Google's new "batshit crazy" UX(dcurt.is)
dcurt.is
Google's new "batshit crazy" UX
http://dcurt.is/batshit-crazy
53 comments
I've never understood how any company could let this happen and yet we see it constantly. Perhaps it's because Wordpress or TypePad or Posterous don't let them change the link at the top, but I doubt it.
It definitely ranks as one of the most common Web 101 mistakes out there.
It definitely ranks as one of the most common Web 101 mistakes out there.
I think the bigger problem with Google's UI is that the top links to Google's top-level categories do not keep your search terms. Only the left links do... In other words if I search the web for "Afghanistan" and then realize I actually want news article search results, if I click "News" at the top I have to re-type "Afghanistan". This is terrible.
e.g. from http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&qe=YWZnaGFuaQ&#...
Link to left: http://www.google.com/search?q=afghanistan&hl=en&biw...
Link at top: http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn
e.g. from http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&qe=YWZnaGFuaQ&#...
Link to left: http://www.google.com/search?q=afghanistan&hl=en&biw...
Link at top: http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn
That functionality -- especially in regard to the news tab -- drives me nuts. Over and over I click the top news tab forgetting I have to click the link on the side and lose the current context of my search.
At first I just assumed it was a bug since the other tabs kept the context of the search. Then after a week of the same, I looked into how to flag the issue so it could be fixed and low and behold I found it was a product feature (or non-feature).
Its such a strange UX decision that I have to assume that it is driven by revenue generation or some other metric rather than good user experience.
At first I just assumed it was a bug since the other tabs kept the context of the search. Then after a week of the same, I looked into how to flag the issue so it could be fixed and low and behold I found it was a product feature (or non-feature).
Its such a strange UX decision that I have to assume that it is driven by revenue generation or some other metric rather than good user experience.
I've always assumed the Google News link losing state was a bug. It's a tab bar, and it used to keep state. Now it doesn't.
I suppose they had to do it this way or nobody would ever really see the Google news homepage (as if that matters).
I suppose they had to do it this way or nobody would ever really see the Google news homepage (as if that matters).
I've noticed that the past couple months or so. It used to correctly keep your search term across categories.
I cannot agree more. Has it always been like this or is this a recent change? I thought I remembered a time in which clicking "News" did keep your old search term but I cannot be sure. In any case, this behavior has been a bane to me since I discovered it.
Complaining about broken website conventions while simultaneously breaking them yourself is either ironic or hypocritical, depending on your mood.
The author's webpage has a "x Kudos" vibrating image on the right and side, and if you hover over the image then the page sends a "like" HTTP message to the server. So now hovering my mouse over an element just had me like the author's page. That is way worse than a link with a broken image.
The author's webpage has a "x Kudos" vibrating image on the right and side, and if you hover over the image then the page sends a "like" HTTP message to the server. So now hovering my mouse over an element just had me like the author's page. That is way worse than a link with a broken image.
Also odd: You can keep giving "kudos", refresh the page and repeat, the counter doesn't mind. Can't seem to take your vote(s) away though.
the web site appears to be apple-ly designed; however has a lot of design flaws and is disturbing somehow. and the author has weird articles to prove there is a perfect human hand size to hold phones etc etc. ohh we live in the "design ages" dont we....
That seems kinda’ irrelevant, you know, him not being Google and all. He gets to do batshit crazy things because it’s just his own small website. Batshit crazy things are what make personal websites fun. That doesn’t mean Google should do them, too.
...although sometimes it takes a little batshit crazy to break convention and change things for the better. Really, only time will tell...
I keep getting reminded of Zuckerberg's Startup School interview (http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/298808358) where he talks about moving equally too fast and too slow or as Jessica called it "a willingness to break things."
On one hand, I'm slightly frustrated at all these weird changes these established companies are making; but on the other hand I'm excited to see them messing with things that seem so core to their product, it shows that they're still willing to experiment and not getting too comfortable (which I think is more dangerous).
I keep getting reminded of Zuckerberg's Startup School interview (http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/298808358) where he talks about moving equally too fast and too slow or as Jessica called it "a willingness to break things."
On one hand, I'm slightly frustrated at all these weird changes these established companies are making; but on the other hand I'm excited to see them messing with things that seem so core to their product, it shows that they're still willing to experiment and not getting too comfortable (which I think is more dangerous).
this is not a change for the better, what possible advantage does it offer?
With the "Kennedy" UI (codename for the recent cross-product redesign), many Google properties had their own logo replaced by a plain Google one. Now, to differentiate between products such as Google Voice, a red-colored product name is displayed right below the Google logo.
Also, when you do a Google search, the product name is now always "Search", even when you started a search in Google News / Images / Videos / Shopping / Books / Places / Blogs / Discussions / Applications / Recipes or Patentes.
With Kennedy, Google has actually reached its goal of becoming a 'universal search engine' and it can finally show a single interface for (almost) all types of queries (except for Maps, Flights and search for personal/private items like email and documents).
You can still access the specific homepages of Google Images and Google News, but Google is slowly convincing users to initiate all their searches from google.com, without thinking about which engine to use. Thus, every search from news.google.com redirects to classic google.com, with the "news" filter activated.
For personal searches (eg Gmail, Reader, Docs, Voice), Google hasn't completely switched to the "filtered results interface". Most of those apps need their own homepage with a list of items (messages, contacts, documents, voice messages, top stories, feed items). However: - most of them have switched to the plain Google logo with the red-colored product title. You can stay in the app or refresh the item list by clicking on the product title instead of the Google logo, which would lead you to the unexpected Google homepage; - most of those homepage (or "item lists") could be merged with Google+ and the new notification bar on google.com, so you could access all your personal things from a classic search. For social results, it's working pretty well since Google Plus Your World: all social items are shown on-top of other results in a classic search. Soon, every new email, documents update or voice message could appear in the notification bar and search results (just like social items): no need to go to mail.google.com, docs.google.com or voice.google.com.
Now (to answer your question), what result do you expect from a click on the Google logo in Gmail? - To go to you inbox? No, that should be the result of a click on the product title, Gmail. - to go to the Google homepage? No, you're not familiar enough with Kennedy navigation.
So my guess is that Google is trying everything to get you to click on products' title to go to/refresh its homepage. Meanwhile, they prevent you from clicking on the Google logo because you wouldn't understand (yet) why you would be redirected to google.com from Gmail.
If this (presumed) strategy work, you would always go to google.com to interact with any kind of products/items, without having to "navigate". Just search Google or browse your notification stream, whatever the type of content (message, documents, web pages...) and its context (personal, social, public...).
Also, when you do a Google search, the product name is now always "Search", even when you started a search in Google News / Images / Videos / Shopping / Books / Places / Blogs / Discussions / Applications / Recipes or Patentes.
With Kennedy, Google has actually reached its goal of becoming a 'universal search engine' and it can finally show a single interface for (almost) all types of queries (except for Maps, Flights and search for personal/private items like email and documents).
You can still access the specific homepages of Google Images and Google News, but Google is slowly convincing users to initiate all their searches from google.com, without thinking about which engine to use. Thus, every search from news.google.com redirects to classic google.com, with the "news" filter activated.
For personal searches (eg Gmail, Reader, Docs, Voice), Google hasn't completely switched to the "filtered results interface". Most of those apps need their own homepage with a list of items (messages, contacts, documents, voice messages, top stories, feed items). However: - most of them have switched to the plain Google logo with the red-colored product title. You can stay in the app or refresh the item list by clicking on the product title instead of the Google logo, which would lead you to the unexpected Google homepage; - most of those homepage (or "item lists") could be merged with Google+ and the new notification bar on google.com, so you could access all your personal things from a classic search. For social results, it's working pretty well since Google Plus Your World: all social items are shown on-top of other results in a classic search. Soon, every new email, documents update or voice message could appear in the notification bar and search results (just like social items): no need to go to mail.google.com, docs.google.com or voice.google.com.
Now (to answer your question), what result do you expect from a click on the Google logo in Gmail? - To go to you inbox? No, that should be the result of a click on the product title, Gmail. - to go to the Google homepage? No, you're not familiar enough with Kennedy navigation.
So my guess is that Google is trying everything to get you to click on products' title to go to/refresh its homepage. Meanwhile, they prevent you from clicking on the Google logo because you wouldn't understand (yet) why you would be redirected to google.com from Gmail.
If this (presumed) strategy work, you would always go to google.com to interact with any kind of products/items, without having to "navigate". Just search Google or browse your notification stream, whatever the type of content (message, documents, web pages...) and its context (personal, social, public...).
Just looking at Gmail now, there actually isn't a Gmail logo anymore. There is a Google logo that I can't click on and there's a Gmail link underneath it, but clicking the Gmail link opens a popup menu. I have to then click "Gmail" on the popup menu to get to my Inbox. (Or I could just click "Inbox" of course, but that sometimes gets hidden when i have a lot of labels open, and it's a smaller, fiddly link). I'd bet more people will have noticed this change in behavior than those who've noticed the change from a Gmail logo to a Google logo.
My point is, all this requires me to think. But before I could just swing my mouse into the top left corner, click "Gmail" and always end up at my inbox, no matter where I was in the application. This consistency has gone.
I should have phrased my question: "What possible advantage does this offer, to the user?"
My point is, all this requires me to think. But before I could just swing my mouse into the top left corner, click "Gmail" and always end up at my inbox, no matter where I was in the application. This consistency has gone.
I should have phrased my question: "What possible advantage does this offer, to the user?"
Ah, I knew someone would mention the total inconsistency of Gmail's title. I also think it's detrimental to the vast majority of its users.
For most other products, Google prefers to frustrate some users (cf. https://plus.google.com/117598418867899518106/posts/Zr4vhv6p...) by disabling all logos' links while users get familiar with clicking the products' titles to go to the products' home. But once users will be used to this and all those products will be fully integrated with Google Search (cf. my previous comment), then they'll add a link to the all those Google logos in products' header because they won't be lost in a service (Google Search) that is independent to the product they come from (Gmail / Docs / Reader...). If they succeed, I think all users will benefit from this new navigation concept.
I don't like the current situation (unusable product logo) but it's certainly temporary: they've reverted to the dark navigation bar a few days after the release of the big toolbelt navigation menu, so they're probably still looking for a good solution.
In the meantime, it's a difficult POLA dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment): 50% of Gmail users might expect to be sent to Google's homepage by clicking the Google logo in Gmail, while the other users might expect to refresh Gmail or go back the inbox by clicking the only logo in Gmail's header. Where should Gmail's Google logo point to?
For most other products, Google prefers to frustrate some users (cf. https://plus.google.com/117598418867899518106/posts/Zr4vhv6p...) by disabling all logos' links while users get familiar with clicking the products' titles to go to the products' home. But once users will be used to this and all those products will be fully integrated with Google Search (cf. my previous comment), then they'll add a link to the all those Google logos in products' header because they won't be lost in a service (Google Search) that is independent to the product they come from (Gmail / Docs / Reader...). If they succeed, I think all users will benefit from this new navigation concept.
I don't like the current situation (unusable product logo) but it's certainly temporary: they've reverted to the dark navigation bar a few days after the release of the big toolbelt navigation menu, so they're probably still looking for a good solution.
In the meantime, it's a difficult POLA dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment): 50% of Gmail users might expect to be sent to Google's homepage by clicking the Google logo in Gmail, while the other users might expect to refresh Gmail or go back the inbox by clicking the only logo in Gmail's header. Where should Gmail's Google logo point to?
At least on google+ they didn't just remove the ability to reload. They replaced it with the ability to go back to the top of your stream without reloading everything.
Since google+ already loads new posts automatically. This has the same practical effect as before in most cases. But with the advantage of faster loading since it doesn't reload everything because it doesn't need to.
Since google+ already loads new posts automatically. This has the same practical effect as before in most cases. But with the advantage of faster loading since it doesn't reload everything because it doesn't need to.
How does removing a link help things? It's not like that link used real estate on the page.
The first time I needed a permalink to particular tweet, I spent good five minutes looking around for it. Only accidentally I noticed that the timestamp has it, and it didn't strike me as obvious at all.
Having a link which clearly says 'Details' seems much more intuitive in this case. And even if it was indeed Twitter who has started this pattern of linkifying timestamps, now it could be considered as them backing off from confusing UX decision that many sites parroted.
Having a link which clearly says 'Details' seems much more intuitive in this case. And even if it was indeed Twitter who has started this pattern of linkifying timestamps, now it could be considered as them backing off from confusing UX decision that many sites parroted.
I think the logo clicking decision isn't crazy. My interpretation is that Google is "un-training" users from using this valuable piece of screen real estate for a useless no-op function, in anticipation of putting a more useful function in its place.
Does anyone remember a few weeks back, when Google tested a "new way to browse Google's services"? They turned the logo into a button, producing a drop-down menu of services to navigate to.
My guess is that they found the new logo-button didn't work well, mainly because so many users saw the logo as a big button which refreshed the page or went to the inbox.
At the risk of making predictions, I'd guess this recent change is a grace period, designed to get us all used to using other buttons for reaching the inbox. And once people no longer instinctively click the logo-button, they'll introduce the new navigation which makes better use of that valuable screen space.
I could very well be way off the mark here... but it seems pretty clever to me, TBH.
Does anyone remember a few weeks back, when Google tested a "new way to browse Google's services"? They turned the logo into a button, producing a drop-down menu of services to navigate to.
My guess is that they found the new logo-button didn't work well, mainly because so many users saw the logo as a big button which refreshed the page or went to the inbox.
At the risk of making predictions, I'd guess this recent change is a grace period, designed to get us all used to using other buttons for reaching the inbox. And once people no longer instinctively click the logo-button, they'll introduce the new navigation which makes better use of that valuable screen space.
I could very well be way off the mark here... but it seems pretty clever to me, TBH.
> My interpretation is that Google is "un-training" users from using this valuable piece of screen real estate for a useless no-op function, (...)
It's not an useless no-op function. By going to default/main page of the service it reverts you to a known state, simplifying navigation and enhancing user confidence. I personally rely on this behaviour of main logos and get terribly annoyed if someone breaks my expectation (which, rarely, happens).
It's not an useless no-op function. By going to default/main page of the service it reverts you to a known state, simplifying navigation and enhancing user confidence. I personally rely on this behaviour of main logos and get terribly annoyed if someone breaks my expectation (which, rarely, happens).
Hyperbolic link,
Half of content is a quote,
This is just blog spam.
Half of content is a quote,
This is just blog spam.
The most annoying part of Google's UI is changing email settings inside Gmail, and I know I'm not alone in this... On the top right, there's a link for your name, a link for your avatar, and THEN below those the most important one you probably want (that wheel icon): the email settings link. So annoying!
I don't care about changing my Google Plus or account settings if I'm in Gmail. I wanna set up filters or setup aliases. Why is the email settings link not prominently featured? I always end up clicking the wrong link when I want to change email settings. Also, don't get me started on creating a filter. That used to be 1-click and DONE in the old settings, now it's like finding Waldo. Ridiculous.
I don't care about changing my Google Plus or account settings if I'm in Gmail. I wanna set up filters or setup aliases. Why is the email settings link not prominently featured? I always end up clicking the wrong link when I want to change email settings. Also, don't get me started on creating a filter. That used to be 1-click and DONE in the old settings, now it's like finding Waldo. Ridiculous.
I sooooo agree.
Although I rarely, if ever click on the logo in gmail, I do believe in the "logo should be a link to the root" convention. Surely that's just UI design 101, right?
The twitter one you mentioned in the article drives me super crazy as well.
Although I rarely, if ever click on the logo in gmail, I do believe in the "logo should be a link to the root" convention. Surely that's just UI design 101, right?
The twitter one you mentioned in the article drives me super crazy as well.
The thing that amuses me is it took me a while to find the equivalent of the keyboard shortcut "gh" (go home). I think I finally found if you expand the gmail logo and click gmail under that, it does what I wanted.
I am deeply grateful for the fact that they have not messed with the keyboard shortcuts yet.
I am deeply grateful for the fact that they have not messed with the keyboard shortcuts yet.
Yeah, I consistently forget the fact that Twitter details link is there as well, even though I've had to look for it a few times.
Especially when it used to do it; this certainly caught me by surprise when they made the change.
I had a gift card to burn on googlestore.com last evening.
Noticed pages like this one http://imgur.com/6Y1nO
which is apparently a failed search for a category, that simulantaneously has 0 matches and six pages. Same thing happens
when I click on the big Youtube merch logo at the top of all pages there.
I was clicking around my google profile today (to remove history etc) and found broken links to google products there.
I remember when it was simple and perfect..
I was clicking around my google profile today (to remove history etc) and found broken links to google products there.
I remember when it was simple and perfect..
Some reasoning: It gets (read:forces) you to use the top bar. For people that always ignored the topbar before; they cannot now. So these users, as well as everyone else who used it only sporadically, are now using it always and thus are more likely to investigate and use other links/apps on the topbar now. These of course include all of the other google services. It's like herding cattle.
this seems to me as the most plausible explanation. I reckon the average user might use one or two more google products: maps and gmail. he probably accesses gmail via gmail.com and maps via maps.google.com and never even cared about the black top bar.
EDIT: interesting change: on my local google.ch, the top left google icon is clickable but no hover (hand) icon appears.
EDIT: interesting change: on my local google.ch, the top left google icon is clickable but no hover (hand) icon appears.
I reckon the average user might use one or two more google products: maps and gmail. he probably accesses gmail via gmail.com and maps via maps.google.com
One has a very... unique experience as to who an average user is if one believes the average user understands subdomains. (Or, increasingly, anything that goes into a URL box other than a search term which may occasionally have a .com in it due to legacy branding.)
One has a very... unique experience as to who an average user is if one believes the average user understands subdomains. (Or, increasingly, anything that goes into a URL box other than a search term which may occasionally have a .com in it due to legacy branding.)
They might even use googlemaps.com instead of maps.google.com
I always clicked on the gmail logo, and it drives me batty that they changed it. It's just an easier target for the mouse/my eyes than that little reload button, or, even worse, the inbox link.
Remind's me of Fitts's Law: http://particletree.com/features/visualizing-fittss-law/
[deleted]
When you don't want to be known as 'just a search company' how are you going to tackle that?
Provide a direct link your premier / 'home' product via your logo (reinforcing the idea that you're a one-product company), or encourage users to consider the full range of products by making them choose the one they're most interested in?
It seems sensible to me; there's nothing 'batshit crazy' about it.
Provide a direct link your premier / 'home' product via your logo (reinforcing the idea that you're a one-product company), or encourage users to consider the full range of products by making them choose the one they're most interested in?
It seems sensible to me; there's nothing 'batshit crazy' about it.
The article is missing an important detail. They didn't just remove the ability to reload. They replaced it with the ability to go back to the top of your stream without reloading everything. (on g+ at least)
Since google+ already loads new posts automatically. In practice this will do almost the same as before, but with less waiting on the client side. Sounds like a smart design choice imo.
Since google+ already loads new posts automatically. In practice this will do almost the same as before, but with less waiting on the client side. Sounds like a smart design choice imo.
If that's the case, that makes sense on google+. On GMail though, I personally am used to clicking on the logo to refresh my inbox. Now I have to click on the navigation tab "inbox" to do that. It isn't a big deal really, but I find it odd to completely rip out the previous action only to replace it with no action at all.
I've got the new Gmail design, when I click the logo it goes back to the Inbox regardless of where I am... so not sure I understand the problem?
Working at a large company, I was once informed that the company logo should, on a dynamic user interface, do exactly nothing. Clicking on it was not to go home or help. Much as I disagreed, the powers that be dictated otherwise.
Could be similar reasoning here: lawyers or marketing or some such got involved.
Could be similar reasoning here: lawyers or marketing or some such got involved.
It is fine, if it refreshes the current context (in Gmail inbox, for example).
In Gmail, the search bar next to it searches Gmail by default, so that would be consistent and expected. There will be much resistance if that bar starts searching other things.
In Gmail, the search bar next to it searches Gmail by default, so that would be consistent and expected. There will be much resistance if that bar starts searching other things.
BTW, does anyone know how to go the next page after the UI change? Buttons just vanished and one can only see up to 50 messages.
EDIT: one has to click on "1-25 of many" and the buttons to change pages appear. Does anyone find it intuitive?
EDIT: one has to click on "1-25 of many" and the buttons to change pages appear. Does anyone find it intuitive?
When I click the logo, it takes me back to the Google Homepage. I've refreshed my cache a number of times. Perhaps they've reverted back?
My mouse cursor does not change from default when I hover over it, though.
My mouse cursor does not change from default when I hover over it, though.
I think it is only disabled on certain interior pages.
I just logged in and in GMail, clicking on the Google Icon didn't do anything. Worked the same on a few other pages I tried.
Perhaps they haven't rolled out the changes to all pages yet, but seems inconsistent to only disable it on certain interior pages...
I just logged in and in GMail, clicking on the Google Icon didn't do anything. Worked the same on a few other pages I tried.
Perhaps they haven't rolled out the changes to all pages yet, but seems inconsistent to only disable it on certain interior pages...
I thought I was the only one that this change annoyed the hell out of.
My biggest gripe is that they completely removed the link to "Scholar" from the search menu options, making my omnibar so less useful, and there's no option to reenable it.
Hmm, I NEVER click on a logo to go to the home page... don't know why, I just look for a home button or type the address in the address bar. The logo is just there...
This also drove my crazy.
My Temporary Fix: revert to the old school GMail, and select the theme "Preview (dense)".
My Temporary Fix: revert to the old school GMail, and select the theme "Preview (dense)".
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
If your blog exists to drive traffic to your product, why would you not link that big logo in the top left to the product page?
This is second in annoyance only to company blogs that don't have a tagline explaining wtf the product is, leaving me baffled when I click though from here or wherever. Thankfully people seem to have learned from this and you don't often end up dumped, contextless into the middle of some domain-specific screed any more.