The Google design, turned up a notch

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-design-turned-up-notch.html

by madh • 16 years ago

58 62 16 years ago

googleblog.blogspot.com

fjabre• 16 years ago

Is there a way to hide the left hand column? I actually find it really distracting.

Also in FF 3.6.3 the text is not centered vertically in the search box. It's an FF CSS issue. I've seen it a few times before.

landyman2• 16 years ago

Yes, we had several people at my office say the same thing so another programmer and I wrote a couple of plugins to hide it (FX and Chrome only): http://www.seotools.com/hide-google-options/.

I personally like the sidebar, I think the date-based filtering is great.

asmosoinio3• 16 years ago

The tool does not do the trick for me... Chrome 5.0.375.29 beta on Windows Vista.

Screen shot here, the Extension seems to be enabled.

http://asmo.kortis.to/misc/shot_07052010_125200.png

I guess it's time to start using duckduckgo.com for real.

tansey• 16 years ago

You could install the proprietary add-on that landyman linked, or you could install this one, assuming you don't already have it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3682

Then just go to www.google.com/custom and make that your default firefox search.

I found this solution more elegant, as I already used the add-on.

NiekvdMaas• 16 years ago

TechCrunch's take: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/06/google-redundant-ui/ (tl;dr side bar + top bar = redundancy)

tybris• 16 years ago

Disneyfication.

yanw• 16 years ago

c'mon it's a much needed and a good redesign, I suppose the top navigation bar is kept unchanged for further testing, it might eventually include only non duplicate function; gmail, docs, calendar etc.

ugh3• 16 years ago

The options on the left change depending on your query. It’s not entirely redundant.

Searching for facebook privacy shows Blogs first, then News, searching for new york shows Maps, News, Blogs, Images and Videos. Different options in a different order.

That has advantages (displaying Maps first when searching for places seems like a great idea) but also disadvantages: options switch places and are not always immediately accessible. Keeping the top bar (where services have a fixed location and are always displayed) seems like a good compromise. Admittedly not the most elegant thing.

puredemo2• 16 years ago

Why was it much needed? What reflected this?

sketerpot• 16 years ago

This is a fully-general scornful response to any UI changes that Google could possibly have made. Or could ever make in the future. Congratulations?

icco• 16 years ago

I really like the color change on the homepage. I've been on the beta for this for about a month and I've enjoyed it for the most part.

abstractbill2• 16 years ago

we tried to take all the things we strive for at Google and make them better: powerful technology, snappy results, simplicity and a fun and quirky personality

Yes! This is totally what was missing for me. I had great search results from Google every time, but where was the fun? Where was the quirky personality damn it?

keltex• 16 years ago

I thought we'd done away with Quirks mode, but looks like Google has brought it back.

gruseom• 16 years ago

You make an interesting observation amid that sarcasm. Google's persona may be fun (in some ways, sort of, I guess), but their products are not. At their best, they're unobtrusive, minimal, and super functional. That's much better than "fun". The stuff people produce when they're striving to make something "fun" doesn't wear well.

One other thing Google have been good at in the past is rolling back mistakes. I bet this one doesn't last long.

supaflyhigh• 16 years ago

I find the sidebar annoying, but perhaps more so because we have used google without it for so long. I tend to agree with techcrunch that there is redundancy in the side and top bar. New logo is good, search box is ok...but this modern style of it and the buttons seems out of place and more distracting then anything.

The search features on the side are nice...but I used them so rarely in the past and don't see myself using them any more now. It seems like google wants me to spend more time searching then clicking links, when in reality I usually use google as a quick 10 second shortcut to finding info. The last time I clicked "next" on a search was........a long time ago.

bbatsell• 16 years ago

I use the time-based filtering all the time now. I didn't really expect to when I first started in the beta. It's incredibly helpful when searching on topics that undergo wholesale changes often (e.g. the vast majority of technology). Without using the filtering I get frustrated with Google results with high PR that end up being horribly outdated.

10ren• 16 years ago

Could you give an example of how you're using it please?

qeorge• 16 years ago

I also use the time based filtering a lot.

For example, if I want to see a recent Obama speech I missed. Its nearly impossible to find the one you want without time-based filtering.

_delirium• 16 years ago

I've been using it for the opposite reason: I'll see something in a news story and want to search on it for some background, and all I get are 500 copies of the same news story or commentary on it. Being able to exclude anything from the past week or so makes it easier to filter all those out. It is slightly more awkward to use it that way UI-wise, though: there are quick links to press for "last X hours/days/etc.", but no quick way to get "older than X" without typing stuff into the "custom range" thing.

derefr• 16 years ago

Every web browser now has a search box as an extension of, or complement to, the address bar. I think, more and more, people are only going "to Google" when they want something more complicated than a click and a jump.

spot2• 16 years ago

heh cool the first image result in there was made with my software :)

spot2• 16 years ago

in fact now that i look at it, if you do an image search for "string theory" the flame algorithm was used to make #1, #4 #12 #15 #20, fully one quarter of the first page of results. it was also used to represent string theory in "molecules to the max" the educational film about nanotechnology: http://www.moleculestothemax.com/gallery_12_string.html. can anyone introduce me to brian greene?

nostrademons2• 16 years ago

The results were made with my software. ;-)

(I've been on the team that did this since we staffed up engineers, and did the first functional demos of the new design.)

plinkplonk3• 16 years ago

"I've been on the team that did this since we staffed up engineers, and did the first functional demos of the new design."

So do you think you could get us a user setting to turn off the new design and get back the classic minimalist one? Right now you have to install browser extensions etc.

blhack• 16 years ago

The search box on the left is dreadful. Why can't this be hidden the way it could (for me) yesterday? It's almost headache inducing (although that sounds crazy), it's like my eyes don't know what to do...they've had almost 10 years worth of training showing them to look in that exact spot on my screen, and now it has changed...

It's really, really distracting. If I can find out a way of hiding it, I absolutely will.

nooneelse5• 16 years ago

"Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens." Seriously, these threads are sounding like a bunch of angry grey-back gorillas. Our minds need to stay limber. Break up the routine. Tie the other shoe first, go to the other coffee shop, pull off the road somewhere you've never stopped before and write a poem about what you see, etc. Keep those neurons plastic and alive.

jmulder2• 16 years ago

The biggest change in their redesign has nothing to do with the new logo, redundancy in navigation (because that can't be an issue) or making the different search tools more discoverable.

The biggest change is the top left position of the first search result relative to the top left position of the document. In other words, the average scanning pattern has completely changed with the addition of a fixed side bar.

It will take a lot of people a long time to adjust and its effectiveness can't be judged by a couple of hours of usage. It's not unlikely to assume Google is very willing to take a slight hit in this area and win in the discoverability of their different ways to use Google, hopefully, eventually improving a person's overal searching efficiency.

Time will tell, but we all know Google tests these things through and through.

pavs• 16 years ago

> It's not unlikely to assume Google is very willing to take a slight hit in this area

What hit are you talking about? Are people willing to leave Google to use another search engine and get used to their UI?. Unless they royally screw up with the design (which they didn't IMO) they have almost nothing to lose.

If you compare this with bing, you will see that they have a lot of similarities.

jmulder2• 16 years ago

A hit in efficiency of the user when scanning the search results.

And you're right. People won't leave Google over this. But Google has done extensive testing on page speed in the past and measured its long term impact on pageviews per search. I'd argue that a change in scanning patterns like this one affects the perception of speed of the interface and might impact the aforementioned metric.

Overall, it should be a change for the better and i'm sure that Google wants to increase the efficiency per search to increase the overal number of unique searches a user might do -- while caring a bit less about the number of pageviews per search.

As for Bing, in interface design for a company like Google --a company that effectively dominates the market and sees marginal loss of users-- the competition is irrelevant. Especially for simple UI changes such as this one.

When doing a change such as this one Google is its own competitor. It needs to find a way to transition their user's habits to what they believe is a more usable one. This is by far always the hardest part and really what we are discussing right now :-)

It's awesome to see though. I'd imagine it's incredbily hard to convince a board of such changes, especially in an engineering minded company such as Google.

isleyaardvark• 16 years ago

I'd argue it's a change for the better. While the first search result has changed its position relative to the document, it has now lined up with the input of the search box at the top of the page. In the old version it did not. I would think that users eyes' are drawn to the search box, and this new format aids scanning.

Edit: These images may support my contention: http://www.google.com/images?q=google%20results%20eyetrackin...

nooneelse5• 16 years ago

Also, as monitor sizes have gone up (and this might just be a personal preference) I've found that I'd rather the important stuff be in the middle of the screen, not over on the left. Is that just me?

brown9-2• 16 years ago

Thank you, I had such a hard time putting into words why I found the new layout so disconcerting.

drenei• 16 years ago

I really like the left side bar. I prefer it to the top bar when it comes to focusing my results - its closer and has more options. As for the design — it feels cleaner, but thats subjective.

cstuder• 16 years ago

They removed the trademark ((tm)) letters from the logo.

I'm wondering why corporations keep plastering those all over their designs.

mcav• 16 years ago

I was under the impression that it was good practice to use those marks, primarily to make sure people know you're presenting a trademark (registered or not). Obviously Google's big enough to not need that. Legal hounds: Is there a time when one does or doesn't need the ™/®?

blehn2• 16 years ago

From a visual standpoint, I think the most interesting change is the shading on the search bar, which makes it look raised on the page. It looks a little awkward to me, I'm sure because almost all form inputs are either flat or sunken into the page. I do think being sunken into the page is a more appropriate metaphor... I wonder how they came to that decision.

nooneelse5• 16 years ago

What more appropriate metaphor is that?

Writing on a piece of paper underneath the top one that I can only see a little bit of through a little window? Putting words on a shelf and the shelf needs to look like it is deep enough to hold the letters so they won't fall out the front and down the page?

blehn2• 16 years ago

Well, more like, you have two sheets of paper, the top one has labels with boxes cut out so that you write your answers on the bottom one. when you lift the top sheet off (click submit), you're left with only the raw data.

Judson• 16 years ago

I was actually a fan of the "horizontal bars" design they prototyped... Guess that one didn't have enough personality

puredemo2• 16 years ago

I honestly can't stand it. I want my 100% screenspace back.

Why can't I hide this fucking left panel?

abstractbill2• 16 years ago

I just noticed this redesign removed a feature I used all the time - you used to be able to type a word into Google, and then hit the "definition" link. As far as I can see, they removed that.

nostrademons2• 16 years ago

define: word still works.

karlmarks• 16 years ago

The single biggest change is the top ads are now barely delineated, this whole redesign is a cash and "stickiness" grab.

cia_plant• 16 years ago

I hid the left sidebar and expanded the results column by adding the following snippet to 'userContent.css' in my 'chrome' directory (for Firefox).

    @-moz-document domain(google.com) {
     #leftnav {
      display:none !important;
     }
     #center_col {
         margin-left: 0 !important;
         margin-right: 0 !important;
     }
    }

I think the ads to the right were already hidden by adblock, so you may need to tweak this if you want to preserve ads for some reason.

pg• 16 years ago

The reason the new design is so much worse is that it uses the most valuable space on the screen, the left side (since we read left to right), for stuff users don't care much about. What users care about most on a page of search results is the search results. Those should get priority. Instead the prime space is given to stuff that's boilerplate, or only tangentially relevant, or both.

I'm surprised Google would make a mistake of such magnitude. Anyone who's read Tufte would know not to do this. They've effectively reduced the data-ink ratio of the page, when you weight each pixel by its proximity to the upper left corner.

http://www.infovis-wiki.net/index.php/Data-Ink_Ratio

http://inspiredimpressions.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/Googl...

Oddly enough, it would actually be better if the left bar were entirely boilerplate, because that would make it easier to tune it out.

http://www.useit.com/eyetracking/eyetracking_corporate_site_...

Then the new design would merely waste space. Filling the left side of the page not merely with crap, but with changing crap, is the worst case scenario.

johnrob• 16 years ago

Does anyone know how to get rid of this new left bar?

plinkplonk3• 16 years ago

"Does anyone know how to get rid of this new left bar?"

A couple of ways to do it.

(1) On Firefox install the stylish plug in (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2108/). Then go to http://userstyles.org/styles/29418 and install the style.

After installation, if you are not using google.com(say google.ca or google.co.in), edit the css (left click on icon at bottom right, select manage, select the style edit) to reflect whatever google engine you are using.

(2)In Chrome the Hide Google Options addon works perfectly (http://www.seotools.com/hide-google-options/#Chrome). There is a firefox equivalent but for some reason it didn't work for me so I went with the above (stylish) option on FF.

No idea about any other browser. Sorry. But I guess there is always GreaseMonkey?

samratjp• 16 years ago

I hate the left bar! Perhaps the biggest reason I never felt home with Bing, Yahoo or etc. was because of the extraneous crap (I don't need pretty pictures on my search engine homepage). Google just felt right because it was minimal yet functional and just straight on hard on the pedal fast. Sure, it is just as fast now, but it's amazing how a slight "improvement" like this has actually changed my perception of the search results being slower because it takes me a good second to realign my focus to the right.

And please infovis-wiki, that criticism with just Inbar et al. seems pretty lame (their subjects were 87 students - not a good sample at all for something about perception!)

ugh3• 16 years ago

Google actually tested this, you didn’t. So while the reasons you listed might be valid and a good reason to scrutinize the redesign with the literature in mind, I have a very hard time believing that Google didn’t do just that.

I would argue that there are consequently very good reasons to believe that the problems you described are not a issue with the redesign or that there are certain advantages to the redesign which make up for other disadvantages.

kyro• 16 years ago

It has also been shown that people will be more likely to give you money with a gun to their head than when kindly asked.

plinkplonk3• 16 years ago

"Google actually tested this, you didn’t. So while the reasons you listed might be valid and a good reason to scrutinize the redesign with the literature in mind, I have a very hard time believing that Google didn’t do just that."

And yet it moves! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!).

Google "testing it" isn't an iron clad guarantee that the feature doesn't suck.

Anyone who has worked in a large company can well imagine how "tests" can support predetermined positions of higher management (say). I suspect the reason is simpler - these days Google is fat and slow and infested with mediocre MBA types who love nothing better than to "launch an initiative" like this. Never attribute to malice etc.

Irrespective of how well Google tested this, if enough users say "And yet it sucks", then that's that.

You could argue about how many users are "enough", but "Google tested it so they have to be right and everyone else is wrong" is a very fragile argument.

ivanzhao• 16 years ago

Tufte's data ink is too extreme in my opinion. Human perception might be too messy and complex to handled by simply mathematical calculations. User behaviors might be a more approperiate approach to evaluate the new design.

nooneelse5• 16 years ago

Indeed. If something anchors our visual scanning from page to page, then doing a calculation which always takes the upper left as the best location starts to seem very odd. In the case of the redesign, I would suggest that the big text box, which the user was just looking at on the home page, might play the role of visual anchor.

j00lz• 16 years ago

As screens are now coming in a wider format i.e 16:9, there is generally a large amount of wasted space at the sides in a lot of webpages. Adding the sidebar is making better use of that space.

ck2• 16 years ago

Stylish plugin to the rescue!

First I hide all the left column sidebar nonsense with adblock.

Then I do this:

      #center_col {margin:0 !important;}
      .gl,.sla    {text-decoration:underline !important;}
      .tsf-p      {width:65% !important;}

Problem solved. Back to wide.

sankara• 16 years ago

I'm feeling too much blue! Cached and similar links for example could have been gray instead of the blue variant. IMHO, those links need not be so prominent.

asmosoinio3• 16 years ago

(Google Chrome): Right click on address bar / Edit Search Engines... / select Duck Duck Go / Make Default

Fixed!

The Google design, turned up a notch

Related Stories