Shoutbox

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.

---

But you have pre-existing knowledge of Google's services and their URL structure, you can't expect a new member to instantly know that there is news section, nor what the URL to it is. [blah blah blah, "Not everyone" is a silly statment to make, of course not everyone does, but he didn't say that everyone did. A company is based around doing something for as many users as possible, not for one group of people or the other. -- As a side note, the comments on this forum are terrible.]

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.


Bah, why are we discussing possibilities to begin with? Considering the user base, there will be all sorts of opinions and uses for that

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.

---

So? That has no bearing on whether or not people use those links, which is what we're talking about here.

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.

---

Lol, again, we're not talking about the fade in effect. This (part of the) conversation started with "people do use those buttons", to which someone replied "Not everyone", to which I stated what a silly comment that was.

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.”

---

I don't think they could make a more just argument in their decision to make the page fade in. It makes a lot of sense and is a sound decision on their part. Though, according to Mashable, people are a little taken aback at the moment; this momentary pause that people are taking will eventually stop happening and then it will make future searches faster.

I'm not sure how people can oppose a lot of the things Google are doing. They are one of the most intelligent and intuitive companies in the world when it comes to the world wide web. They perform countless studies and analyses every single day, so I'm sure they know what they're doing - and I'm saying this as someone who keeps up to date with them on a daily basis.

Edit: @NanaFreak - I completely understand what you're saying but why do that when you just have to hover over the page? The only thing Google wants you to click is "search" or "i'm feeling lucky", they're not bothered about the other stuff too much. By clicking, you're making the user perform an unnecessary action that would deter millions of people from using the site - particularly those who use those links on a regular basis.

It's all about usability and Google have got it right.

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 disagree. It didn't improved usebility in any way. In fact, it made it a bit worse in case you need to go to those other links (eg: language tools which I use regulary). And in case you only need to search something, nothing has changed. So in overal, it is worse.
(same with their OS, which is a big usebility flop also, but that's a whole other discussion).

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.