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

251–260 of 447 posts

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#251

Post by tedunangst »

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…

Sticking the UI over top of the map really is silly. The 10 pixels of map I can still see between the search box and the border of the screen are completely useless, but make the page considerably noisier (more edges/transitions).

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#252

Post by nostrademons »

pasbesoin wrote: post #248
nostrademons wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason they did that was so that they could build up data on the effect of each factor independently. That way, when the bigwigs get into a meeting and discuss alternative designs, they can predict "Ok, this will have $X effect on revenue but will decrease search latency by Y ms, which itself will have +$X effect on revenue." I was the first engineer on the first visual redesign that tried to change everything ab…

Can you offer any perspective on the whole sometimes-named "mystery meat" UI that's been rolled particularly but not only into mobile design over the past half decade? Further, more and more of this seems to have been "backported" into traditional desktop presentation design. While I will experiment around until I more or less "get it" (although I may miss finding some useful features for months), it particularly fru…

I'm curious what you mean by "mystery meat"? I assume it's the use of icons and drawers to trigger functionality rather than labels and links?

That's driven by screen size - there's simply not enough screen real estate on a phone to label every button with words. It does have a legit discoverability problem, which most folks in UX acknowledge but don't know how to fix, given other constraints of the media. I've seen a bunch of mobile apps with help overlays or tour videos the first time you run them, which can help a lot. It gets back-ported to desktop apps because once people do learn the functionality, it leads to a cleaner, less cluttered UI.

I'll also point out that early PCs had the same problem. A typical PC from the early 1980s had 320x200 resolution, a little less than a smartwatch does today. For most of the 80s and early 90s, the standard was VGA (640x480), slightly smaller than most smartphones today. Icons were really common back then as well, they weren't all that discoverable, but at least people read manuals occasionally. Most folks don't bother now. Menus were another response to that problem, but they don't really work on mobile because the tap target is too small to efficiently hit it (the navigation drawer & hamburger menu is the modern-day equivalent of the menu).

The web - with its inherent discoverability and all of its space for explanatory text - didn't really become popular until 1280x1024 displays became widespread. I remember designing webapps for 800x600 screens; it was painful, and they had discoverability problems too.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#255

Post by bostonpete »

Ciantic wrote: post #112
davidw wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new favicon is way better IMO. On the other hand, the main logo... I think this sums it up: "seem as much like a preschool as humanly possible". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10153449 I'm just not a fan of extremely flat designs.

New favicon? https://www.google.com/favicon.ico - is still the old one.

Looks like Google's search pages pull the favicon from here: https://www.google.com/images/branding/product/ico/googleg_l...

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#257

Post by DanBC »

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).

(The app, on iOS)

I have no idea how to switch between satellite and map view. I have no idea where to look for that option - or if that option exists. There's a burger menu, so I tap that. There's a list of options. Satellite is in that list, and is highlighted. The option I want, and I don't know what it's called, doesn't appear to be in that list of menu items. I tap the map to collapse the burger menu. I hold the screen then release. A pin is dropped. I don't think I want a pin, but I have no idea how I dismiss the pin. When the pin is placed a small thing pops up at the bottom of the window. None of that looks relevant. I, completely accidentally, pull it, and a bit more appears. None of that is relevant either (but now I've accidentally discovered how to get street view). I pull it again because something happened the first time and yet more stuff appears, but nothing relevant. I realise that it can't be this hard, so I go back to the burger menu and unintuitively click "satellite". I don't want satellite, and this menu item is already highlighted, and it never occurs to me that someone would put a toggleable item in a list of menu entries without any indication that it's a toggle. But bamn there it is.

So, how would I change Maps? Just put a few more affordances in there. Maybe watch how people unfamiliar with the app try to do stuff.

There are lots of things I like about maps. There's some churn in businesses on my street and maps always seems happy to change info.

In the past there was a ton of research into user interaction with UI. Obviously loads of that fails on mobile, but Google is a smart data driven company that could create a new body of work for mobile.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#258

Post by bhandziuk »

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).

No more attempting to make things 3D when you zoom in. Way way too slow.

Scroll wheel should zoom in instantly (go to maps.bing.com for how to do this a little better, though to be fair to everyone Bing did take a step towards Google in the last ~month with their maps update and it is much slower. It used to be open as soon as you hit enter in the address bar)

Generally the maps could label streets more frequently. Far too often I'm confused about what street I'm looking at because the label is somewhere off screen.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#259

Post by fixermark »

raldi wrote: post #193
blt wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually Helvetica is an evolution of the 1896 typeface Akzidenz-Grotesk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akzidenz-Grotesk

But it wasn't designed by an evolutionary algorithm; it was designed by a genius typographer who trusted his own sense of taste.

I'm not sure where you think taste comes from besides evolution of ideas and data analysis done by black-box functions inside people's heads.

Formalizing that process and using externally-collected data is just de-black-boxing something that happens in a black-box form in the professional's mind.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#260

Post by bhandziuk »

digikata wrote: post #246
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 hate the dynamic dialog underneath the map search box that automatically shrinks and expands in and out with various location information on it. It seems to always close when I want to look at it, and expand to cover the area of interest when I don't care about the info. A user has to spend some time trying to figure out the rules when the dialog expands or contracts or fight the logic... I would much rather prefer…

This is a huge pet peeve. Things growing and shrinking as you click on them. The link is in one place when my brain tells my finger to click but by the time the mouse button is depressed the link has moved somewhere else.

I guess it's just the sacrifice we make for a cool looking web page.

Post reply on HN