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

Google’s Search Results Ditch Underlined Links, Increase Font Size

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Google’s Search Results Ditch Underlined Links, Increase Font Size

#41

Post by huskyr »

existencebox wrote: post #9
smacktoward wrote: post #6

I know the graphic designers have long since won this battle, but I still feel like there's value in underlining links. Underlined links are discoverable -- it's obvious at a glance that they are links, rather than body text. Underlined links are noticeable -- they stand out from a sea of non-underlined text, drawing the eye to them. Underlined links are self-explanatory -- it's obvious what you're supposed to do wit…

I feel a similarity between this and infiniscroll, without trying to draw false parallels. Whenever each comes up, I find myself asking "but why do I even want this?". It feels like a bunch of people trying to iterate on techniques for the sake of iterating on techniques. I have some slight equivocation with myself over the above, after having written it; since it seems to lead the question "isn't almost everything j…

When we're complaining about UX changes in Google Search anyway: i really miss the old left-hand side menu with search filters, especially with image search. They've hidden it under 'search tools' where it takes more clicks and it's a lot less visible than the old way.

Re: Google’s Search Results Ditch Underlined Links, Increase Font Size

#42

Post by reubenmorais »

agumonkey wrote: post #25
smacktoward wrote: post #6

I know the graphic designers have long since won this battle, but I still feel like there's value in underlining links. Underlined links are discoverable -- it's obvious at a glance that they are links, rather than body text. Underlined links are noticeable -- they stand out from a sea of non-underlined text, drawing the eye to them. Underlined links are self-explanatory -- it's obvious what you're supposed to do wit…

First time I met this 'new' design, I thought it was a rendering bug[0]. Next time I understood it was testing, and I just thought 'why' ? Google seems desperate to find things to tweak while ignoring things that I find obvious: - right click event turns the url in a trackable monstrosity [1] - shortened url can't be copied [2] - no, sharing doesn't only mean 'publish on g+' - filters could be made faster [3] - g+ ha…

> - no, sharing doesn't only mean 'publish on g+'

I sympathize with the feeling, but do you really expect them to drive people to their competitors? Do you think Facebook's Share button should allow you to Publish on G+ as well?

Re: Google’s Search Results Ditch Underlined Links, Increase Font Size

#43

Post by trayfare »

geetee wrote: post #30
lnanek2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, honestly, at most places I work this would never fly because we support people with disabilities and that means having more than just color indicate something is a clickable link. There are even laws forcing this, ADA, for government and education. Personally, I think they should at least make the summary clickable if they are going to do this.

At risk of sounding heartless, catering to the lowest common denominator sucks. Like supporting IE6-level suckiness. There is more than enough information available in markup for accessibility software to override design choices.

You don't sound heartless, you just sound like a lazy whiner.

Re: Google’s Search Results Ditch Underlined Links, Increase Font Size

#44

Post by hnriot »

smacktoward wrote: post #6

I know the graphic designers have long since won this battle, but I still feel like there's value in underlining links. Underlined links are discoverable -- it's obvious at a glance that they are links, rather than body text. Underlined links are noticeable -- they stand out from a sea of non-underlined text, drawing the eye to them. Underlined links are self-explanatory -- it's obvious what you're supposed to do wit…

seriously??? My 12 year old daughter could spot a hyperlink from a hundred yards without the ugly underlining. She told me "it's obvious". Links are inferred by their placement, you click on google search results more than a couple of times and you learn. Humans figured out fire, the wheel, perspective and now space travel so I really don't think the lack of underline is really going to dent anyone's web experience. People keep saying the same old nonsense that underlining helps them discover etc, but come on... seriously, if you really believe that you're in the wrong place.

"Nobody cares about this argument anymore" - finally I agree with you.

Re: Google’s Search Results Ditch Underlined Links, Increase Font Size

#45

Post by cjensen »

lnanek2 wrote: post #17
smacktoward wrote: post #6

I know the graphic designers have long since won this battle, but I still feel like there's value in underlining links. Underlined links are discoverable -- it's obvious at a glance that they are links, rather than body text. Underlined links are noticeable -- they stand out from a sea of non-underlined text, drawing the eye to them. Underlined links are self-explanatory -- it's obvious what you're supposed to do wit…

Yeah, honestly, at most places I work this would never fly because we support people with disabilities and that means having more than just color indicate something is a clickable link. There are even laws forcing this, ADA, for government and education. Personally, I think they should at least make the summary clickable if they are going to do this.

I use xScope [1] to simulate seven types of colorblindness. The blue titles are distinctive in every simulation. Does xScope miss something? Or are you assuming that blue is not distinctive because most colors are not distinctive?

[1] https://iconfactory.com/software/xscope

Re: Google’s Search Results Ditch Underlined Links, Increase Font Size

#46

Post by agumonkey »

reubenmorais wrote: post #42
agumonkey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First time I met this 'new' design, I thought it was a rendering bug[0]. Next time I understood it was testing, and I just thought 'why' ? Google seems desperate to find things to tweak while ignoring things that I find obvious: - right click event turns the url in a trackable monstrosity [1] - shortened url can't be copied [2] - no, sharing doesn't only mean 'publish on g+' - filters could be made faster [3] - g+ ha…

> - no, sharing doesn't only mean 'publish on g+' I sympathize with the feeling, but do you really expect them to drive people to their competitors? Do you think Facebook's Share button should allow you to Publish on G+ as well?

Good point, I forgot was logged in, and judge google.com as a public page (unlike facebook primary essence). Logged off, the `share` option is gone. But that remark was in the context of mangled URLs. I can't right-click, double click nor select to get the URL and pass it along. Very broken IMO even though I understand they want me to visit said page.

Re: Google’s Search Results Ditch Underlined Links, Increase Font Size

#47

Post by arikrak »

Karunamon wrote: post #31
arikrak wrote: post #18

I used to disable adblock on Google since I didn't find the ads intrusive. However the ads blends right into the results with the new changes, so I'm re-enabling it. Though overall I assume Google will get a revenue boost from their change to the ads.

Blend right in? They have a bright yellow lozenge that says "Ad" next to each result on mine. The ads are even more distinct then they were before.

It's that you can't see the yellow mark, but it's much harder to just skip to the results.

Re: Google’s Search Results Ditch Underlined Links, Increase Font Size

#48

Post by Karunamon »

arikrak wrote: post #47
Karunamon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blend right in? They have a bright yellow lozenge that says "Ad" next to each result on mine. The ads are even more distinct then they were before.

It's that you can't see the yellow mark, but it's much harder to just skip to the results.

I still don't understand what you mean. Look at this page:

http://gyazo.com/ed84537df50abd7f0d34212a6ba6a497

How long didyou have to look before realizing where the ads stop and the organic results begin? For me it's dead easy...

Note this may be a bad example, because if I'm searching for "insurance", an advertisement for an insurance company is actually a relevant result.

Post reply on HN