141–150 of 166 posts
Current Firefox Nightly uses Google for search when something is typed in the location bar even when a) DuckDuckGo is the default search engine, b) Google is removed from the search engines list completely. Go figure... I've lost all respect for both Mozilla and Google recently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just visited duckduckgo.com again (though full of hesitation) and as a designer I can tell you: 1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses (For Eg. Google, Bing have a very simple design). They don't design Search engines to be simple because they like it that way, because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work b…
> 1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses Enough people have already said it. I feel like a broken record but what's very complex about a text box and a logo? > because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work best. Interesting. Do you have any citations to back it up? I haven't heard of Google researching what co…
What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details. I presume you are not a designer, nor do you have a knack for details (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!) but for the sake of others, I've compiled a list of comparisons:
1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex. Gradients in general are used to add complexity. However, not in every case - For example, Apple's website uses a lot of Gradients too, but it is one of the most clearest and simplest sites you will ever find. Google also uses gradients, but it is very subtle and you don't even notice it most of the times.
DDG also uses a lot of prominent borders on the gradients, Google and Apple uses them to, but it's very very subtle. This is another factor that makes their design look 'complex'.
2) Padding is another element - DDG uses too much padding for most of its elements, whereas Bing/Google uses a lot less padding.
3) If you notice, Google uses red only for certain important elements like the Plus one button, Compose button in Gmail and so on. DDG uses a whole menu-bar as a red block. This is a general rule of thumb that I didn't come up with certainly, but is what most top-notch companies follow. It make sense because the signal lights are in Red for the same reason, because they denote something important. Contrast this with the entire signal metal frame painted in red, that would be a bad idea. Not that you can't live with it, just that it's a bad UX.
>I haven't heard of Google researching what colors work best for a search interface
You haven't heard of a lot of things, that doesn't mean those things aren't valid.
> As long as you have sufficient contrast, that is enough to attract attention to important elements.
I for one aren't listening to your advice on design after you described DDG's design as just a text-box and a logo.
>As far as the end user is concerned, it's not possible to tell which one is algorithmically superior.
Did you read the entire entire comment? I've noticed your previous comments as well, you just like to half-ass read stuff and jump in straight away. Read what's written in the braces, I clearly say that's how I perceive about the algorithm as an end-user.
>The thing about design advice is everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs
Like you half-ass read the other things, you half-ass know about me too. Please read my other comments, I am not a follower nor a fan of Steve Jobs. Nor am I trying to be like him. I'm just a designer with experience and I'm critiquing a design that has a certain level of flaws. You are free to critique my criticism, provided:
1) You have enough knowledge about the subject - (N/A) 2) You don't attack on me personally - (Which you do)
You know what's so ironic here? I am not the one with an 'i' in front of my name. Now..please don't ask me what's ironic here again...
>What's the irony here?
You're proving it time and again. Please don't comment next time without reading what the other person has said fully.
References: http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is your comment the #1 comment? I mean, I count 3, count them, 3 unsubstantiated claims: 1. Does anyone care about DDG anyway? I think it's safe to say, yes, there are some who do. I for one. 2. The problem DDG is solving is imaginary. Oh really? What precisely is that problem? Is it search itself that you're referring to, or the prospect of going up against Google? If the former, then you are delusional, and if…
The privacy problem is imaginary because (a) only a puny fraction of users care, and (b) thanks to the "patriot" act, our ISPs are storing our search history anyway. I have worked on search (see my background), and doing search well is massively difficult. The problem has deep necessary complexity, and Google has invested thousands of PhD years against that already. If Google were incompetent, maybe I could see it. B…
I think you're thinking of PCIPA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Children_from_Intern... ), which would do that, but is still a long way from becoming law. I am fairly sure that the USA PATRIOT Act does not contain any such provision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just visited duckduckgo.com again (though full of hesitation) and as a designer I can tell you: 1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses (For Eg. Google, Bing have a very simple design). They don't design Search engines to be simple because they like it that way, because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work b…
I'm confused about your "design is very complex" bit. I just used their search engine and their design couldn't be more straight forward. In fact I prefer it to Bing's look in particular. Less clutter.
Thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The privacy problem is imaginary because (a) only a puny fraction of users care, and (b) thanks to the "patriot" act, our ISPs are storing our search history anyway. I have worked on search (see my background), and doing search well is massively difficult. The problem has deep necessary complexity, and Google has invested thousands of PhD years against that already. If Google were incompetent, maybe I could see it. B…
>thanks to the "patriot" act, our ISPs are storing our search history anyway. I think you're thinking of PCIPA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Children_from_Intern... ), which would do that, but is still a long way from becoming law. I am fairly sure that the USA PATRIOT Act does not contain any such provision.
"At the very least, this change means that the government can use a pen-trap to see the email addresses of people youre sending email to and the addresses of people who send email to you, along with the timestamp and size in bytes of each email. The FBI can monitor the IP addresses of all the computers you interact with over the Internet, or capture the IP addresses of every person visiting a particular website. Under the vaguely written statute, it may even be able to capture the URL of every web page that you read, although the FBI refuses to confirm or deny whether it has done so."
Sure, I should have inserted the word [can], but it hardly changes the point. Given the direction laws have taken since 9/11, you would be foolish to rely on your search activity remaining anonymous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>thanks to the "patriot" act, our ISPs are storing our search history anyway. I think you're thinking of PCIPA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Children_from_Intern... ), which would do that, but is still a long way from becoming law. I am fairly sure that the USA PATRIOT Act does not contain any such provision.
From the EFF, regarding the "Patriot" act: "At the very least, this change means that the government can use a pen-trap to see the email addresses of people youre sending email to and the addresses of people who send email to you, along with the timestamp and size in bytes of each email. The FBI can monitor the IP addresses of all the computers you interact with over the Internet, or capture the IP addresses of every…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Microsoft by itself is not a "consumer" brand. Bing is, XBox is, Windows is, Live is, Office is, Microsoft is only the name of the corporation behind those products and people don't use it in daily conversations. "Hey Dad, I want a Microsoft XBox so I can play games with my friends on Microsoft Online Services" -- said no kids ever Y-Combinator/HackerNews is even less a consumer brand. Of course, that's only a pr…
So are you seriously saying brands which can be abbreviated aren't adapted as well by consumers as brands which can't be? And do you have anything other than "I said so" to back it up?
You don't hear much about International Business Machines, but you do hear a bit about IBM, because IBM built it's brand around the abbreviated form which is easier to remember. Likewise, HP is now the word du jour to refer to Hewlett-Packard.
Abbreviated forms are fine, and have actually been used to bolster (or change) a company's image. Outside of tech circles if I say MS I'll most likely get awkward glances, but the moment I switch to saying Microsoft I'll get immediate brand name recognition. Likewise, you don't hear many people talking about P or C&C, but drop the name Pepsi or Coca-Cola and you'll also get instant brand name recognition.
So the question becomes is DuckDuckGo really an easily recognizable, easy to memorize, that generates imagery associated with the given product/service? Is it really that appealing?
Surely, it's memorable due to it being so weird, but is it memorable in a way that I'll link up with search? I dunno, but there's some validity to what's been said so far about the name being a bit too long or awkward for the company's sake.
1. http://isbm.smeal.psu.edu/library/working-paper-articles/199... p.11 "Accordingly, the criteria rated most important were relevance to product category (5.99), connotations and images generated (5 X3), and overall appeal (5.79). They did not lose sight of the fact that names should be memorable. Ease of recognition (5.77) and ease of recall (5.42) also were rated highly."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses Enough people have already said it. I feel like a broken record but what's very complex about a text box and a logo? > because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work best. Interesting. Do you have any citations to back it up? I haven't heard of Google researching what co…
>What's very complex about a text box and a logo? What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details. I presume you are not a designer, nor do you have a knack for details (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!) but for the sake of others, I've compiled a list of comparisons: 1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex. Gradients in general are used to add…
And since it appears as a text box and a logo, doesn't it make the point about having a lot of details moot? It's slightly different than google or bing, but vastly similar. Let's not make shit up here.
> (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!)
Take a breath. Web development isn't the same as web design. It's kinda sad that I have to point it out.
> 1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex
Instead of making shit up, you could have just said it's using a lot more gradients.
> This is another factor that makes their design look 'complex'.
To you. I missed the meeting where you were appointed the authority on design. Since you are all pumped up about how you get design, I will be interested to know what have you built.
> It make sense because the signal lights are in Red for the same reason, because they denote something important.
For the nth time, stop making shit up. Red is used because it scatters less(higher wavelength) and can be seen more clearly from a distance.
> You haven't heard of a lot of things, that doesn't mean those things aren't valid.
I checked that before commenting. Your user survey about usability doesn't say google researches whether padding is beneficial for search.
> I for one aren't listening to your advice on design after you described DDG's design as just a text-box and a logo.
So what exactly are you not listening to? That contrast attracts attraction? Wow.
> Did you read the entire entire comment? Read what's written in the braces, I clearly say that's how I perceive about the algorithm as an end-user.
May be I should have been clear. I am saying your perceptions are made-up.
> I've noticed your previous comments as well, you just like to half-ass read stuff and jump in straight away.
What comments would that be? I can't say the same about reading yours. The cover is enough to drive me away from the book.
> Like you half-ass read the other things, you half-ass know about me too.
I don't know about you and I am not commenting about you. I am commenting about the behavior where everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs. That's what you are demonstrating by assuming you know everything about design and other people don't. Since you are so cocksure, I am asking again. Have you ever built something, or do you just comment on internet forums?
> You know what's so ironic here? I am not the one with an 'i' in front of my name.
Please tell me this is a fucking joke. Do I have to discuss my handle now?
> Now..please don't ask me what's ironic here again..
I won't. You clearly don't understand what irony means. BTW, is it too much to ask to actually know what irony means before throwing it around every other sentence?
> References: http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html
Google is doing usability study is not the same as google has researched what padding to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What's very complex about a text box and a logo? What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details. I presume you are not a designer, nor do you have a knack for details (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!) but for the sake of others, I've compiled a list of comparisons: 1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex. Gradients in general are used to add…
> What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details. And since it appears as a text box and a logo, doesn't it make the point about having a lot of details moot? It's slightly different than google or bing, but vastly similar. Let's not make shit up here. > (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!) Take a breath. Web development isn't the same as web design. It's kinda sad that I hav…
The one you claim to do on your homepage talks about involving design, which is why I referenced it. And which you absolutely have no idea about.
>Instead of making shit up, you could have just said it's using a lot more gradients.
It's more than just using just gradients (which is just one thing), which was my point. See, you're just proving it time and again.
>I will be interested to know what have you built.
I am not obliged to let you know that. But surely it isn't as shitty as this:
http://i46.tinypic.com/21vfc.jpg
For the rest of the world to see, that's what iRahul has built so far and he's here to critique a designer. And now you know why the search boxes appear the same to him, and probably everything else will, too.
>May be I should have been clear.
Yep, you never are. You like to make vague statements to attract controversy.
>Since you are so cocksure
Please keep your profanity to yourself. You just proved you are worth no one's time. Bye.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think their name is one of the strongest things going for them...and Google being more than a search engine to be the very reason Bing is gaining market share and brands like DDG actually have a shot at competing. Regarding the name...it is unique and very MEMORABLE (repetition is one of the four mental glues.) It has just as few syllables as Microsoft, and is super easy to pronounce... From a branding per…
I just visited duckduckgo.com again (though full of hesitation) and as a designer I can tell you: 1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses (For Eg. Google, Bing have a very simple design). They don't design Search engines to be simple because they like it that way, because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work b…
