Digital Generation seeks freedom at home, by means
of the online universe, while the preceding
generations sought freedom outside the home
(Tapscott, 2010).
3 METHODOLOGY
In order to investigate how Generations X and Y
employ privacy control features on Facebook, this
study employed usability tests with twelve real
members. For Nielsen (2000), a usability test with
five users is sufficient to find around 85% of
usability problems in a system. Thus, based on
Nielsen’s observation, twelve real volunteer users
participated in tests for evaluating Facebook, six
belonging to Generation X and six belonging to Y.
The evaluation under the perspective of different
generations considered the fact that they had
different contact with technology during life, which
could lead them to have different understanding and
ability in the use of Facebook privacy setting tools.
Unlike Generation X, Generation Y has lived with
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
180
technology since childhood. However, Generation X
also employs technology for personal use and
participates in social networking communities. The
tests were conducted on a number of Facebook
features for privacy settings, giving priority to those
that could lead users to expose their personal
information and share pictures and messages.
Among the evaluated settings, general privacy
settings can be accessed from a menu on the top
right hand corner of the screen, shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Facebook Settings Menu.
The usability tests included a task guide, shown
in Table 2, which consists of different levels of
privacy settings for personal information and posts
on their Facebook profile.
Each participant member was asked to execute
the tasks and later respond to a survey that requested
information from their profile (such as date of birth,
gender, education, how often and for how long the
user accessed Facebook) and their impressions on
the tasks and available features. There were also
subjective issues, in which the user could describe
the difficulty encountered in each task and suggest
improvements in the addressed features.
In order to check the efficiency of its planning
methods, the test was first applied to two users, who
informed their understanding of the tasks and the
survey. This pilot test allowed for adjustments to a
few guideline details, such as the description of
certain tasks, which were rewritten for better
understanding by participants. Subsequently, the
tests were reapplied to fourteen users in different
environments, for three consecutive days, in the
month of July, 2012. Seven Generation X users and
seven Generation Y users were selected. However,
due to problems with the video recording of the
interaction by two participants, they had to be
disregarded. Therefore, the research material was
analyzed with the twelve remaining users, six from
Generation X and six from Generation Y.
In order to participate in the tests, the users
signed a consent form, according to Resolution
196/96 by the National Health Council (1996),
which regulates research conducted in human beings
in Brazil. The task execution proposed in the
guideline was monitored, through screenshots,
Table 2: Task guide for user test.
Task Description
Task 1
Using the Google search tool, look up your name
and check if your Facebook profile shows up in
the results. In case it does, see how your profile
appears to any person who conducts the search,
even for someone without a Facebook page.
Task 2
If your profile is visible to everyone, log in and
change the privacy settings so that your profile
can no longer be publically accessed through a
search engine (e.g. Google). Make it visible to
friends only.
Task 3
Did you know that it is possible to view your
profile in the way it appears to a friend and the
way it appears to people who are not your
friends? Try to view it in both forms and check
if your personal and sharing information is
shown in both cases.
Task 4
Change the privacy of your date of birth so it is
only visible to yourself.
Task 5
Did you know it is possible to define the privacy
of your pictures and albums, making it visible
only to your friends, to a group of people, or to a
single person? Try it out by modifying the
privacy of a picture on your profile so that only
one friend can access it.
Task 6
It is possible to choose who can post a message
or share information on your profile or timeline.
Change your settings so that only your friends
can post on your profile.
Task 7
Change the setting so that you can analyze posts
in which you were tagged before it is shown on
your timeline. This way, whenever you are
tagged in someone’s picture or message, the tag
will be pending until your approval or rejection.
Task 8
In the status update box (“How are you doing?”
“What’s happening?”, etc.), post a message and
block one or more specific people from seeing
what you wrote.
for subsequent observation of the user’s interaction
with the assessed tools, which allowed for
comparison with the answers to the questionnaire.
3.1 Resources Used for Tests
The tests were conducted in desktops and notebooks
with similar settings, both using a mouse as the
pointing device (thus avoiding trouble with the
touchpad that could interfere in the result of the
evaluation), with Microsoft Windows 7 operating
system and using Internet Explorer, versions 8 and
9, as the browser. For recording user interaction, the
free software Free Screen Video Capture, from Top
View Soft, was installed.
First, the evaluators presented the evaluation
proposal to participant users. This presentation
WhoIsThisGuyWhoLikedMyPicture?-PrivacyControlMechanismsonFacebookforGenerationsXandY
181
aimed not only to introduce the theme, but also to
minimize possible doubts as to task execution as
well as to ask users to sign a consent form.
Participating in the evaluation was contingent upon
signing the consent form, which aimed to reinforce
the academic nature, ensure ethical aspects of the
project, as well as to ensure that the users’
participation was voluntary. The participants then
followed the task guidelines that requested the
configuration of different levels of privacy for
personal information and posts on Facebook. After
accomplishing the tasks, participants answered the
survey, identifying their profile and level of
experience with Facebook, and informing their
impressions about the executed tasks.
4 DATA ANALYSIS
It is important to emphasize that the focus of this
article is not to identify the usability problems of
Facebook privacy control features; it is rather to
investigate how Generations X and Y users
distinctly employ these features, identifying
problems in knowing about, understanding, and
setting up desirable privacy levels for each post and
personal information.
Therefore, data analysis sought to identify the
main differences between Generations X and Y,
through executing the proposed tasks, by analyzing
the videos, and through reading the answers to the
survey. Whereas the video analysis made it possible
to observe the practical development of users with
the system, the survey analysis revealed the users’
perception in relation to Facebook’s privacy settings.
About the generation X users: three of them were
born in 1969 and the other three, in 1966, 1965 and
1974 respectively. Two of them were male and four,
female. About the generation Y users, each of them
was born in a different year: 1978, 1982, 1987,
1988, 1990, and 1994. Two of them were male and
four, female.
4.1 Video Analysis
Initially, the tasks were classified as “Executed” and
“Not Executed”. However, the videos of user
interaction made it possible to observe that, in
various situations, users knew how to perform the
task correctly; however, due to lack of attention or
understanding of what was requested, they were not
able to execute the task completely. In these cases,
the task would be considered “Not Executed”.
However, the knowledge the user possessed was not
ignored, seen that the aim of the test is precisely to
verify the level of knowledge and the ease with
which users find settings which they ignore. Thus
tasks were classified as “Executed”, “Partially
Executed”, and “Not Executed”. The analysis of user
interaction during task execution resulted in Table 3
comparing the result obtained by each generation.
Table 3: Classification of tasks executed by Generation X
and Y.
Tasks
Executed
Partially
Executed
Not
Executed
G. X G. Y G. X G.Y G.X G. Y
Task 2 2 6 4
Task 3 2 1 5 4
Task 4 3 6 3
Task 5 1 5 3 1 2
Task 6 1 5 5 1
Task 7 2 4 1 4 1
Task 8 2 4 2 2 2
It is worth noting that Task 1, which proposes
using the Google search engine to search for a
Facebook profile, was not included, since the task
per se is not executed in the Facebook interface,
rather on the Google search engine, so it does not
interfere in the analysis of evaluated features.
The following conclusions can be made from
observing Table 3:
Generation X was not able to reach 100%
completion in any task;
At least one person belonging to Generation Y
managed to perform each task;
The amount of tasks executed by Generation Y is
comparable to number of tasks not executed by
Generation X;
In the Generation X group, all tasks included at
least one person who was unable to execute
them;
In the Generation Y group, three tasks were
totally or partially completed;
Considering both generations, within the twelve
participants, only two participants were able to
complete Tasks 2 and 3;
The video analysis revealed that only one in twelve
participants managed to successfully complete all
the tasks. The authors observed that participants
from Generation Y found it easier to locate the
privacy settings that were unknown to them, while
participants from Generation X found more
difficulty in the same situation. The authors also
observed that, when Generation Y users were
unfamiliar with the settings mentioned in a task, they
navigated through different menus and setting
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
182
options and followed various paths in their attempt
to fulfill the task. Whereas Generation X users,
when experiencing the same situation, gave up more
easily, and insisted less in finding different paths for
completing the task. This difference is also shown in
the runtime of all tasks for each generation, the
average of Generation Y being 17m57s and of
Generation X being 13m01s.
4.2 Survey Analysis
The difference between Facebook experience levels
according to generation becomes obvious when
analyzing the survey. All participants from
Generation Y have accessed Facebook for over a
year, while more than 80% of participants from
Generation X accessed for less than a year.
Analysis of the survey answers also indicates
that, out of six Generation Y users, five access the
social network at least four times a week and, out of
these five, four access it daily. Only two participants
from Generation X access Facebook daily and three
access it less than once a week. Thus, one easily
notes the considerable difference in Facebook level
of experience among users from Generations X and
Y. Besides using Facebook for longer, Generation Y
users access the social network more often.
Another important aspect can be observed in the
amount of negative answers to the question: “Do
you use to manage the privacy settings of your
personal information and posts on Facebook?” given
by users of Generation X. Out of the six Generation
Y participants, five answered “no” to that question,
while only one participant said yes. Therefore, the
expected answer to the following question, asking
the user whether he/she knew how to manage the
privacy settings proposed in the tasks, was no.
Indeed, half of them answered that they did not;
however, the other half assumed that they knew how
to manage at least part of the settings. These answers
reveal that Generation Y is more concerned, in terms
of changing their privacy settings, than Generation
X. This is an interesting finding, for the younger
generation is known for appreciating the exposure of
intimacy (Época, 2011). The authors observed that
half of Generation Y participants knew how to
execute at least one of the proposed tasks. Still, they
did not develop the habit of managing the privacy of
their information.
Another observation worth noting during the
survey analysis lies in the fact that, when comparing
the answers to the questions “Did you manage to
execute the tasks outlined in this guideline?” and
“Did you have any trouble finding where to manage
the mentioned settings?”, all Generation Y
participants answered that they were able to
accomplish all or most and had few or no difficulty.
With data from Figure 2, which shows the
percentage of tasks executed by each generation, one
notices that, although most users inform in the
survey that they did not have much trouble
performing the tasks and that they managed to
complete all or almost all of the guidelines, the
video analysis shows that some tasks were not
executed or were only partially executed. Thus, the
answers to the survey are not consistent with the
reality seen in videos of Generation Y, who did not
execute 24% of tasks.
Figure 2: Task Execution Graphs.
As shows Table 3, the experience of Generation
Y in using Facebook privacy settings exerted great
influence in the answer to the question: “Do you
think the settings offered by Facebook meet your
expectations regarding privacy?” Unlike the latter,
Generation X considered the settings they were
unfamiliar with inexistent.
The subjective questions included in the survey,
especially the question requesting observations
about or suggestions of improving Facebook
features for controlling the privacy of personal
information and posts by the user, provided a few
relevant considerations. A participant belonging to
Generation Y observed that, when changing a
privacy setting, the features for managing privacy
levels are not centralized and, if they were organized
in a single place in the Facebook interface, it would
be easier to access the settings. The user’s
suggestion is pertinent, considering that, when
following the task execution by video, researchers
observed that some users (especially from
Generation X) tried to manage all the privacy
settings requested in the guideline through the option
“Privacy Settings”; however, settings of many items
were found scattered across the Facebook interface.
The privacy settings for viewing pictures, for
example, occur in the photo album itself, and the
visibility of posts is generally selected the moment it
is posted. Another participant from Generation Y
WhoIsThisGuyWhoLikedMyPicture?-PrivacyControlMechanismsonFacebookforGenerationsXandY
183
suggested that the privacy setting of pictures should
be allowed to be adjusted for each picture and not
only by photo album, as is currently the case.
A participant belonging to Generation X
suggested that Facebook’s privacy options should be
visible to any user, not only to people who are more
familiar with computers. Another user from the
same generation shared a similar opinion, since he
observed that the paths for executing tasks should be
clearer and more objective.
The comparison presented in Figure 2 clearly
shows differences between both generations in terms
of performance in executing the suggested tasks.
However, the fact that all participants of Generation
Y joined Facebook more than a year ago and most
access it daily, while users of Generation X access
Facebook less frequently and most have profiles for
less than a year, raises a question: is the greater
advantage of Generation Y in performing the tasks
due to a greater ability of this generation’s users or
is it due to greater amount of time dedicated to
Facebook? In order to answer that question, the
performance of participants in following the tasks
was analyzed, considering only users who accessed
Facebook daily, regardless of the generation. The
result of this analysis is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Graph showing task performance of users who
access Facebook daily.
When separating users solely by weekly
dedication to Facebook, the percentage of performed
tasks drops from 67% (Figure 2) to 57% (Figure 3),
if compared to Generation Y. It is thus possible to
conclude that, in this sampling, the amount of time
dedicated to Facebook does not necessarily
determine the user’s knowledge and ability in
employing privacy settings.
4.3 Redesign Solutions
Although tool redesign solutions are not the focus of
this study, a few considerations are presented in this
section.
Observing task performance allowed for the
identification of a few usability problems in features
for managing privacy, including the location of these
features, which are dispersed through the Facebook
interface, and names and descriptions, whose
purpose is unclear to the user. These shortcomings
hindered the performance of Tasks 3 and 4. The
centralization of privacy settings, as suggested by a
participant, might be a good alternative for
improving the usability of these features. The user
would not have to scour the webpage searching for
settings that are distributed across the interface. The
settings attributed to pictures, for instance, must be
changed on the photo album where they are inserted.
Privacy settings for personal information,
additionally, must be changed one by one.
Therefore, the user may find the settings reunited
and classified in different submenus within the
Privacy Settings, which would provide flexibility to
the system, since each setting can be adjusted
centrally or locally.
Users had trouble completing Tasks 2 and 3, as
observed in the fact that, out of twelve participants,
only two completely executed the tasks, shows that
these options presented usability problems and are
unclear to the user. In the case of Task 2, which
requests that the user change privacy settings so as
not to allow his/her Facebook profile to be accessed
by a search engine, such as Google, the participant
should turn off “Public Preview”, available in the
option “Ads, Apps and Websites”, described as
settings manager for advertisements, applications,
games and websites, in Privacy Settings. The title
and description of these options should be modified
in order to clarify that this manager includes settings
related specifically to search engines, in addition to
settings for websites in general.
Task 3, which asks the users to view their profile
the same way a friend and the general public can
view it, should be performed by using the option
“See how…”, located in their timeline. This feature
simulates different views and allows the user to
check what his/her friends and the general public
can see his/her profile. The term “See how…” was
not an appropriate choice of words for describing the
feature, for it is possible to interpret it as a help
option with tutorials that allow the user to “see how”
to change whichever setting.
In December 2012, after conducting these tests,
Facebook presented a new feature for managing user
privacy, called “Privacy Shortcuts”. This menu
centralizes a few privacy options (as suggested
above); however, it does not encompass enough, and
many important settings, such as viewing pictures or
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
184
profile information, are not contemplated in this
shortcut.
In a positive light, this new feature highlights the
option “See how”, which was necessary for
completing Task 3 (which was executed by only two
out of twelve research participants) and is crucial in
verifying what is being shown to or hidden from
friends and the general public. In addition to the new
feature “Privacy Shortcut”, Facebook also changed
the nomenclature of privacy options/submenus,
rendering them clearer and more accessible to users.
This modification is line with what was suggested as
an alternative to decrease difficulty of performing
Task 2. It is worth highlighting that these shortcuts
were not yet available when this study applied the
task guideline to research participants.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study is to investigate how users
belonging to Generations X and Y understand and
employ privacy control features on Facebook and,
consequently, whether these features correspond to
the users’ expectations. The difference in the
number of tasks successfully performed and the
difficulty observed during the performance of these
activities showed that the social network’s privacy
settings are not easily understood by either
generation.
This article discusses situations in which the
usability of tools must be improved in order to
mitigate trouble found by users, especially those
belonging to Generation X, in the privacy settings of
personal information and posting. As previously
mentioned, test analyses conducted with this sample
revealed that an important difference between
generations lies in the behavior facing unknown
tasks. Users from Generation Y found it easier to
search for privacy settings when these were
unknown, for they felt more instigated and sought
different paths in attempting to execute the task.
Conversely, Generation X users found it harder to
succeed in the same situation and gave up trying to
execute the task.
Another aspect that differs both generations is
that users from Generation X access Facebook less
often than Generation Y users; therefore, they
dedicate less time to attempting to understand setting
details. Centralizing privacy settings could minimize
this difficulty.
As observed, although most users answered that
they managed to perform all or almost all the setting
tasks requested in the tests, the interaction videos
showed that many of them were not completed.
Some participants managed to access a feature
without completing the required setting. This fact
also showed that the feature lacks clarity, for it did
not inform the user that a setting was changed.
The study also noted that people from
Generation Y showed less concern in managing
privacy settings, especially regarding their pictures.
This occurs because people belonging to that
generation share a much larger volume of
information from a different nature and are aware
that, besides their friends, their parents,
grandparents, employers and teachers are also
online. Users from Generation X tend to share only
that which they consider inoffensive to their image
and personal security, precisely because, in most
cases, they ignore or have trouble with security
settings. However, when applying the questionnaire,
researchers observed that users of both generations
are still surprised that content about themselves,
which they believed were private, are accessible to
everyone.
In order to shorten the gap between users of
different generations, Facebook could adapt the
interface according to the user’s age. Therefore,
some settings would be highlighted for older users,
showing more details about the purpose, as well as
importance, of each feature.
Furthermore, pre-set profiles could be used
according to different levels of privacy. Users would
be free to manually adapt their privacy settings
according to their needs or choose among existing
types of profiles. Each profile type would have pre-
established settings for each personal information
and posting, using the nomenclature that describes
these levels of privacy, such as: “public profile: all
your personal information and what you share will
be visible to everyone who accesses your profile”,
“moderate profile: only your friends can see your
personal information, but your posts can be seen by
everyone who accesses your profile”, “private
profile: only your friends can see your personal
information and your posts”.
The methods used in this investigation allow
researchers to identify various usability problems
that complemented each other. It was also possible
to observe the behavioral difference in generations
facing difficulties in performing the tasks. There
were a few difficulties in applying the tests,
including lack of collaboration of various users, who
preferred not to participate in usability tests when
they were informed that a software would be used
for recording their interaction. Even after reading the
consent form and the explanation about the safety of
WhoIsThisGuyWhoLikedMyPicture?-PrivacyControlMechanismsonFacebookforGenerationsXandY
185
the procedure, they remained skeptical and decided
not to participate in the research. There were also
technical problems with two malfunctioned videos,
causing the participants to be disregarded.
It is interesting to note that many participants,
after the test, requested instructions on how to
manage the settings that they had not been able to
perform during the tests. This shows that these
settings are interesting to users but are not
completely accessible to them, either because they
are badly distributed on the interface or because
their purpose is not clearly informed to the user.
The Facebook redesign system is recommended
under the light of privacy improvements. However,
the focus of this research is not to discuss solutions
for usability problems. In general terms, the study
underpins the importance of tools being used to
warn users of the importance of controlling the
privacy of their data and the risks involved in
overexposure of their personal life. In this sense,
recommendations regarding social networking
privacy can be formulated, so as to contribute to the
field of Systems Engineering and Human-Computer
Interaction in the modeling system based on social
networks.
Based on the methodology used and the findings
reached by this article, a research study is being
developed with the theme “Evaluation of usability of
Facebook privacy settings with the use of personas”.
It is an extension of the current study and seeks to
employ the concept of personas as a method for
evaluating usability. The use of personas allows the
investigation of other factors that may influence the
way users interact with the system beyond their age
group or generation, such as educational level,
economic status, and other social aspects. Thus, the
aim is to evaluate mechanisms designed by
Facebook for users to manage their data privacy, as
well as to analyze the difficulty that different types
of users may encounter regarding these mechanisms.
Future studies will also discuss other important
points that strongly impact privacy, namely the
destination of users’ information after their death.
Nowadays, social networks do not offer users any
options to determine the destination of their digital
legacy. Therefore, when a person dies, he/she leaves
a profile posted with a large amount of information,
pictures and videos. This digital property becomes
unmanageable when the owner of the account is
dead, in case it is not visited by anyone who has
access to the account or deleted after notification of
the user’s death. In both cases, there is a series of
implications.
This article initiated a debate that is paramount
for users belonging to both generations to
satisfactorily enjoy the benefits of social networking
communities without feeling unsafe about sharing
details of their personal life with other people. It is
crucial that social networks offer features that are
user-friendly and unquestionably clear, so that these
users may express their preferences regarding
privacy of each piece of information and posting.
REFERENCES
Aïmeur, E., Gambs, S. e Ho, A., 2009. UPP: User Privacy
Policy for Social Networking Sites. In Fourth
International Conference on Internet and Web
Applications and Services.
Conselho Nacional de Saúde do Brasil: Resolução 196/96,
1996. Diretrizes e Normas Regulamentadoras de
Pesquisas Envolvendo Seres Humanos, http://
conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/reso_96.htm. (In
portuguese).
Comitê Gestor da Internet, 2011. Brasil: Survey on the use
of Information and Communication Technologies -
ICT Households and Enterprises 2011. http://op.
ceptro.br/cgi-bin/cetic/tic-domicilios-e-empresas-2011
.pdf (2011).
Época, 2011. Pense antes de compartilhar. Editora Globo,
no. 674, april 15, 2011, http://revistaepoca.globo.com/
Revista/Epoca/0,,EMI226212-15228,00-
pense+antes+de+compartilhar.html (In portuguese)
Facebook, 2012. http://facebook.com.
Kim, W., Jeong, O., Lee, S., 2009. On Social Websites. In
Information Systems, Volume 35, Issue 2, September
2009, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii
/S0306437909000866.
Nielsen, J., 2007. Usabilidade na Web: Projetando
Websites com qualidade. Ed. Campus, Elsevier. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. (In portuguese)
Nielsen, J., 2000. Why You Only Need to Test with 5
Users. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, http://www.useit.
com/alertbox/20000319.html.
Oxford Dictionaries, 2012. http://oxforddictionaries.com/
definition/english/privacy?q=privacy.
Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project,
2012. Photos and Videos as Social Currency Online,
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Online-Pictures.aspx
Social Bakers, 2012. Facebook Statistics by Country,
http://www.socialbakers.com.
Tapscott, D., 2010. A hora da geração digital: como os
jovens que cresceram usando a internet estão
mudando tudo, das empresas aos governos. Agir
Negócios, pp. 448. (In portuguese).
Top View Soft, Free Screen Video Capture, http://
www.topviewsoft.com/free-screen-video-capture.htm
United Nations, 1948. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr
ICEIS2013-15thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
186
