181–190 of 447 posts
Who ever actually goes directly to google.com? The only way I noticed this insignificant change was in my interactions with the results page. Why does this non-news have 375 points?
Just when I thought we might be starting to pivot away from flat design - does anyone know of a different design paradigm that is being used by smaller/fringe designers who are tired of flat/minimal UX/UI?
Throwback 90's? I'm so glad we're mostly rid of useless ornamentation: endless bevels, drop-shadows, gradients, and skeuomorphism... There are many different takes on flat design, so it's not a design mono-culture. Google, Microsoft and Apple all have unique, flat, design languages.
2008 HN discussion from when the outgoing "little blue g" favicon was introduced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211518 In it, Dustin Curtis criticizes Google (rather rightly, in my hindsight-enhanced opinion) for a Marissa-Mayeresque design process of "Make 300 logo variants with pseudorandom permutations, and then pick your favorite." Looking at those permutations now ( http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/S…
I've never understood that criticism. Business decisions should be data driven. You test new signup flows to see which one onboards users better. You test advertising changes to see which one converts better. Why should a logo design or a title bar color be any different? Without testing each iteration, how do you know which one has the best effect on whatever success metrics you're using? I can understand if you're…
The trick is: there is no global "better" — only 'better', given a specific group of users.
Which users though? Running a million 40 year olds from Iowa through your website flow will generate a widely different result from running a million 13 year olds in Atlanta through the same process.
Google is still stuck in the "one design for everybody in the world" mindset, so they have to be appealing to everybody, which naturally makes them bland.
success metrics you're using
Success metrics! The paradox of these hyper-optimization methods is they largely apply in hyper-trivial situations. Once you are big enough, you just tell people how things will be. They don't get to have a say anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flat design is easy to accomplish for designers who never learned how to draw, or do computer modeling. Unfortunately, most design programs don't actually teach these foundational skills. That means there are a lot of designers out there who are forced to work in an oversimplified print-design style to hide their incompetence. As someone who hires for this stuff, finding skilled designers is unimaginably hard. I hear…
Months at a time? Try paying more.
It's not a pay issue as best as I can tell.
2008 HN discussion from when the outgoing "little blue g" favicon was introduced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211518 In it, Dustin Curtis criticizes Google (rather rightly, in my hindsight-enhanced opinion) for a Marissa-Mayeresque design process of "Make 300 logo variants with pseudorandom permutations, and then pick your favorite." Looking at those permutations now ( http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/S…
That's because they were designing a favicon, not doing a rebrand. Using a different font than your logo would make absolutely no sense.