Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Google+ is beautiful?

alexdong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: New Google+ is beautiful?

#71

Post by transient »

thebear wrote: post #58
archgoon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would normally let this go, but I really dislike the holier than thou attitude with your "bastardization of language". Computer Science and mathematics would be much poorer if it didn't allow for people to generalize concepts. So let's get started. 1) Streams branch and merge all the time. http://www.mightystreamradio.com/PHOTOS/STREAM%20PHOTO%202.j... If anyone's bastardizing the language, it's computer scientists…

You live and learn. I always thought "Let's don't" was a joke, something you say facetiously to indicate that you do care about grammar. It turns out that "Let's don't" has arrived in that grey area between grammatically right and wrong where many consider it just non-standard, but not wrong: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let%27s What I find really interesting is that in British English, it's "Don't let's." How does…

"Don't let's" is grammatical - "do not let us" is the opposite of "let us". A bit old-fashioned, though.

Re: New Google+ is beautiful?

#72

Post by thebear »

transient wrote: post #71
thebear wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You live and learn. I always thought "Let's don't" was a joke, something you say facetiously to indicate that you do care about grammar. It turns out that "Let's don't" has arrived in that grey area between grammatically right and wrong where many consider it just non-standard, but not wrong: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let%27s What I find really interesting is that in British English, it's "Don't let's." How does…

"Don't let's" is grammatical - "do not let us" is the opposite of "let us". A bit old-fashioned, though.

Ah, of course, I should have seen that. Now it all makes sense. Thanks for explaining!

Re: New Google+ is beautiful?

#76

Post by ralph »

thebear wrote: post #32
k-mcgrady wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can switchback to one column in the 'more' menu. >> "How do you read this, particularly in three-column mode, and be reasonably sure not to miss a post?" I think that might be your problem. Maybe Google doesn't think many people want to see every post in their stream. Personally I just skim through it and see what catches my eye. I much prefer this design (2 column, my 15" monitor apparently isn't large enough fo…

Given the fact that I can switch to one-column layout, I should probably shut up now. But just for the sake of a lively debate, let me say this: if I can't read the thing, I can't skim it either. I just don't know how to move my eyes around. Instead of skimming for the posts that I find important, I would end up making a random choice between things I see and things I overlook. But then perhaps that's fully intended…

I agree with your general point. Are you aware that j and k work in multi-column format too, though k seems to not move enough to make the top of the post visible from under the fixed horizontal bar.

Re: New Google+ is beautiful?

#77

Post by Samuel_Michon »

capex wrote: post #61

If one of the smaller guys had created this UI and had built H+ for example, they'd have been showered with praise. We've come to expect some kind of magic from Google. UI/ UX always has some trade offs, and I think the decisions taken are wise. I love the auto-hiding sidebar, and the plethora of options to respond add to the responsiveness of the app. They've rethought hashtags too. Quite a nice experience in my opi…

Funny, I think it’s the opposite. When Google designs something, it’s lauded as good because they have the funds and the talent, so they must be right. Startups doing a ‘Show HN’ on the other hand get real, brutally honest critiques.

In a ‘Show HN’, G+ would receive criticism that gray text on a light gray background is a bad idea, that the font-weight is too light, and that there’s too little contrast between the various sections on the page. As someone with bad eyesight, G+ is unusable to me (without loading other CSS).

Re: New Google+ is beautiful?

#78

Post by Samuel_Michon »

omaranto wrote: post #54
thebear wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I admit that I am hypersensitive to any form of bastardization of language. So please don't hate me for I'm going to say, I'm just a victim of my hypersensitivities. But: the word "stream" in the English language means "a steady flow or succession." Or, if you prefer the CS definition, it means "a sequence of data elements made available over time." When I'm looking at a set of boxes of different heights a…

In a real stream fish aren't forced to swim single file.

But it’s a stream of water, not a stream of fish. Fish swim in schools. I guess the G+ ‘stream’ could be renamed to ‘school’, but that’d be confusing.

Re: New Google+ is beautiful?

#79

Post by moystard »

My main concern regarding the new Google+ is how slow and resource consuming it is. Using Firefox 21 on OSX, scrolling is just a continuous pain, and my browser hangs up quite often with the Rainbow Wheel of Death. Switching to the single column layout gets things better, but still, far from being a slick experience.

Regarding the design, they gave the ability to switch back to a single column layout. Still people complain about the new design, just switch back if you don't like it.

Re: New Google+ is beautiful?

#80

Post by coldpie »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #29
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine is. They do reset the sort order back to "top stories" once in awhile which is annoying but I always just set it back to sort by date

Yes but the majority or people just use the top stories sort and are happy with it. I think people who want everything in chronological order are the type of people who don't want to miss a post - even though most posts on Facebook/Google + aren't important enough to matter if you miss them.

This behavior baffles me. It happens often that someone will share a G+ post directly with me, so I'll receive an email and G+ notification thinger in the upper-right of Google pages. Then I'll visit and the post is nowhere to be found.
Post reply on HN