Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s look, evolved

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 447 posts

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#231

Post by tammer »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #214
qq66 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What changes would you make to Google Maps, with a basic set of assumptions? (let's say, you can't dramatically increase the cost, you can't hurt Google revenue sources, and you have a team of ~20 engineers to work on the changes).

I'd change it back to the way it was prior to the redesigns. It used to work fine. The big problem with the current version is the almost complete absence of legible affordances. There are all kinds of buttons with logos on them that do stuff. But until you learn what they do, their functions are mysterious. Basic things like Traffic used to be obvious, one-click features. Now they're hidden in the burger menu, so at…

I second all of the above. For me, though, the major regression is the priorities of the search field. Prior to the redesign Maps seemed to know the exact location I needed regardless of the amount of detail I included in the query (i.e. tossing in the name of an intersection without street/ave/blvd info). Now, I seem to need to almost always include exact details (zip, precise USPS-blessed street address) for it to find what I'm looking for.

Not all the time, but enough of a difference that it feels seriously hindered post redesign.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#232

Post by branchless »

mozumder wrote: post #225
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what designers tell you anyway. Objective support for this hypothesis is thin on the ground. In reality logos are nowhere near the top of the list of factors that drive a buying decision. Whatever bounce effect businesses get from a new logo can usually be explained just as much by novelty as by implied psychological voodoo. Generally, I'm suspicious of management-by-logo. When I see logos being updated at vas…

> That's what designers tell you anyway. And everybody else in the world. > In reality logos are nowhere near the top of the list of factors that drive a buying decision. Great. Then replace the Chanel or Louis Vuitton logos with a bright primary colored Google logo, and see what their purse sales are like a year from now. I'm sure millionaire socialite women would love to have their bright red-blue-green-yellow logo…

This is a false comparison. Logos for clothes sit on the clothes which are themselves judged entirely on their appearance.

Google's search engine has a separate function that stands on it's own two feet irrespective of a change to an 'e'.

> If you don't have a good logo you don't have a good business

Come on my good man, get a grip!

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#233

Post by YoureWrong »

alooPotato wrote: post #227
bradleyjg wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nine dot menu instead of a small header row was a terrible change. First because it is an extra click every time for a commonly used task and second because no one had any clue what the hell nine dots were supposed to mean. A friend of mine that worked at google told me the official name is "app drawer". I have no idea how that's supposed to look like a drawer. More generally the entire move from words to pictogr…

Really? That seems smart to me. How often do you use the links in that drawer? Seems better to remove all that text up top and replace with a small icon for something that is rarely used.

Well, I for one used those links to navigate between Google properties: from Gmail to YouTube, for instance.

Now I just don't go to YouTube when something on Gmail piques my interest.

That one click was a huge amount of effort for casual browsing, and forces a re-evaluation of idle browsing between properties.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#234

Post by gnuarch »

mentos wrote: post #49
stormen wrote: post #6

I love it. Quite often logo redesign processes gets completely out of hand, but this was a significant improvement over the older version: Cleaner, more modern and beautiful in all its simplicity. Bravo!

I like the attention they brought to the angle/attitude of the 'e'. Never appreciated before how it has a friendlier feel.

The rotated 'e' reminds me of Pac-Man, eating everything in reach.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#235

Post by Nicholas_C »

qq66 wrote: post #206
DanBC wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google maps is incredibly frustrating to use. I can't understand what user testing they do.

What changes would you make to Google Maps, with a basic set of assumptions? (let's say, you can't dramatically increase the cost, you can't hurt Google revenue sources, and you have a team of ~20 engineers to work on the changes).

I've never, ever used Google maps on a computer and had it work well. It's always at least a little laggy/slow even on a 60Mbps connection on a nice laptop.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#236

Post by [deleted] »

hellbanner wrote: post #197

Google's userinterface, in gmail.com, at least, has gotten progressively worse, and worse, and worse, and worse since its inception in my experience and everyone I've asked about this. ... don't know what else to say. I question if their designers use their own products. Latest bugs worth mentioning: Chrome still has an issue that can cause microphone to not work in Hangouts. Gmail.com has added a "Your plug-in googl…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#237

Post by jonknee »

TylerE wrote: post #223
brainburn wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think above all they test on fast internet connections.

Honestly, I have an ~110Mb cable connection (From a fast CDN I can acheive downloads in excess of 13MB/sec) and new Google Maps is still a dumpster fire that is inferior to old Google Maps in every way I can imagine.

Ditto and I have a gigabit connection. Slooooow. I just profiled the maps start page and it transferred 2.5MB in 182 requests and took 2.56s to load. This compared to 544ms for the Google homepage. It's like their optimization team never got invited to Google Maps.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#239

Post by arikrak »

DanBC wrote: post #198
hellbanner wrote: post #197

Google's userinterface, in gmail.com, at least, has gotten progressively worse, and worse, and worse, and worse since its inception in my experience and everyone I've asked about this. ... don't know what else to say. I question if their designers use their own products. Latest bugs worth mentioning: Chrome still has an issue that can cause microphone to not work in Hangouts. Gmail.com has added a "Your plug-in googl…

Google maps is incredibly frustrating to use. I can't understand what user testing they do.

In their bid to keep things clean and automatic, they really made everything more confusing. I know people who have gotten lost because they didn't realize Google maps was hiding directions. They always try to do things instantly instead of letting the user press enter. (This is especially annoying on Google Express.) There's something to be said for the old web when you clicked and then got results...

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#240

Post by archycockroach »

capkutay wrote: post #238

Would any of the font-aficionados call this a slab-serif? There's a slight serif on the second g but other than that it looks kind of like comic sans.

I'd say it falls into "geometric sans-serif" because of its adherence to primitive shapes and near-lack of adornment.
Post reply on HN