Google’s look, evolved • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#441

Post by arikrak » Wed, Sep 02, 2015, 11:45 PM UTC

scintill76 wrote: post #350

arikrak wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In their bid to keep things clean and automatic, they really made everything more confusing. I know people who have gotten lost because they didn't realize Google maps was hiding directions. They always try to do things instantly instead of letting the user press enter. (This is especially annoying on Google Express.) There's something to be said for the old web when you clicked and then got results...

I hate that feeling of having to type as fast as possible, so the instant fetching won't waste bandwidth or distract me before I've finished giving it all the information it will need. Multi-step processes like getting directions can be annoying this way, as it reloads every time you change a parameter (like entering an address, swapping source and dest. addresses, or changing transportation mode), so if you have to…

I just tried a one-step query in Google Maps itself, and it worked, so that's helpful ("From Address 1 to Address 2").

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#442

Post by com2kid » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 12:29 AM UTC

alooPotato wrote: post #227

bradleyjg wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nine dot menu instead of a small header row was a terrible change. First because it is an extra click every time for a commonly used task and second because no one had any clue what the hell nine dots were supposed to mean. A friend of mine that worked at google told me the official name is "app drawer". I have no idea how that's supposed to look like a drawer. More generally the entire move from words to pictogr…

Really? That seems smart to me. How often do you use the links in that drawer? Seems better to remove all that text up top and replace with a small icon for something that is rarely used.

Every time I want to look at my calendar I need to re-remember where the hell they hid it at.

I expect it to be in the drop down on the left, since Gmail and Google Calendar are otherwise so well integrate, but nope, it is hidden in the little square.

The first couple times I had to actually Google how to access my calendar from within Gmail (I can always go to calendar.google.com of course)

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#443

Post by compbio » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 1:16 AM UTC

roymurdock wrote: post #10

Just when I thought we might be starting to pivot away from flat design - does anyone know of a different design paradigm that is being used by smaller/fringe designers who are tired of flat/minimal UX/UI?

Yes. Check out adaptive design. Instead of responsive, start talking in a way that specific user wants. No one-for-all design, which has to cater to both the power user and grandma, but a design that adapts itself to your (or similar) behavior. For example: count the times that users use 2-3 steps to perform the same task, then automatically make it a one-click process for them. Being able to change the top bar color on HN is also a form of adaptive design, just one requiring manual action.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#444

Post by bholzer » Thu, Sep 03, 2015, 4:32 PM UTC

miah_ wrote: post #161

Who ever actually goes directly to google.com? The only way I noticed this insignificant change was in my interactions with the results page. Why does this non-news have 375 points?

I have my browser set to open google with every new tab.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#445

Post by iso8859-1 » Fri, Sep 04, 2015, 11:06 AM UTC

ArekDymalski wrote: post #43

I'm really glad they have finally left the serif font behind. No matter how much I read about the benefits of serifs, I can't fight the immediate association: serif = old, sans-serif = modern.

That's too simplistic, don't you agree? This is exactly why I prefer serif.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#446

Post by jhanschoo » Sat, Sep 05, 2015, 1:32 AM UTC

meerita wrote: post #345

meatysnapper wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Design by AB testing, my favorite :( I worked at a major tech company where every decision needed to be justified by AB testing. Our design was a series of haphazard guesses made on data that depended on a very brittle data pipeline. Needless to say, nobody thought it was a very good product, but the incredible bureaucracy and people behind the approach made it hard to fight against.

It shouldn't be a problem. In science, everything must be tested and proved if you want to know the truth or the effectiveness of an theory. Design is a science, so it can be measured and developed by tests of all kinds, even emotionals.

Whereas a design studio with sufficient resources should fare better with a data-driven approach, a sole designer or small team with time and feedback constraints will probably do better with traditional methodology. Traditional methodologies might have certain quack dogmatic rules and processes, but it offers a battle-tested baseline.

Re: Google’s look, evolved

#447

Post by ricardobeat » Sun, Sep 06, 2015, 12:07 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #319

hanspeter wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those has used an existing part of their logo as their favicon.

That's true for McDonald's, but certainly not the other three.

I think you're mistaking their symbol for "a different font". Each one of those has a logotype and a symbol, which make up their visual identity (the word 'logo' is used interchangeably for those, or their combination). They are merely using the existing symbol as favicon - the stylized N/B/B. Google's symbol at the time was the uppercase G in the same font, so creating a new one for the favicon would be considered a rebranding.