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

The next version of DuckDuckGo

next.duckduckgo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 331 posts

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#321

Post by j4kp07 »

edwintorok wrote: post #302
j4kp07 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW...and no disrespect meant, but I hope DDG does not follow this advice. Firstly, this is a developer. So he/she is not the key demographic you are targeting. Developers and the like don't understand that John Doe has no idea what "contrast" is or which button turns it down/up. Please note all of the references to "me" and "my" and his perfect color-correct 20/20 vision in his feedback.

If it is hard to read for someone who is young and with perfect vision, how do you expect that someone with less than perfect vision / older / with worse monitors will be able to read it? There are W3C standards for accessibility for a reason, and widely used sites should follow them.

Because the majority of readers on the internet skim pages and whether subconsciously or not, they are picking up on keywords, headlines, links and the like. If you take the approach to simply "make the text #000 and the page #fff", you are simply making matters worse.

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#322

Post by edwintorok »

j4kp07 wrote: post #321
edwintorok wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is hard to read for someone who is young and with perfect vision, how do you expect that someone with less than perfect vision / older / with worse monitors will be able to read it? There are W3C standards for accessibility for a reason, and widely used sites should follow them.

Because the majority of readers on the internet skim pages and whether subconsciously or not, they are picking up on keywords, headlines, links and the like. If you take the approach to simply "make the text #000 and the page #fff", you are simply making matters worse.

If they can't read your site comfortably than why should they spend more time on your site than it takes to close the tab? See my other comment, the recommendation is usually #333 on #fff, or at least try to follow the WCAG standards: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7704533

When I see a site with such low contrast I think "the owner of this site doesn't really care if people actually read the contents" so I usually just close it. Unless I know from a reliable source that the contents is actually something very very interesting, that I would want to read then I'll take the extra effort and try to read it.

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#323

Post by CallYouOut »

Kudos wrote: post #286
CallYouOut wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree with the parent. I'd also love it if it took advantage of more than 25% of the width of my 30" desktop display. And: thanks for listening to your users!

Do you like reading uncomfortably long lines or something?

I don't know; have you stopped beating your wife?

You realize HN comment pages scale pretty well, right? And everyone's happy.

There's no reason a site like DDG shouldn't make better use of larger windows. If someone wants to read long lines across a full-screen window on a 30" display (and I don't), they should be able to. In my case, I'd just like sites to make reasonably good use of a 1280-wide window (half a 30"), which DDG doesn't. That's not unreasonable.

Anyway, here's another good example of a page that scales well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#324

Post by e12e »

bachmeier wrote: post #290
nine_k wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...And the button there is. Did you find it? https://next.duckduckgo.com/settings

No. And I'm willing to bet that at least 99% of search engine users aren't going to look for an unlabeled settings button for a search engine. They'll just use something else.

For something as utilitarian as a search engine, being usable by default, and cool after tweaking is probably better than the reverse. I question the logic of having such a setting at all -- it's not just a matter of preference, having the setting is basically admitting that the default design has a (serious) usability issue -- so logically it shouldn't be the default.

It's kind of funny that we went from black on grey (netscape), via black on white (ie4) to grey on white (by design/via css) -- rather than simply back to black on grey or grey on black ("console" colors) -- as there's been some studies indicating that darker background leads to less power usage -- which actually has a usability benefit in longer battery life -- all the while maintaining a lower contrast.

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#325

Post by billrobertson42 »

yegg wrote: post #105
fsck--off wrote: post #61

I use DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine and have had a positive experience using it. This redesign incorporates two of the worst design trends today: very low contrast text and gratuitously, obnoxiously large fixed headers. I dislike fixed headers on any non-phone/tablet UI because almost all laptop and desktop screens are widescreen. Fixed position elements on the sides of the screen make much more sense, altho…

Thanks for the feedback! Our current version also has a fixed header, and that can be turned off in the settings, which we plan to make work in this next version as well. Noted on contrast. We will look into it more -- that's exactly the kind of feedback we were hoping to get.

I have a huge issue with low contrast text due to my eyes. Many sites I will simply not spend time on.

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#326

Post by timdiggerm »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #312
timdiggerm wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but an old design conveys amateur quality, which does not compete well in people's minds with Google, etc.

I don't think that Levi-Strauss is losing market share for not being trendy. A strong, working product trumps fashion, in my book.

pants and search engines have pretty different customer expectations re: aesthetics

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#327

Post by isaacaggrey »

yegg wrote: post #105
fsck--off wrote: post #61

I use DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine and have had a positive experience using it. This redesign incorporates two of the worst design trends today: very low contrast text and gratuitously, obnoxiously large fixed headers. I dislike fixed headers on any non-phone/tablet UI because almost all laptop and desktop screens are widescreen. Fixed position elements on the sides of the screen make much more sense, altho…

Thanks for the feedback! Our current version also has a fixed header, and that can be turned off in the settings, which we plan to make work in this next version as well. Noted on contrast. We will look into it more -- that's exactly the kind of feedback we were hoping to get.

Great work, yegg! I like the direction this is headed. Perhaps for the header, it can collapse/hide the row with "Meanings | Images | Videos | Products" under the search bar until you scroll back to the top to make it a bit less huge? Perhaps you could even shrink it a bit to the height of the bar when it collapses as well.

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#328

Post by teaneedz »

hueving wrote: post #289
teaneedz wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the camp that actually likes the new look. It conveys a modern minimalist view while the extras just get out of your way. I've been mostly against flat design for a number of reasons but IMO, you've achieved a great design. I really like the minimalism of the hamburger button. Again, everything just gets out of your way. Perhaps enlarging the font-size of the search result snippets might help with the contrast…

>it conveys a modern design. That's a terrible reason to pick a design. If you have no justification for a design other than 'lots of other new websites do this', then you have no justification at all... unless your purpose is to blend in and be forgotten.

Actually, my justification was that everything just gets out of your way.

Personally, I find the new design conveys a more relaxing experience although I'd like to see some of the fonts grow a bit. By modern, I refer to a different online world than #000 against #FFF and skeuo approaches. I'm not saying, those days are over completely, but fresher approaches are nice too.

Let's face it - design will continue to morph based upon different philosophies and whims, just as fashion does. Some visions are worse than others but some are implemented in pretty clever ways. I like the way DDG went with theirs.

For a modern web property or search engine competing against the likes of Google, what timdiggerm mentioned in a reply nails it. Sticking with an older design philosophy conveys a negative image for many users.

However, other properties going flat and subdued do not necessarily get my attention just because everyone else is doing it. This one does though because they did a lot of things right. The more I use next.duckduckgo.com the more I appreciate the small details that were thought out.

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#329

Post by mstade »

I tried switching to DuckDuckGo about 8 months ago, maybe a year, but eventually went back to using Google simply because DuckDuckGo's search results were not nearly relevant enough. When I saw this redesign I was compelled to give it another try, and I'm happy to say that the results are way better than they used to be. The new UI is also very comfortable, and brings most features up to par with Google, especially the image and video search.

This is great work, and I'm very glad to now switch back to DuckDuckGo as my search engine of choice. Thanks!

Re: The next version of DuckDuckGo

#330

Post by PabloFanque »

fsck--off wrote: post #139
yegg wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the feedback! Our current version also has a fixed header, and that can be turned off in the settings, which we plan to make work in this next version as well. Noted on contrast. We will look into it more -- that's exactly the kind of feedback we were hoping to get.

Thanks for listening! I actually don't mind the fixed header on the current version because it is much smaller and less obtrusive than the header on the redesign. I dislike fixed headers on news sites like the New York Times, because I want as much vertical space as possible to read the article. On a search engine, there is no issue of losing context, so a tastefully constructed fixed header is acceptable. I understa…

I share your dislike of fixed headers for text-heavy pages, and I'm relieved to see other kindred spirits have made similar comments in this discussion. (I was concerned it was just me.) The NY Times' new fixed headers in particular prompted me to try making a bookmarklet. One version converts position:fixed html elements to position:relative. A second version converts them to display:none. I've been using them for the last few months, and it has made me a much happier reader of the NY Times and similar sites. You're most welcome to try it too -- staticding.org .

I see @tripzilch has commented below that he uses a bookmarklet that changes position:fixed elements to position:static. That's probably a better solution than my version which changes them to position:relative. I will have to try that method too.

Post reply on HN