Google has trouble understanding that it was a Black Swan. That its initial success may not be replicable.
Introducing the new Google+
81–90 of 300 posts
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#82Google seem to keep making worse the thing that matters most to me. What I want is to conveniently read. I want to see content, from a variety of sources. I want density. I want to catch up and be aware. It was like that in the earlier days. Every update kept reducing the amount of visible content, and severe reductions in density. Here is a screenshot of my screen - http://i.imgur.com/fM2WIVf.png (1920x1200) - almos…
Since the web has gone into distributed application / magazine, density has dropped. http://imgur.com/MRnd81J http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://justinjackson.ca/words.html TBC
>http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
>You dumbass. You thought you needed media queries to be responsive, but no. Responsive means that it responds to whatever motherfucking screensize it's viewed on. This site doesn't care if you're on an iMac or a motherfucking Tamagotchi.
Except that it's really hard to read on a wide screen. I get it - it's a satire - but it goes too far and fails to make a convincing point because it's not really a functional layout.
There are good reasons for things in design like column/page width/ratios, margins, line spacing, font family/size etc. purely from usability standpoint (ignoring subjective/stylistic choices). You don't need to add 10MB of images and JS/CSS but making sure your sentence doesn't span over 20 something inches isn't over designing things.
Third link is much better.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#83Seems like it's still drastically missing the mark on having a reason for being. Why would I use this? What would I put on there? Why there and not elsewhere?
Exactly. To most users, "we aren't facebook" is not an effective sales pitch.
As far as a comparison goes: both UI's leave me disappointed, but everyone i know is on facebook. I can think of 1 person who uses G+ with any regularity. By that measure, G+ loses every time.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was with you until you dissed Pinterest. Pinterest is very information dense. It utilizes every inch of screen space, and it does so without looking cramped at all. It's a huge design success.
It seems very image-oriented though. I wouldn't try to read news on it.
Well, but it's not for news — it's not supposed to be, and that's OK. I don't use pinterest much, except for creative pursuits. For example, browsing for inspiration for calligraphic scripts is a lot of fun on Pinterest:
https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=textura+quadrata https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=cadel+flourish https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=caligrafitti
I treat it as a source of inspiration, not information.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#85Time to short Google. It's clear they are out of ideas and their core business is under siege by ad blockers.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#86Charise Strandberg via Google+ Daniel Brinneman shared this via Google+ Antonio Valdés via Google+ I see Google+'s commenting is still drowned out by sharing notifications. Google, there's a reason everyone turned off trackbacks ten years ago. It's just noise for anyone reading that page to filter out.
It always surprises me that Google's world-class UX and Product teams would allow such a huge expectation vs reality misalignment. So many Youtube videos, so many blogger posts have this issue
Well, then it isn't world-class then.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to opt-in to the new interface.
Yeah, but I don't get any prompt to do so, and can't even find any mention of it. Maybe they're doing one of those Google "roll this out to different users at different times" things. shrug
Same here, even after logging out and back in, no opt-in for the "new" UI yet.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems very image-oriented though. I wouldn't try to read news on it.
"A picture is worth a thousand words"
Depends on the words, the picture and the audience. I wouldn't attempt to understand your API's system contract via a picture of the computer.
One of the concerns I have is that we may end up moving to a very image-oriented media that finds it difficult to meaningfully communicate certain thoughts - and perhaps encourages an audience largely unable and/or unwilling to meaningfully attempt to understand them.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet they already have just what you want, why are they wasting time re-inventing it! http://reddit.com/.compact
Http://i.reddit.com is the same as adding ".compact" to a link. I also don't understand the redesign. The old version is way better then the new version, but I guess it just does not look flat and material enough.
As a major point in their favour, at least they kept the old version. They could have just redesigned the webpage and put it on i.reddit.com. Instead I can keep using the same good old layout while those who want can use the new m.reddit.com.
That's more than I can say for many, many other things, where whether I like it or not I'm forced to have the latest design fad (flat, pastel colours, long and inefficient animations and huge, unnecessary padding nowadays) shoved down my throat.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#90Their layout of content still nixes it for me. I don't know where this idea of multiple columns of content without any horizontal sync with each other originated, but it does not work for me, not on any site. I read from left-to-right, top-to-bottom. I know other languages differ. But despite the age-old advice that people on the web do not read, they skim, this trend is too much of a disconnect for how I want to see…
It seems more reminiscent of a market or a bazaar - they seem to be aiming for people who don't need to look over every stall in detail, but for the people who let their gaze wander until something catches their eye. Which is fine, but I'm not that person, and that's not something I have a use for.
Totally agree with this analogy.
I would be surprised if one of the primary drivers of high CTR isn't the image, just like it is with other similar experiences.