There has always been a bit of talk on RSS and whether or not it will be widely accepted. Many people suggest that ‘RSS’ doesn’t seem to flow off the tongue too easily. Why not, though? I don’t think we’re giving people much credit. People can be taught anything. Heck, we’re all still typing www. aren’t we? Does anyone know why? Additionally, I hear people instruct me to visit an .html page all the time. Do they know what HTML means? Most likely not. Do they know what .html pages are? Of course they do. That’s all they need to know.
So why don’t you think people can be trained to subscribe to RSS? People were easily hooked on email. As Brian mentioned, the concept of opting-in is hardly revolutionary. So why couldn’t the same be done for RSS? With browsers (and Vista) integrating RSS don’t you think people will naturally figure out the benefits? I agree, it’s hard to re-train people. But, the way I see it, people are increasingly finding more information online. If they wanted to get an email for every cheap fare and recipe available out there they’d realize thats just too much email (in addition to all the spam that would come along with it). Their friend will then say something to the tune of: ‘oh, you don’t know how to subscribe to that stuff’?
So why don’t we have a .rss file extension? Oh wait, we do, it’s called .xml. When I visit nytimes.com/…/Busines.xml I have a pretty good idea of what I’m about to open. In theory this file extension will open an XML file allow me and my browser/reader/whatever to open the feed the way I want. So why the hell doesn’t it work that way? I open a .html file in Firefox/IE and a website loads. I open a .doc file in Firefox/IE and a document loads. But when I open my .xml file I’m suddenly greeted with the most unfriendly looking collection of symbols, tags and words I’ve ever met. This is exactly why RSS hasn’t taken off yet. It lacks the consistency.
File extentions are there to create a certain level of consistency. In other words, when I open a .doc file I know I’m opening some sort of document. As a typical web user, when I open website.com/feed/atom.xml or something.com/rss/ how am I supposed to know what I’m visiting? When I see a page load with a bunch of nonsense like <channel> do I know what to do next? Of course not! So why isn’t my browser doing that for me? Why can’t I tell my friends to go to somewebsite.com/subscribe.xml (or even better, .rss) and have the computer do what it’s always done: recognize the extension and do something useful with it.
It’s way too hard to visit a website, search for 10 minutes for their ‘RSS’ or ‘Feeds’ or ‘Subscription’ page, copy the location, paste it somewhere, etc. If my friends can tell me to visit a .php or .html page I should be able to ask them (just as easily) to visit my .xml or .rss feed. Feeds will never get past early adopters if we don’t create some sort of consistent way to treat the user. I really don’t think renaming RSS will do the trick.
[tags]rss, xml, feeds, syndication, blogging[/tags]
Devin, you’re right… renaming RSS will not do the trick, but it could help a bit.
The real trick is getting regular folk to understand the benefits RSS gives over email, so they are not afraid to sign up for content due to spam, viruses, phishing, etc.
I agree, you outlined some great benefits and I found your previous article pretty comprehensive. Besides, I noticed a report the other day mentioning teenagers and how they’re turned off to email entirely. Obviously this ‘generation’ will require the opt-in content and RSS is the perfect solution.
Thanks for taking the time to stop by and comment, Brian.
Yeah, the teeagers don’t need any help in “getting it.” In fact, we’ll be working hard to keep up with them.
It’s the older people that I worry about getting it, which is why I’m resigned to the fact that RSS adoption is ultimately in Microsoft’s hands.
Scary, I know. :)
Yikes.. it is scary but I definitely echo your point. The browsers could certainly help… I’m surprised neither recognize an .XML file as something I can subscribe to!
Hmmm … is the key here the difference between a pull model for content and a push (broadcast) model? Email is push (I send, you receive) while RSS is a pull (while grazing over the webscape, I decide to get content from someone, so I subscribe for it (pull)).
I sense a major transformation in content delivery – moving from broadcast to subscription and asynchronous delivery (TiVO, RSS, etc.)
Easy and simple drive adoption of disruptive technology. I think that is the point being made about RSS. The current metaphor for easy and simple is to have a file object launch an application (Thanks Steve Jobs) because there is a one-to-one relationship between the file and the application that knows how to get its contents.
However, XML seems more abstract than the file/application metaphor. I always thought of XML as a metadata wrapper capable of providing “self-description” of the encapsulated data stream. So, if one of the XML tags is “application”, then clicking on XML files ought to enable execution of an application.
Was this the notion you were getting at Dev?
I’m not sure if pull v. push is the question because I think that whichever they are (pull or push), email and RSS are the same. That’s why I figured ‘opt-in’ describes it best.. either way, we’re going out and hand-picking the content we wish to receive.
As you and Brian mentioned, it needs to be simple. This is my biggest point and which is why I agree that widespread acceptance will require Microsoft’s attempts.
I agree, though: XML is more abstract than a RSS feed… but when I open an XML file in my browser there’s a very slim chance I’d be doing anything other than looking at an RSS feed. If that’s too hard for the browser to understand then why can’t we rename our .xml files to .rss and have Firefox, IE, etc. open it as a feed? By default, let the browser handle the file (I don’t know if you’ve seen the ‘Subscribe’ features in Firefox and the new IE?) or else, if availble, why not launch it into FeedDemon? Or bring it into our Newsgator Outlook Edition?
Pingback: I Don’t Want No Stinkin’ RSS (or Why Normal People Don’t Understand Feeds) at The Blog Herald
Have you explored what feed:// does?
Wouldn’t that be browser-specific? I find it annoying really that Firefox and IE take me to their ‘helpful’ page for feeds. It allows you to subscribe in the browser and maybe an online feed reader. But it can’t possibly list them all.
Pingback: Waarom rss voor veel mensen nog steeds abacadabra is at Moqub’s bibliotheek van dingen
I wrote my own rss feed because i could not find a writer that had the right look. So anyway i have created my feeds with the .rss extension. IE7 has no problem opening them but some of the feed validators and rss educational websites tell me that rss 2.0 files should be saved with an .xml extension. What should i do? Change the file extensions or wait for the other rss readers to catch up?