Re: [IxDA] Google's New Design

9 May 2010 - 10:13am
4 years ago
7 replies
819 reads
danrydell
2010

I find the top nav is not only redundant but misleading, will I get the same results for images on the left than on top? Top nav would seem to indicate it will take me to the Images search engine front page, while left nav would filter/search for images based on my keywords; it turns out both act in the same way.


I see a trend in youtube and google that I truly do not like at all. They are hiding features just for the thrill of it. The links on the front page of google that appear on weird hover interactions are not hidden to focus or gain screen space, the new youtube player they've been testing that hid things unless hovering over them, the way they have every tiny info detail collapsed by default, even if it is just a two line description which when expanded shows just a word, if you want to add something to your favorites you have to wait for your playlists to load, and so on

I'll stop, I think I'm cranky.

Comments

9 May 2010 - 3:10pm
Mike Hales
2009

I agree, I find the majority of design by google cold and obstructive.
Could be the numbers game or simply that they're losing sight of their
customers.

On 10/05/2010, at 3:48 AM, danrydell wrote:

> I find the top nav is not only redundant but misleading, will I get
> the same results for images on the left than on top? Top nav would
> seem to indicate it will take me to the Images search engine front
> page, while left nav would filter/search for images based on my
> keywords; it turns out both act in the same way. > I see a trend in youtube and google that I truly do not like at all.
> They are hiding features just for the thrill of it. The links on the
> front page of google that appear on weird hover interactions are not
> hidden to focus or gain screen space, the new youtube player they've
> been testing that hid things unless hovering over them, the way they
> have every tiny info detail collapsed by default, even if it is just
> a two line description which when expanded shows just a word, if you
> want to add something to your favorites you have to wait for your
> playlists to load, and so on > I'll stop, I think I'm cranky. > >

9 May 2010 - 9:30pm
cfmdesigns
2004

Actually, my contacts at Google say they are doing it specifically to
annoy you. No other reason.

-- Jim Via my iPhone

On May 9, 2010, at 9:14 AM, danrydell wrote:

> I see a trend in youtube and google that I truly do not like at all.
> They are hiding features just for the thrill of it. >

9 May 2010 - 9:48pm
Mike Dunn
2008

1. Why does redundant have to be bad? When I see redundant navigations like this I tend to think one of two things: either it is a transitional state or it's there to cater to different user habits. I don't see a problem with it.

2. I think the use of progressive disclosure here is fine everywhere except the main nav on the top left. The facet navigation underneath I have no issue with some elements not visible on an initial viewstate.

Overall I think the UI changes work, what few there are.

10 May 2010 - 1:40am
bkenny
2010

Yeah, transitional is what came to my mind.  It took some getting used to the visual change, but the sidebar works for me.  I find it easier to interact with on the side of the page more than I do at the top.  I also think it's neat that it chooses the more relevant search options to display in the sidebar based on the search, and then puts the filtering options right underneath when you click something.  Thumbs up here.



On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Mike Dunn <mike@foolishstudios.com> wrote:

1. Why does redundant have to be bad? When I see redundant navigations like this I tend to think one of two things: either it is a transitional state or it's there to cater to different user habits. I don't see a problem with it.

2. I think the use of progressive disclosure here is fine everywhere except the main nav on the top left. The facet navigation underneath I have no issue with some elements not visible on an initial viewstate.

Overall I think the UI changes work, what few there are.

(((P
10 May 2010 - 9:53am
Michelle McDevitt
2008

I am one who always questions the necessity of duplication.  If this is a transitional design state - which none of this thread seems to verify - Will the final design enable the user to drag and drop the menu to their preference, left, right, top, bottom? 

Could the location of where the menu was dragged to be be saved by the browser -- or would the google user have to be logged in?

I would rather see a drag and drop menu than duplication. 

As far as hover over menus-- are screen readers successful on Google?  Many dynamic menus are inaccessible with screen readers or keyboard technology.  I just hope Google made them accessible by all.

 

11 May 2010 - 5:30am
willdonovan
2009

Also from memory (meaning: I had to gather evidence to support ) the design philosophy of utilising a left hand navigation
interrupts the users flow of scanning through the core content object that they are looking for.

We played with many concepts in the past to try and support a left hand navigation / options / filter list.

Does this new google design put them a step backwards from the users productivity and disrupt purpose to find their search result?
Does this then break Google own desire to make software more productive?

I have heard that their reason for upgrading the filter / options list was to accommodate the needs of more savvy search users.

William Donovan



On 11 May 2010 01:39, Michelle McDevitt <mcdevitt@alum.bentley.edu> wrote:

I am one who always questions the necessity of duplication.  If this is a transitional design state - which none of this thread seems to verify - Will the final design enable the user to drag and drop the menu to their preference, left, right, top, bottom? 

Could the location of where the menu was dragged to be be saved by the browser -- or would the google user have to be logged in?

I would rather see a drag and drop menu than duplication. 

As far as hover over menus-- are screen readers successful on Google?  Many dynamic menus are inaccessible with screen readers or keyboard technology.  I just hope Google made them accessible by all.

 

(((Ple
11 May 2010 - 9:40am
Dave Epstein
2006

While the new design is harder to quickly scan, I don't think that is too much of a concern to Google. I assume the extra processing burden required of the user is really not a big deal.

This is Google trying to 'pimp' out their other services like image search and video. Sure, the SERP page had all that stuff within it, but it was a little further down in the page and most people just clicked on one of the first 3 results anyway so they missed it. By giving additional prominence to video search results, etc they are marketing that these services exist.

Personally, my beef with the page is that the center column seems a little floaty and the icons seem kinda amateurish. Plus, with cameraphones becoming the most common/carried picture taking device I wonder how much longer the camera icon as they show it will seem relevant. Or maybe it will transcend the physical camera form.

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:17 AM, willdonovan wrote: > Also from memory (meaning: I had to gather evidence to support ) the design > philosophy of utilising a left hand navigationinterrupts the users flow of > scanning through the core content object that they are looking for. > We played with many concepts in the past to try and support a left hand > navigation / options / filter list.Does this new google design put them a > step backwards from the users productivity and disrupt purpose to find their > search result? > Does this then break Google own desire to make software more productive?I > have heard that their reason for upgrading the filter / options list was to > accommodate the needs of more savvy search users. > William Donovan > > On 11 May 2010 01:39, Michelle McDevitt > wrote: >> >> I am one who always questions the necessity of duplication.  If this is a >> transitional design state - which none of this thread seems to verify - Will >> the final design enable the user to drag and drop the menu to their >> preference, left, right, top, bottom? >> Could the location of where the menu was dragged to be be saved by the >> browser -- or would the google user have to be logged in? >> >> I would rather see a drag and drop menu than duplication. >> >> As far as hover over menus-- are screen readers successful on Google? >> Many dynamic menus are inaccessible with screen readers or keyboard >> technology.  I just hope Google made them accessible by all. >> >> >> >> (((Ple >> > ((

Syndicate content Get the feed