March 30, 2004 | View Comments (73) | Category: Design
Summary: Google's new design is a couple steps backwards from their near perfect previous design.
The trick behind minimalism is being able to rid your designs of elements that it does not need. Many times the removal of these elements enhances the site, but other times the removal of too many elements can greatly take away from your site.
Google has recently redesigned their homepage. They are the only company that I can think of that made its name mostly from its homepage. Sure Google had great search results at the beginning, but the minimalistic design of its homepage set it far apart from other search engines. The homepage is no longer minimalistic, but empty.
The true beauty of the site was that any user could go to it and know what to do without thinking. As designers, many times we fall into the trap of thinking that just because we know how to use the site, that everyone will know how to use the site and if they can't it is their fault. Looking at the new homepage you may think that nothing has really changed and users should have no problems with this, but there is one major change. The tabs are gone.
If any type of navigation paradigm has been found to work with all users, it is the tabbed paradigm. Tabs help users understand that by clicking them, they are simply moving to another section of the site. Google's tabs let you know that you were moving to another section of the site, but carrying over your search term information.
Now the non-tabbed navigation makes me feel as though if I click on them I will leave the site or that my search information will be lost and I will have to type it in again. I could only imagine what newer users to the site would feel and possibly even people who use Google frequently.
Compare AlltheWeb to Google. Is there a difference in the "feel" of the search to you? To me, when I am using AlltheWeb I get the sense (just from the tabs) that I am flowing through a site. This no longer occurs with Google.
Minimalism is an art and a science. Google mastered it before. Why change?
I wrote this last night and did not publish because I wanted to "sit" on it some more and lo and behold I find that Adam Greenfield discusses the same issues that I do.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/191
I understand what you're saying, Paul... not entirely sure I agree, though.
I'd say at least one reason they lost the tabs is the little "new" banner on froogle would look bad in a tab. So the tabs might come back once it's no longer 'new'
The change also made it clear to regular users that things had changed, where simply adding another tab might not have.
I'm more interested in some of the new toys they provide,though. Google Local is the new best way to find somewhere to eat in town, and the personalised search in google labs is a fantastic idea, and a good way to get rid of some of the junk results without having to write queries with multiple -storenames
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
I really miss the tabs too. I usually have a few Google search tabs open in Firefox (say, a regular search and a Groups search) and it always helped reinforce which search was about what. I’m not fond of the redesign for other reasons too (their markup is horrible for such simple pages), but the tab thing is going to take a lot of getting used to.
Vinnie Garcia (http://blog.vinniegarcia.com)
Mark: It is vitally important for them to have underline links. I am not saying they shouldn't. I am saying that using just the plain underline links for the site navigation destroys the whole search mindset for me.
Notice I am saying that this is just for me. I just don't get the idea in my head that if I click on "images" it will run the same search. When there were tabs I had no problem seeing this without having to think about it.
I use "regular" links on Forever Geek (no underlines either) for site navigation, but those serve a different purpose than could be found on Google.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
For a while yesterday, the visited link class was a smaller font size than the initial state.
That seems to have left pretty quickly.
Again, there have been a lot of "big site" redesigns of late. I still argue that most of these companies do a poor job of change management for their users, and now I can include Google into that category.
I am not against changing (evolutionary improvement), but sometimes these changes just seem really random. And not that you can't reach into the past for inspiration, but the new Google UI seems so 1996.
Matthew Oliphant (http://usabilityworks.typepad.com)
Gah! It's back to doing it! Visited class resizes smaller.
I realize this is totally personal preference here, but I hate that.
Matthew Oliphant (http://usabilityworks.typepad.com)
I agree with you Paul, about the tabs, though the whole thing seems cleaner and faster to me.
Interesting that they reduced the size of their logo too - That along with the wider input box, I wonder if they want to give people the feel of more meat, less crap?
btw - Matthew, I'm not seeing the visited class thing; they've been running this version sporadically since December, could it be something on your machine?
Mike P. (http://www.fiftyfoureleven.com.com/sandbox/weblog/)
btw - Matthew, I'm not seeing the visited class thing; they've been running this version sporadically since December, could it be something on your machine?
Entirely likely. I thought about that while I was typing the comment, but forgot about it before I clicked "post."
Running on IE for XP, though it is a highly customized version. Perhaps this falls under the usual heading of it being all about me. ;)
Matthew Oliphant (http://usabilityworks.typepad.com)
Something else I noticed, is that the "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,530,000 for widget [definition]. (0.28 seconds)" has moved to the right. Using the linked word "definition" will help newbies realize what the link does. On the minus side, I find that my eye doesn't naturally move to that side of the screen. Instead I see the heading "Web", which seems out of place.
Justin (http://bluealpha.com)
I'll have to say that I agree. The old design was perfect - this one is far from improved.
And I, too, wish that they would learn to write HTML and CSS. It's pretty terrible for such a large web presence.
thomas (http://gendes.elivy.com)
"And I, too, wish that they would learn to write HTML and CSS. It's pretty terrible for such a large web presence."
Oh, come on, Thomas... yeah, google can't find a single person who can do css. Right. It's called backwards compatibility. Google wants to be usable in *every* browser, not just new ones.
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
I thought something must have changed! But I didn't take the time to think about it. All I knew was all of a sudden, Google felt WRONG and something looked funny.
Bring back the tabs!!
I agree with everything you said, Paul. The tabs just made more sense. Plain text links just don't cut it for that kind of interaction.
Jennifer Grucza (http://jennifergrucza.com)
As with Jennifer, I went to Google and thought something was strange. It took me a little while to figure out what it was.
I preferred the tabs as well but it looks like the text links will be there to stay.
Todd (http://www.monkeyhouselounge.com/loungeact/)
..."yeah, google can't find a single person who can do css. Right..."
Yep, the almighty Google, among the top 5 visited and used websites in the world, one of the most highly desired employers among web geeks, hot on the heels of one of the most highly anticipated IPOs in recent history, can't find programers who understand HTML and CSS.
I guess they also have just one renegade designer over there who decided to remove the tabs just for kicks - against the wishes of the dozens of highly paid consultants and web analysts who have mountains of stats indicating how most everyday folk use the site.
Gee, I hope those folks get their act together soon. They'd have a decent search engine if they just listened to the voices of Whitespace.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Some of the changes have merit. For example, I'm sure they discovered that people wanted to go through the whole site to get to Froogle, while the Directory was used much less often. It makes sense then to switch those out.
However, the new lack of tabs is a little disturbing. The simple links aren't as recognizable. I could think dark red and see the News button so easily. While that's not good for momentary use, a persistently used site like Google can use they styling of sections to give a very strong sense of familiarity.
I really can't complain much about the other changes; it seems that now it's just a matter of getting used to it. However, the tabs are something I think was a mistake to remove.
Chris Vincent (http://dris.dyndns.org:8080/)
"...If any type of navigation paradigm has been found to work with all users, it is the tabbed paradigm..."
Just out of curiosity Paul, where did you find that usability study on tabs?
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
"I guess they also have just one renegade designer over there who decided to remove the tabs just for kicks - against the wishes of the dozens of highly paid consultants and web analysts who have mountains of stats indicating how most everyday folk use the site."
One of the worst kept secrets in Silicon Valley is that all of the major eCommerce type companies, and a lot of the enterprise companies like Oracle, Siebel and PeopleSoft, do not have "designers" working on their products. Seriously trained ones at least.
If you believe that Google does have a highly trained design staff working around the clock on the thing, then I ask you this simple question: How is it the blog world has so much better design using less code and more standards than the like of eBay, PayPal, Google, Amazon and Yahoo!?
The answer should be obvious. It's the big white elephant in the living room no one wants to tyalk about in Silicon Valley.
Also, after seeing the new design, I just yawned. Yet another big company proving to the world the design doesn't matter. That is until someone finally comes along and get the tech right.
Anyone ever have any thoughts on my simple Google redesign? Outside of the tabs needing a better visual appearance.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
When I get the time Mark, I will make sure to use the new Google to find it. I really did read it somewhere.
Also, some people would like to see Google use CSS as I have done here, so please let us kill the sarcasm just a bit. I am sure everyone understands that they stick with tables for compliance to older browsers and whatnot, but nothing is wrong with hoping.
I could have made this is huge usability study showing why I believed the new interface is less useful than the previous one, but I guess I didn't. I chose to speak with my own opinions. Take them for what they worth, even if they mean nothing.
Edit: Sorry this isn't a rant or backlash as it seems to be while reading it. Just in class and Mr. Smary Pants Uber Manager guy sitting next to me is really annoying me.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/whitespace/)
"However, the new lack of tabs is a little disturbing. The simple links aren't as recognizable."
My uninformed assumption would be they went this route to make it easier to scale Google into arbitrary mobile devices, likes PDAs and phones. Links are just links and they are the same no matter display device.
However, they are a plethora of simple strategies to built content for various devices without hard-coding everything and designing yourself into a corner. Why they didn't go other routes would be beyond me right now.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
My guess is, the tabs added more 'weight' to those links. With the new lay-out, the 'Images', 'Groups' et al. searches look just as important as, say, the link that lets you find out where the Google headquarters are.
Of course, the solution is not necessarily to bring back the tabs. There are 7 links on that page that probably no-one ever uses (compared to the number of times the search buttons and -links are used, of course).
Branko Collin (http://www.abeleto.nl)
Ahhh, Branko, you said what I was looking for. How is someone to distinguish between the links on the site. They all look the same, but do they all perform the same function?
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/whitespace/)
..."It's the big white elephant in the living room no one wants to tyalk about in Silicon Valley..."
I would think it's rather that they created a monster (in terms of hugely popular and heavily used) site in the days before standards were adapted.
Making such a drastic change as converting the entire site to CSS is a very risky proposition for these companies at this point. Any failure in the implementation could potentially cost millions and completely destroy the brand reputation.
It's not just a problem that's limited to Silicon Valley.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
"How is it the blog world has so much better design using less code and more standards than the like of eBay, PayPal, Google, Amazon and Yahoo!?"
Because so far as the blog world is concerned, granny on the 486 running netscape 2 can go **** herself with a 2x4. Amazon, on the other hand, would like to see some of granny's well-hoarded money... maybe she'll even buy a fancy new computer that *can* handle css layouts.
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
The eternal struggle between aesthetics vs. money continues to wage on. Seems like I talked about this only a few days ago.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/whitespace/)
To bring this back on the topic of tabs...
I would argue that most of the usage of Google comes from primary search alone.
For those who used the links previously encased in tabs, why do you think they'd now be lost and suddenly unable to tell the feature links from the contact links?
They are in exactly the same place and in the same general order as they were previously.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
My point would be what about the people who are going to be new to Google? Why should they be able to tell the difference?
Sure experienced users should have no problems, even though I do think there will be a moment of hesitancy before clicking on the links. The whole point is not to make the user think as Dick Krug says. The tabs made for less thinking. General purpose links all over the site make for more thinking.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/whitespace/)
I can easily get behind both the simple Google redesign by Andrei Herasimchuk and the Google use CSS by Scrivs. Each makes the process of evaluating the navigation on the page quick and painless. Send these to Google for their consideration... if not already done so. You have my vote.
chase (http://www.ontask.net/)
All the links are designed to help you "find" something - whether it's advertising solutions or images. In fact, if anything seems out of place and should really be differentiated because of function, it should be the link to make Google your homepage.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Mark Fusco:
You asked about the usability of tabs earlier. I just thought you might be interested in this commentary by Mr. Danny Sullivan. (not to suggest this is the last word on tabs and usability)
And how can one get through any discussion on usability without mentioning that Jakob Nielsen has an opinion too (as shocking as that may seem)
I didn't find anything that really came to a clear conclusion that tabs were either particularly terrible, or great. Can't say I have anything against tabs.
Justin (http://bluealpha.com)
Thanks Justin, but what I was after was supporting evidence for the "all users" part of the statement.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
"Making such a drastic change as converting the entire site to CSS is a very risky proposition for these companies at this point. Any failure in the implementation could potentially cost millions and completely destroy the brand reputation.
Come on now! We're talking about HTML. It's not like they have to retrofit an entire factory to make adjustments to a new chassis design for a car or something.
If any tech company has a hard time reconfiguring their product based on the issue that their HTML templating architecture is not able to handle dynamic change, or scale for change, then I gaurantee you they have far worse problems going on inside.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
Mark: I see your point and it was foolish of me to say all users as we know that not all users share all the same interests. Clearly my mistake.
However, saying all the links on the homepage are there to find something is wrong. The "new" tabs appear to have the same functions as the "business solutions" link and the only differentiating point is link location.
Granted link location plays a huge role in helping users to decide what they are used for, but I still think the new links would cause users to think even more as to what their function is.
They could have brought in a million consultants (which I don't see Google bringing in any outside help) that would have tested users to see if they could still use the site. Of course they can, but was the old site easier to use? I think it was.
Andrei: I agree.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/whitespace/)
Andrei and Paul -
I am somewhat surprised at your response Andrei - and equally surprised w/your agreement Paul. It is known that CSS does not render the same across all browsers. Hence, trying to maintain the distinctive look and operability for all these global sites is going to be a challenge. Given Andrei's initial response that these high tech Silicon Valley companies "...do not have "designers" working on their products. Seriously trained ones at least..." I think my point is proven.
I have taken the 2 redesigns you have offered in replies for this post and placed them into Browsercam to see how they render across a multitude of browsers / platforms. I invite you to check it out.
After seeing the results, I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion that doing a site wide conversion to CSS at this point in history (as you present in your case studies) would be a potential major money losing, brand reputation ruining venture.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Let me clarify. I was agreeing with Andrei in the sense that if a hightech company is incapable of quickly moving a site over to CSS then they have bigger problems. I know that the CSS site might now work in all browsers and to get it to work cleanly everywhere, some hacks would be required, which would cause a jump in the filesize; one of the issues that Google is proud to keep at a minimum.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
That's interesting, Mark.
Paul, look at the AOL 7 one on your reworking... you should test WhiteSpace on that, it's the same technique you're using there, right? I expected the Netscape stuff of course, I deal with NN 4.x daily, but I was quite surprised that AOL 7, which is after all just IE slightly crippled, couldn't handle the logo thing.
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Also interesting -
It also can't handle the logo thing in Explorer 5 / Win 2000
Additionally, CSS Google:
- Is missing the one element much more important than tabs - the search box (in Explorer 5.2 / Mac)
- Can't manage to display the logo or the tabs (in Explorer 5.2 / Mac)
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Haha, okay, thanks for the CSS Google deconstruction guys. I did it in about an hour and certainly didn't test it in the browsers you guys are. It was a mere exercise showing that it could be done.
AOL? SOL. Working on redesigns...
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Actually, that should read -
1. No search box on Explorer 5.2 / Mac
2. No logo and spaces between tags all run together on Explorer 5.0 / Win 2000
3. The same AOL 7 issue appears in Explorer 5.5 / Windows 2000
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Mark, listen... no offense, but I've worked on products that make hundreds of millions of dollars. I understand what these companies are up against. Further, I also know a lot of the people here in Silicon Valley and know a lot of what goes on behind the scenes in many of them. I think I know what I'm talking about.
I never bothered tweaking my Google exercise to work across every known browser to man. I did it in less than three hours in my off time. But considering it only really seems to break in browsers that occupy less than 6% to 8% of the browser market at this point in time, I'd say that I did a damn good job without even bothering to check those browsers. Getting it to work, or coming up with a reasonable strategy to get a design that works across the board is more than doable.
Coming up with strategies to backpedal any design into that tiny market share of broken browsers is EASY. Given all the technical hurdles in the product itself... heck, given the smarts it takes to create code and processes to do the kind of searching Google does in the first place is about a trillion times harder than creating a simplstic design approach that is compliant, standards based, and in the spirit of minimilsm that is Google. And getting it implemented is the least of the problems they face.
Come on! It's HTML and web sites. I've worked on web site design, web application design, and hardcore desktop software applications that have to work on multiple versions of Windows and Mac OS in more than 12 languages.
Seriously... I know what I'm talking about.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
Sorry dude. Andrei asked for opinions and you referenced yours as well...What better way to give you feedback than to let the browsers speak for themselves?
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
No offense taken Andrei.
My question, and it's an honest one, is if ...backpedal[ing] any design into that tiny market share of broken browsers is EASY..., and apparently it is so easy that these companies don't need "seriously trained" designers to handle the miniscule task of developing a compliant design - as compared to writing the code which drives the engine - why don't they just take a couple of hours during lunch and do it?
Seriously?
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Oh, and for the record - I used to work for NASA developing products that were used on equipment worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
"Why don't they just take a couple of hours during lunch and do it?"
The big white elephant in the room that is rarely discussed here in Silicon Valley is that far more often than not, most "design teams" in Silicon Valley are not run by designers. Further, most design teams may contain graphic designers, or usability folks, but very few of these teams contain people that can handle interface design. (As defined by me in this article: Making the Case for Interface Design) As such, what you get is a lot of very haphazard design, if you get any design at all.
Think about it. Would any designer that had any training at all create the kind of work one sees on Amazon, Google, Yahoo or eBay? Sure, many of those companies have to deal with the fact they had no design at all when they started, and now they have to figure it out having gotten too much forward momentum. But honestly, is it really that hard ot create HTML that is reasonably well designed, even when ignoring tech like CSS?
I promise... this is the last itme I'll say it: It's only HTML!
Why else would there be a lack of design at these big companies when it's so easy to code HTML?
8^)
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
I am looking at the new Google...
How is this even considered finished? If I didn't know better, I'd think the stylesheet just hadn't loaded.
I know lack of styling and blue, underlined links lend geeky credibility to sites, but I have to say that All The Web looks way more trustworthy than the new Google.
David (http://www.freepgs.com/individed/)
Andrei -
Thanks for the response, in kind.
After reading your bio, I see we have an awful lot in common. I'm (still) in Houston, worked as a Sr. Multimedia Desginer (designing interfaces) for the astronaut training division of the United Space Alliance, and will too soon have a daughter named Alexa.
I still have an old copy of Photoshop 4, and saw your name there in the credits.
I fulheartedly agree with your assessment that, especially in bigger corporations, you rarely have true designers creating interfaces for web-based offerings.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
So are we all in agreement that we should get Scrivs a job at Google?
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Also Didier's column is going to be published on Digital Web real soon (I think Andrei was the technical editor) where he describes websites in the same state as the car industry in the 1970's. Sooner or later a site will come along that will offer the same services, but a better design and they may be the only factor that separates them.
Silicon Valley shops need to get off their asses and realize this. They need to find a good mix of constant improvement and innovation, which is difficult to achieve.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
You've got my vote, Paul. It's a bit out of your way, though. Of course, it's definitely worth moving for. :-)
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
I changed my requirements. I am open to anything in the country if the offer is right.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Google's changed the adwords section on the right as well, in a bid to increase CTR. This was the most important thing which separated Google from all the other search engines, CLEARLY marked sponsored links.
Here's what a Google employee had to say - "I know that they've done a lot of testing on the entire UI design, including several different layouts of the ads. Personally, I think the UI team balanced a lot of factors out really well."
The post is on http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum81/2285-3-10.htm
jinesh (http://www.jinesh.org/)
Forget the redesign to the front page, how has it affected the results pages?
It may be possible that usage stats show that most people access Google via a toolbar or other method but NOT through the front page, maybe that's been a contributing factor? Maybe the redesign has been driven by load times, maybe they have a massive update planned and realised the current pages would add to much to the load?
Just a thought: as we've established that there are no designers at Google (right?) then presumably these changes are driven for other reasons; Ones that have no regard for design.
If that is the case, then all the talk in the world won't make them re-design it as that's not the driving factor (I would venture that money may be one of the factors... somewhere!)
Just a thought!
Gordon (http://www.snowgoon.co.uk)
Google uses tag soup because believe it or not it uses less bandwidth than a totally compatible CSS solution would as well as being completely back-compatible.
Personally I like the cleanness of the new design and the lack of tabs doesn't bother me. However, since the top banner area is smaller, the results page seems compressed and I swear there's more whitespace in the middle now (though I am on 1280x1024).
Bruce
[quote]
At least it seems they are looking for some help. (http://www.google.com/jobs/eng/ui.html )
[/quote]
I wonder what that job interview would be like.
"Jenny, could you send in interviewee # 9,454 please. Thank you"
Talk about people sending in there resumes, how do you weed out thousands of people for 1 job, I would hate to be that guy.
Bryan (http://www.gamecubecheats.info)
Andrei, nice work on the redesign.
Anyway, back to the original topic, it's not really a case of the tabs being there or not... the thing I first noticed, which really grated was that the next plain old hypertext links have a much smaller hit point than the old tabs... whitness:
New: http://www.google.com/
Old: http://www.google.lv/
... till updates filter through to lesser .ccTLDs anyway... less "we" are Google's guinea pigs for this little redesign experiment?
Also conceed that the most "important" looking bit of the new design is "More"... which is frankly rather daft. The "more" portal page is a bit of a mess to be honest... reminds me of the Excite portal frontpage from 1999 or there abouts?
Wonder how long it'll be till they change it back?
Jonathan Stanley (http://lambcutlet.org/)
I fulheartedly agree with your assessment that, especially in bigger corporations, you rarely have true designers creating interfaces for web-based offerings.
I do. Along with the 46 other designers that sit around me. But I suppose you did say "rarely." ;)
Matthew Oliphant (http://usabilityworks.typepad.com)
Bryan -
They'd conduct the interviews in the only rational way... GoogleFight!
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
"Oh, come on, Thomas... yeah, google can't find a single person who can do css. Right. It's called backwards compatibility. Google wants to be usable in *every* browser, not just new ones."
JC - I personally think that they should go all CSS for presentation, but thats beside the point. Their HTML is terrible ... or is that just some really knowledgeable web developer who writes it that way on purpose? Like these just makes me sick (changed to [ and ] by me of course):
[body bgcolor=#ffffff text=#000000 link=#0000cc vlink=#551a8b alink=#ff0000...
[font size=-1][b][font color=#000000]Web[/font][/b] [a id=1a class=q
Maybe I'm missing something here ... I consider myself far from an expert, but Google's source looks far from professional to me, which is not what I would expect from such a renowned website.
thomas (http://gendes.elivy.com)
"some really knowledgeable web developer who writes it that way on purpose"
Makes me wonder what google looks like under the hood. Maybe their presentation layer isn't seperate from their logic and the website template is coded with escapes. It'd explain their very limited use of quotation marks in the source code. Thats probably more of a bandwidth issue though. The lack of line breaks and whitespace is probably just some compression routine, we do the same thing along with gzipping.
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Googlefight...
That's hilarious. I didn't realize Paul and I were in a battle however.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Mark: Sorry I had to lay the beatdown on ya...still friends? ;-)
Since Google runs on open source I can really see the code under the hood as being really hacked together stuff that just works. Their design also shows the technical geek mentality where they wish to maintain a minimalist profile and a small filesize while showing as much info as possible. It is a conflict of interests it seems that I am sure internally causes some issues.
As for usability tests, I think they really just implemented the new designs here and there to see if anyone would complain about them. After some time they didn't hear anything so they made the changes across all the datacenters.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
Darn!
Why can I never be right? Just when I thought Andrei H. couldn't sound any more condescending and full of himself, I am again proven wrong.
Cheers
Doug
"Just when I thought Andrei H. couldn't sound any more condescending and full of himself, I am again proven wrong."
Sounds like whining to me. Besides, what does it matter to you how I sound or behave? Do you know me? Do my actions or words have some sort of personal effect on your day to day lifestyle?
I seriously cannot wait for MT 3.0 and a registered comments system.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
Paul -
Looks like your perfect opportunity at Google just opened up.
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
I'm startled by the opining without information that is occurring here. Considering Marissa Meyer is a former formally trained designer (stanford) who is now director of product, they have two other PHD's in design/HCI I know of, and Kevin Fox, recent Carnegie mellon graduate with years of practical experience in the field joined them this year saying Google has no trained designers is clearly someone talking out of their ass.
I also know Google tests the holy hell out of everything-- both qualitative and quantitative. They have usability labs; they do bucket testing. They watch every single click with every pixel. They know what design does to user behavior.
Is their removal of tabs a mistake? it's entirely possible; it could be the wrong choice and it could be a severe worsening of the user experience. But to suggest they did it without testing or because they don't have designers is sheer speculative foolishness. Whatever they have done, they have done it with all the information they can muster. A better solution may well be out there: the question is who will find it. and when.
It's funny for me to write this; Google was my "enemy" of the last couple years, as I led the Yahoo Search redesign. That said, I respect deeply the work they have done and know quite a bit about my "enemy"; after all,"keep your friends close, your enemies closer." I can complain about Google for many reasons (and Yahoo is still gonna kick their ass!), but I can never say they are ignorant, untrained or foolhardy.
(and what about our markup? ;-)
christina (http://www.boxesandarrows.com)
"...saying Google has no trained designers is clearly someone talking out of their ass."
As one of those speaking out of my ass, I wait with anticipation for a version of Google that doesn't look like a mish-mash of amateurish typography, singular primary color choices that don't mesh well together, non-standardized templates across their system workflow, and something that doesn't feel like a Ferrari engine stuck inside a Yugo chasis.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
Andrei H.: Agreed.
I am one who loved Google's old design and was quite dissapointed when I saw it had been changed. Then I came to whitespace and was glad that at least someone else shared my opinion.
But thats just the search pages. Don't even get me started about the other pages, logo, accessiblity, and coding.
thomas (http://gendes.elivy.com)
Bryan,
The other day I was talking to somebody who worked in personnel a couple of years ago. He told me that snail mail applications were selected on whether the stamp was put on straight or crooked: the latter category was tossed out. With thousands of applications coming in they had to start somewhere, and the selection process had to based on something that could be judged immediately.
I can imagine that if Google specifically requests resumes in plain text or HTML format, resumes with MS Word docs attached would be thrown out automatically. Heck, I'd throw them out even if no such requirement were posted.
Coming back to the Google design with the clashing primary colors: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/google.html?pg=12 shows how some professional designers think Google could be redesigned. I am grateful every day that Google lets the guy or gal from the clashing primary colours make the decisions, and not some 'real' designer.
Branko Collin
Gotta say that I kinda like it - the blue shading behind the top 2 sponsored
links made them look like part of the menu bar and my eyes went immediately to
the REAL results. Also the sponsored listings on the right look more
'trivial' whereas, again, the real results grab the focus.
From Nainil Chheda.
Web Hosting Maharashtra (http://services.eliteral.com)
I take it all of you have already read the User Friendly strips about the Google interface change?
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040330
Branko Collin
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
Frankly, I don't understand your logic about Google feeling "empty." They have blue, underlined links - something you wrote some time ago about being the only "hard" rule of IA.
Now you're stating an apparently opposite view?
Mark Fusco (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)