I'm not entirely sure what Google+ is anymore. Who is the target audience?
Googlers!
Googlers and Linux users!
Quite a few photographers there as well, though I haven't looked for a year or two...
Introducing the new Google+
111–120 of 300 posts
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#112Seems 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.
A "don't be evil kind of Facebook" could've been appealing. Unfortunately they're decidedly not that, with their real name policy, forced integration with other services, public profiles, etc.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#113Google 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…
I actually gave up using Google search on mobile a few weeks ago because of basically this. The information density had got to the point where it was basically useless - and this was search, their main product! (On the positive side, all the extra whitespace pushed the non-sponsored links way off the bottom of the screen. That must be profitable for them.)
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#114Collections is kind of like Pinterest. Communities is kind of like Reddit. Plus was kind of like Facebook. Buzz was kind of like Twitter. They really need to stop imitating and start innovating. At this point I don't even think they know who they're targeting they're just trying to do a little bit of everything but they don't do it well enough for me to want to use it.
There were many well established search engines readily available when they launched search to.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#115Google 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…
If you become a power user of any Google product you are on deep water and are setting yourself up to be disappointed when they pull the rug under your feet retiring features or even products that you have learned to depend on.
Never depend on a Google product or feature unless you are in the 80% regular user category.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#116Collections is kind of like Pinterest. Communities is kind of like Reddit. Plus was kind of like Facebook. Buzz was kind of like Twitter. They really need to stop imitating and start innovating. At this point I don't even think they know who they're targeting they're just trying to do a little bit of everything but they don't do it well enough for me to want to use it.
Pinterest is kind of like delicious, reddit is kind of like forums, facebook is kind of like myspace, twitter is kind of like irc. There's nothing new. Iteration on a good idea is not a bad thing.
The thing is, everything Google is doing is a lesser form of what it's copying so it's not an iteration. That and they're not just copying one thing they're trying to do everything. Why? All of your examples sought to improve upon one thing, do it well, and do it with focus.
My main point is that Google's social products are all over the place. They're firing on all cylinders but not aiming at anything.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#117Google 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…
Just because you can fit more information into a space, doesn't mean you should. At a certain point it hurts user experience. http://www.bulkrenameutility.co.uk/Shots/BRU_Main_Screen.gif UI design is largely about directing flow. Scrolling down is certainly not the end of the world, and hiding less-commonly used features helps make those which are used stand out.
Yes that interface is bad. I think Reddit is a good example of an interface with high density that works. A page is simply a list of 25 links, while in your example there is the complexity of different kinds of elements and their relationships.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just a Google thing. Recently there was a HN thread on devmag.io -- they have the same problem. I measured it: in the same space HN gives me 18 stories, Devmag.io gives me barely 2. Unfortunately, I think Google people know and they just don't care. They don't want people who know what RSS is, people who care about information density; they are going after the Pinterest crowd, the sort of people who read Cos…
The new reddit mobile page has the same problem. On the old http://i.reddit.com I usually get 1-3 more links per page than on the new http://m.reddit.com Who actually thinks that all that padding and those stupid navbars are a good idea? On mobile my screen estate is very valuable and I don't want to waste it on unnecessary things.
Yeah but the action of maneuvering through the content is fleeting. Rather than squinting and parsing a whole bunch of stuff - you're just filtering as you move down the page. I do the same exact thing on HN. It's just that I can be lazy with the affordance of a large screen.
Also, reddit is different as a consumption medium, rather than news aggregator. With reddit, you consume. With HN, you peruse.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#119Google 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…
It's funny because literally five minutes ago I was talking with our designer about how we need to take a cue from Reddit and put more information in less space.
Re: Introducing the new Google+
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pinterest crowd, the sort of people who read Cosmopolitan, watch reality shows That crowd is way bigger than the crowd that hangs out at places like HN. So it would make sense for G+ to go after them, no? This is a numbers game.
That crowd is already camping out on Facebook, while G+ was being adopted by more techy people. Companies running for the same average Joe and forgetting about other groups of people leads to quick deaths of services.
I've always thought Google should buy Github and make that the basis for a new G+. It's too late now but a few years ago who knows.