Does anyone know how long this has been there? cus i only discovered it today

If your  not sure what im talking about, go to www.google.com (keeping your mouse near the address bar and not on the actual web page), then once google has loaded, point your mouse inside the google page, and additional links and such will appear.

Neowin reported that on Dec. 3.

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/12/03/google-r...w-fade-in-homepage

i found out about it like a month or 2 ago... its quite old now... though back then it was rarely happening...

Yeah it's quite cool

I used a cookie "hack" to get it to work when it wasn't public, couple months ago like NanaFreak said.

Cool? It is annoying and completely useless imho....

It 'only' shows when you move the mouse... Well, in 99% of all cases you do move your mouse anyways. If it isn't moving to the search button, then it is moving because you moved your pointer away from your browser's address bar where you type google.com, or from the quick launch button or whatever and end up on the google page anyways.

1. Go to address bar (CTRL+L).
2. Type Google.com, press enter.
3. Type search query, press enter.

No mouse movement involved and you don't need to see the other unneeded links.

You can always disable it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris4
1. Go to address bar (CTRL+L).
2. Type Google.com, press enter.
3. Type search query, press enter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris4
1. Go to address bar (CTRL+L).
2. Type Google.com, press enter.
3. Type search query, press enter.

No mouse movement involved and you don't need to see the other unneeded links.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris4
You can always disable it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris4
1. Go to address bar (CTRL+L).
2. Type Google.com, press enter.
3. Type search query, press enter.

No mouse movement involved and you don't need to see the other unneeded links.

---

You will never convince me of its usage or effeciency.

What Menthix said, and for those who don't search directly from the address-bar:

When you're browsing the web and suddenly want to look something up, I bet you do use your mouse because you were scrolling a page before or whatever. I never saw anybody leaving there mouse when they suddenly wanted to go to Google. Everybody I know click somewhere (address-bar, or button or whatever) to go to google.com, and only then start to type the query, after moving the mouse cursor a bit to get it out of the way.

It is 100% useless and inefficient eyecandy.

PS: and it are exactly those 'unneeded' links I often use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris4
You can always disable it.

---

That's BS imho... So I need to install something else to disable it?????? It should be the other way around...
(and who wants to disable JS?... I might as well switch to my text browser then)

---

I agree it's pointless, but it's not removing any functionality or anything, what's to complain about? Secondly, if you're that worried about it, why not save yourself the aggro/annoyance AND the time and just search from your address bar. Personally, I've not seen the Google homepage in ages.




Also note that pointless/useless is the wrong word, there is likely a fair few reasons Google made the change, which should be obvious.

I like it. Makes google look better imo.

completely useless since I'm moving the mouse most of time when browsing (for mouse gestures, navigating between tabs, just moving the mouse around randomly when bored)

i kinda like the clean look though..

Segosa, but it is so..... evil
This is the beginning of the joining of the dark side.
I bet MS has something todo with it...

quote:

---

Originally posted by vaccination
Also note that pointless/useless is the wrong word, there is likely a fair few reasons Google made the change, which should be obvious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
name one, except eyecandy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by vaccination
Also note that pointless/useless is the wrong word, there is likely a fair few reasons Google made the change, which should be obvious.

---

pfff, name one, except eyecandy...

---

It would be interesting to see if Google keeps track of how many times people do move the mouse and thus the other stuff gets faded in. I can't imagine that most people do not move the mouse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
It would be interesting to see if Google keeps track of how many times people do move the mouse and thus the other stuff gets faded in. I can't imagine that most people do not move the mouse.

---

Also, it doesn't work on FireFox, probably AdBlockPlus is doing it , the links show up normally, no "fade in".

Didn't know wtf you guys were talking about till I tried in Internet Explorer

Works fine in Firefox for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by segosa
Works fine in Firefox for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
I can't imagine that most people do not move the mouse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by toddy

quote:

---

Originally posted by segosa
Works fine in Firefox for me.

---

x2

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
I never saw anybody leaving there mouse when they suddenly wanted to go to Google.

---

It doesn't fade in if you're logged in

quote:

---

Originally posted by SonicSam
It doesn't fade in if you're logged in

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SonicSam
It doesn't fade in if you're logged in

---

Odd, well fade-in works for me on http://adwordsgoogle.com/, but i'm not logged in, and it doesn't work on Google.com

I DUNNO, ALL I SEE IS LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS

quote:

---

Originally posted by SonicSam
It doesn't fade in if you're logged in

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blessedguy

quote:

---

Originally posted by SonicSam
It doesn't fade in if you're logged in

---

Is your google.com page in the blue-ish or default theme?

---

Just a note

Just word of mouth, but i think the fade in effect was to preserve a little virtual memory. Now I have no idea if this is even remotely true, nor can I be bothered researching into it. But yea.

Also, there are people in this world who like things that are there just for "eye-candy" and provide no real other use. Remember google is the most used search engine, so for people who arent really that tech savvy or whatever, they will go to google.com and type their queries in there instead of say using the search bar. And for them, this fade in effect might be interesting or cool. Not everyone is as uber-awesome techy like you cookie

Left side

quote:

---

Originally posted by SonicSam
Left side

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Th3rmal
Just word of mouth, but i think the fade in effect was to preserve a little virtual memory. Now I have no idea if this is even remotely true, nor can I be bothered researching into it. But yea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by segosa

quote:

---

Originally posted by Th3rmal
Just word of mouth, but i think the fade in effect was to preserve a little virtual memory. Now I have no idea if this is even remotely true, nor can I be bothered researching into it. But yea.

---

...

---

You have the intellect comparable to that of a rock. Be proud.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NanaFreak
it would be good to have it so that it would stay as just the white + textbox until you clicked on the background...

---

but to get those links back it would just require 1 click on the white... i feel it is just strange to have to blank and then when you move your mouse it comes back... it should be a more controlled environment than just mouse movement

but hey, everyone likes different things =p

tbh I agree with Nana, about the clicky thing. then again though I occasionally see the google mainpage, and sometimes just to check the google doodle, I normally just use firefox's address bar or google qsb

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
People do use those others links ya know

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blessedguy

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
People do use those others links ya know

---

Not everyone.
For example, if I want to go to Google News, just type news.google.com instead, works for all Google products.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by vaccination
you can't expect a new member to instantly know that there is news section, nor what the URL to it is

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blessedguy

quote:

---

Originally posted by vaccination
you can't expect a new member to instantly know that there is news section, nor what the URL to it is

---

The new user probably doesn't even know there wasn't that fade effect.

---

But say a user begins using Google for the first time after the fade-in effect has been introduced. What are the chances that they will use the service without performing any action that activates the fade-in? I would estimate that it would be a very low percentage. That said, the very high majority of new users would automatically see those links the first time they use the service.

Users that were familiar with the interface before the fade-in effect was introduced would, for the vast majority, be able to continue using the service without any interruptions. A few seconds would be spent marvelling at the new feature, and browsing would continue.

they could add some text in that is faded so that it is readable but not intrusive with instructions about clicking to reveal more options.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kezzinator29
But say a user begins using Google for the first time after the fade-in effect has been introduced. What are the chances that they will use the service without performing any action that activates the fade-in? I would estimate that it would be a very low percentage. That said, the very high majority of new users would automatically see those links the first time they use the service.

Users that were familiar with the interface before the fade-in effect was introduced would, for the vast majority, be able to continue using the service without any interruptions. A few seconds would be spent marvelling at the new feature, and browsing would continue.

---

I haven't read the whole of this thread so I've scrolled down immediately after reading Cookie's post.

Cookie, the reason Google made the decision is because they wanted to "go back to basics", meaning they'd remove everything unnecessary until one hovers over the page.

The only real call-to-action that Google ever wants to have on it's pages is the search bar. Through the searches on this main page it sends people to exactly where they want to be, quicker than if they saw a bunch of text. This could be somewhat confusing for a lot of users!!! Keeping in mind that Google gets billions of hits per day, and the majority of computer-users visiting this site will not have a clue what's going on.

Google said the following:

quote:

---

“For the vast majority of people who come to the Google homepage, they are coming in order to search, and this clean, minimalist approach gives them just what they are looking for first and foremost. For those users who are interested in using a different application like Gmail, Google Image Search or our advertising programs, the additional links on the homepage only reveal themselves when the user moves the mouse.”

---

Very understandable that they want to go back to minimalistic look, and I applaud that.
(but why did they changed it to the non-minimalistic look a while ago in the first place then? I can clearly remember all the discussions it brought on back then)

The only thing I realy don't understand is why choosing for this fading-effect on mouse movement. Because I'm realy certain most people (incl., and even especially, the millions of average users for which this minimalistic look is intended apparently) will actually move their mouse, making this whole "minimalistic"-argument a bit useless. Keyboard shortcuts are mostly used by "power" users, not by the average guy (which is the majority), who even doesn't know the shortcuts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor
It's all about usability and Google have got it right.

---

I think the reason they went for the 'non-minimalist' look is to show off their other services that people would otherwise not have seen.

I think they've chosen the fade-in effect because it's the most simple thing that can be done in this case. It would be a mistake to use it in other situations, but in this case it's fine. Anybody who uses Google often knows that when the website has loaded fully, the text input is the first thing that you're focused on (literally and digitally), it will automatically place your text in their when you start typing (don't know how to word this, but you know what I mean).

This means that people don't need to know or even use shortcuts when it comes to it! The input box is already active as soon as the site loads up! No F6, no Tab, Shift-Tab - no nothing.

Edit: Regarding usability; Google are thinking about the 'bigger picture' and not just what you personally use Google for. All you're concentrating on is the way that you use Google not the way that the majority use it. Google will have definitely researched this before making the change. If you read the article on Mashable (which I linked to in my previous post), you will also notice that Google tried 10 (I think that was the number) different variations before reaching this one.

Knowing Google, their stature and their background. They would have definitely got some user-experience testers to try each separate version before coming up with the final decision.

Edit 2: Besides, if you're that bothered by the change you don't have to put up with it. You've got the opportunity to use iGoogle if you want to! This will even allow you to have your language tools set as a widget.

Plus, you can use the iGoogle theme I created.

I don't want to go into iGoogle or specific themes, because those are irrelevant because those are exactly those 'personal' settings. In all my posts I was talking with the majority of people/average users in mind, not my own preferences (the language tools is just an example of the other links you can use), or the preferences of some die-hard PC-literate people (which aren't the majority of people).

Hence my previous question if they would actually track the fade-in effect vs. clicking on the other links. Because I would be realy surprised if it turns out that most people indeed do not move their mouse (even if they just want to search). I don't believe it and never will until I see such figures...

I know they researched it. But I think it is the least worse (luckally, as it could be even worse) of their bad decision. But that doesn't make it a good thing imho.
The thing is not so much that they tested several versions of it and picked this one (the least worse), but that they made the decision to change it into 'something' in the first place. I'm 100% certain "no change" wasn't one of those 10 tested versions!

Another thing I'm very surprised about actually, is that there is no way to disable the effect in the 'options'. It woul be dead easy to implement it in a cookie with the rest of the options for them.

Anyways, it's there and we now need to live with it (or make a personalised page). It isn't a realy big deal though, but I still find it annoying eventhough I try to get used to it... Only time will tell I guess.

Look. I'm sure they know what they're doing. That's all I'm saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor
Look. I'm sure they know what they're doing. That's all I'm saying.

---

When it comes to the world-wide web, Google have got it down to a T. Their decision to do this is to do with aesthetics and usability, it's not a major business decision and it's something they know about. Like both myself and Mashable said, they've tried and tested many versions of this until they came to this decision.

Let's see how it goes.

It's not going to stop anyone from using Google, so stop whining.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6812...untdown-clock.html

Looks like google had make another change

quote:

---

Originally posted by krissy-afc
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6812543/Google-Im-Feeling-Lucky-button-leads-to-mystery-countdown-clock.html

Looks like google had make another change

---