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

361–370 of 447 posts

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#361

Post by beeboop »

alooPotato wrote: post #209
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…

I'm curious, do you have any specifical examples of things that got worse? I.e. density, new compose moles? Why are they worse for you specifically.

It requires three clicks to edit the subject line and I still sometimes click in the wrong place trying to find it and I've edited subjects dozens of times. It also requires it to open in a different editor. The default reply window is a tiny piece of shit by default. They added the stupid tabbed system that I turn off every time I have to make a new gmail account. It's not always clear whether I want Google or Gmail settings to change some preference, and the buttons for them are right next to eachother. Hangout chats blink until you click within that specific hangout box. I can't even find the option to link GMail accounts but I know I've done it before. If you hit reply and make no changes then close it, it saves it as a draft. Spam and Trash folders and all labels are hidden by default (have to expand). I could go on.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#362

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

This makes me sad, much like how Microsoft's logo change made me sad.

Microsoft's italic bold lettering was iconic. It was the logo the company had used for the longest time, the logo that adorned their best (and their worst) products. It was a logo that everyone had seen, everyone knew, that was incredibly recognisable.

And then they threw that all away, and created intentional brand confusion by swapping their logo for the Windows logo, then completely replacing Windows' logo with a grayscale tilted pane of glass.

Why? Why fix what's not broken? Why replace the well-known with the unrecognisable?

Google's logo, the one they used from 1999-2010, was also iconic. It was easily readable: it had a typeface made for legibility and style, not made to be mathematically simple. It contrasted well with any background. It was the logo that everyone knew.

And while this particular change isn't quite so drastic as Microsoft's was, it's still strange to me. Why is it necessary? People surely won't think less of Google for sticking with the one they've used for so long. It doesn't make them look dated: they had already tweaked the hues and the drop-shadow slightly so it fits in. And the company's not headed in some radical new direction that they need to symbolically gesture about.

I don't get it. I probably never will.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#363

Post by krick »

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.

To be fair, are there good web maps? OSM is much worse, for instance. Google maps are pretty usable by comparison.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#364

Post by foxylad »

mattmanser wrote: post #271
alooPotato wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ins…

For service I use frequently, I pin a tab so they are always open. So for me, the app drawer is rarely used.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#366

Post by krick »

I don't know why "news" like that are always considered so important. That logo is ugly, but so was the previous one. It doesn't seem like it terribly hurt their business. Not that I don't care about style — I admire good style. But it is secondary, at least for google. They do well with whatever logo there is.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#367

Post by jordanpg »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #362

This makes me sad, much like how Microsoft's logo change made me sad. Microsoft's italic bold lettering was iconic. It was the logo the company had used for the longest time, the logo that adorned their best (and their worst) products. It was a logo that everyone had seen, everyone knew, that was incredibly recognisable. And then they threw that all away, and created intentional brand confusion by swapping their logo…

I don't understand marketing either, but I doubt a company like Google makes a change like this until it's been focus-grouped and A/B tested ad nauseam.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#368

Post by mikeash »

raldi wrote: post #31
mahouse wrote: post #20

I'll be the first one to say it: I liked the older better. There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all.

We've been using the new logo internally for a week. Give it a day, and then go back and look at the old logo, and then tell me how dated it looks.

Actual honest question: what does it mean to "use a logo for a week"? I don't understand what I would do to "give it a day," unless you just mean wait and see how I feel tomorrow.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#369

Post by kunai »

jordanpg wrote: post #367
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #362

This makes me sad, much like how Microsoft's logo change made me sad. Microsoft's italic bold lettering was iconic. It was the logo the company had used for the longest time, the logo that adorned their best (and their worst) products. It was a logo that everyone had seen, everyone knew, that was incredibly recognisable. And then they threw that all away, and created intentional brand confusion by swapping their logo…

I don't understand marketing either, but I doubt a company like Google makes a change like this until it's been focus-grouped and A/B tested ad nauseam .

That's exactly the problem with these sort of changes. They lack heart. They're not made because of intuition or legitimate business value, they're made to generate publicity and done in the interests of a small subset of people who use the product (in this case, focus groups, etc.).

It's largely arbitrary what a company's logo looks like to me, but aesthetically this change seems largely unnecessary.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#370

Post by cknoxrun »

lancewiggs wrote: post #279
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).

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.

Yes! This is exactly how it used to work.
Post reply on HN