431–440 of 447 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What changes would you make to Google Maps, with a basic set of assumptions? (let's say, you can't dramatically increase the cost, you can't hurt Google revenue sources, and you have a team of ~20 engineers to work on the changes).
Stop pretending you don't know where I am when I'm not logged in. I'm not going to log-in as I don't trust you, but I know you know who I am anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, are there good web maps? OSM is much worse, for instance. Google maps are pretty usable by comparison.
I (and all my friends) switched to here.com maps after Google has horribly old (2005) data, has a horrible UI, and is generally unusable. In many cities in my region whole districts are completely missing from the maps[1], MapMaker is not available, and in general it’s just a huge mess. Even worse: It loads so slowly (compared to here.com or bing.com or openstreetmap.org) that sometimes it takes several minutes to lo…
Google's userinterface, in gmail.com, at least, has gotten progressively worse, and worse, and worse, and worse since its inception in my experience and everyone I've asked about this. ... don't know what else to say. I question if their designers use their own products. Latest bugs worth mentioning: Chrome still has an issue that can cause microphone to not work in Hangouts. Gmail.com has added a "Your plug-in googl…
Google maps is incredibly frustrating to use. I can't understand what user testing they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that your gut instinct or is there research to suggest that that's the case? My personal process for using Google (not saying everyone is the same, but...) goes something like this: 1. Type "g" into the address bar 2. Press enter, because www.google.com auto-populates at that point 3. Start typing my query while the animation of the day is loading 4. Press enter 5. Review the results
Why not just run the search straight from your browser's address bar or search field?
This makes me sad, much like how Microsoft's logo change made me sad. Microsoft's italic bold lettering was iconic. It was the logo the company had used for the longest time, the logo that adorned their best (and their worst) products. It was a logo that everyone had seen, everyone knew, that was incredibly recognisable. And then they threw that all away, and created intentional brand confusion by swapping their logo…
People felt the same way when Microsoft got rid of their old 80s logo. There was a 'Save the Blibbet' campaign to bring it back.
It also does not work with the country subtitle. These are touching the letter "e", perhaps showing they forgot to test this with different country names and x-height.
HN discussion thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10161043
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There was literally nothing wrong with it, it did not look dated at all. It definitely didn't look dated. That's because no other tech company in the world imitated Google's choice to use a font inspired by 15th century typography that literally looks like it was created with a calligraphy brush.
Yahoo just redesigned their logo to look more like calligraphy.
