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

271–280 of 447 posts

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#271

Post by mattmanser »

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.

Ugh, you definitely do not use more multiple google services if you think that.

Even today, years afterwards, I was on the phone checking my calendar and I totally lost the train of the conversation as I was hunting in that dumbass thing for the calendar.

The worst part is that, yes, the top was getting stuffed, but instead of letting you choose what you wanted in your menu, they added that navigation monstrosity instead.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#272

Post by triangleman »

hodwik wrote: post #71
roymurdock wrote: post #10

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?

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…

Do you have an email where I could forward you a resume for a designer?

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#273

Post by inopinatus »

bradleyjg wrote: post #108
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 don't like it. It seems more juvenile in the same way comic sans gets criticized for. The loss of character on the lower case g is especially unfortunate. Non est disputandum I guess.

It is because the terminal cut of the g attempts to geometrically bisect the bar of the e, whilst simultaneously trying to resemble a smile. Those are irreconcilable design objectives. The capital G is still wasting vast quantities of space. I agree, overall, this new typography has a kindergarten aesthetic. It's not for me, certainly.

However I think the colour blocking and letter shaping on the new favicon is superb.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#274

Post by tempestn »

dkrich wrote: post #244
d23 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A tweaked logo won't affect Google's outcome one iota. Ah, but it will. When you're a company like Google, with hundreds of millions of users a day, it's only a matter of time that something like an outdated logo will start to lose you customers. People make sub-conscious inferences about your product based on appearance. If you start looking like that thing everyone used to use, they'll start looking for alternati…

Is that your gut instinct or is there research to suggest that that's the case? My personal process for using Google (not saying everyone is the same, but...) goes something like this: 1. Type "g" into the address bar 2. Press enter, because www.google.com auto-populates at that point 3. Start typing my query while the animation of the day is loading 4. Press enter 5. Review the results

Why not just run the search straight from your browser's address bar or search field?

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#275

Post by tempestn »

miah_ wrote: post #161

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?

As you point out yourself, the Google logo exists in many places besides their homepage. (Plus many people still visit the homepage, even if you and I don't.)

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#276

Post by ryandrake »

fixermark wrote: post #259
raldi wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, making decisions based on wishy-washy difficult-to-quantify human traits like "genius" and "sense of taste" seems unnecessarily risky, compared to making them based on measurements from repeatable tests.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#277

Post by WWKong »

evolve2k wrote: post #268

> "Google has changed a lot over the past 17 years—from the range of our products to the evolution of their look and feel. And today we’re changing things up once again" My first thought, wait who's talking to me here?

"evolution of [product's] look and feel"

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#278

Post by jraedisch »

mh-cx wrote: post #263

I'm using an original Google Nexus 7 (2012 with latest Android) and try to view this page using an original Google browser (Chrome) and this is one of the few pages that make chrome crash. Same on my motorola razr i. I love it when pages that talk about “cross platform“ behave this way.

Same on Vanilla Android/Chrome on Motorola G2.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#279

Post by lancewiggs »

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).

Stop pretending you don't know where I am when I'm not logged in. I'm not going to log-in as I don't trust you, but I know you know who I am anyway.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#280

Post by v0x »

mozumder wrote: post #245
branchless wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> This is a false comparison. Logos for clothes sit on the clothes which are themselves judged entirely on their appearance. Some do. The vast majority of designer clothes don't. People buy the brand, not the product. > Google's search engine has a separate function that stands on it's own two feet irrespective of a change to an 'e'. People bought into the Google brand identity. They were the first to eliminate all t…

>It is your brand that sells your product.

This is backwards - the product sells the brand. Brands do not just come out of nowhere; people have to like the product first before they can establish loyalty.

Post reply on HN