Google Homepage Redesign(go.infinise.com)
go.infinise.com
Google Homepage Redesign
http://go.infinise.com/
44 comments
Yes.
In the real world, 8% surveyed (by Google) in Times Square knew what a browser was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ&feature=playe...
Now try explaining difference between URL bar and Search bar in Safari, Firefox, etc... Give up yet?
I wonder if that survey relates to why Google decided the OS should be the browser, so people might actually use Chrome. ;-)
Best mantra for web design isn't "Web 2.0", it's "Don't Make Me Think."
In the real world, 8% surveyed (by Google) in Times Square knew what a browser was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ&feature=playe...
Now try explaining difference between URL bar and Search bar in Safari, Firefox, etc... Give up yet?
I wonder if that survey relates to why Google decided the OS should be the browser, so people might actually use Chrome. ;-)
Best mantra for web design isn't "Web 2.0", it's "Don't Make Me Think."
>> Now try explaining difference between URL bar and Search bar in Safari, Firefox, etc.
Exactly.
My mom, who is in her early sixties and is considered to be very proficient in how to use the Internet among her peer group, can't seem to get that there's a difference between the Google search box and the address bar - she just searches for "cnn.com", clicks on the first result, and gets there. And when you think about it, this is a fine process for her - she doesn't understand/care about the way the internet actually works, but she has a routine (punching it all into google) that always gets her near where she's trying to be.
She also can't get her head around that hitting Enter submits a form - she'll type it in, and then click on the search button. 100% of the time.
Exactly.
My mom, who is in her early sixties and is considered to be very proficient in how to use the Internet among her peer group, can't seem to get that there's a difference between the Google search box and the address bar - she just searches for "cnn.com", clicks on the first result, and gets there. And when you think about it, this is a fine process for her - she doesn't understand/care about the way the internet actually works, but she has a routine (punching it all into google) that always gets her near where she's trying to be.
She also can't get her head around that hitting Enter submits a form - she'll type it in, and then click on the search button. 100% of the time.
I've heard that roughly 30% of Google search are searches for domains, just like this cnn.com example.
heck I do that sometimes when I just get lazy and hit the wrong bar or I'm not exactly sure of the domain.
That, and it accomplishes what Microsoft did with IE in the olden days.
Besides who here actually goes to google to search for something? The people who this would be aimed at use things like the chrome url bar, firefox searchbar, or firefox search keywords. Much more efficient.
The focus of this and other comments here seems to be to critique how this UI works for the majority of Google users. IMHO there's room for several alternatives interfaces for any popular service.
> 8% surveyed (by Google) in Times Square knew what a browser was
So 92% need the UI that works for them. There should also be a UI for the 8% minority that Google is, who know to hit enter for submit.
We've come to value multiple interfaces adapted to the client device. Isn't it time to have interfaces adapted to the skill-set of the user as well?
> 8% surveyed (by Google) in Times Square knew what a browser was
So 92% need the UI that works for them. There should also be a UI for the 8% minority that Google is, who know to hit enter for submit.
We've come to value multiple interfaces adapted to the client device. Isn't it time to have interfaces adapted to the skill-set of the user as well?
So do you know of a script that detects the skill set of the user then displays them an appropriate design?
The biggest problem with this design however is that it does not add anything to the experience other than aesthetics. In fact, it obscures many options and reduces usability. So how is this a power user's interface? Appearance is nice, but usability and understandability are much more important with design.
The biggest problem with this design however is that it does not add anything to the experience other than aesthetics. In fact, it obscures many options and reduces usability. So how is this a power user's interface? Appearance is nice, but usability and understandability are much more important with design.
Perhaps the users who are in that 8% are bookmarking this page right now to use for their searches. You don't need to go to google.com to start up a search.
If you look up in the top right of your browser, you'll see no search button. No matter what browser you use, you'd see a search box with no button. Billions of people see this interface everyday.
Even if the user doesn't know what a browser is, they know to press enter in that box.
I agree that this isn't a good redo, but your comments are off target.
Even if the user doesn't know what a browser is, they know to press enter in that box.
I agree that this isn't a good redo, but your comments are off target.
usually they click on one of the suggestions from the auto suggested searches. that's what i've seen people do.
Are you sure this is just a Google homepage redesign? Click the little i icon in the bottom right corner.
Click the Google icon to turn it into a Wikipedia, YouTube or Twitter search engine. Try the ^2 and ^3 keyboard shortcuts too.
Click the Google icon to turn it into a Wikipedia, YouTube or Twitter search engine. Try the ^2 and ^3 keyboard shortcuts too.
well there's a usability failrue right there - I didnt notice it at first :)
Classic mystery meat navigation.
I do not go to google.com and then search all that often nowadays. Most of the search takes place right from the search box (Firefox) or directly from Chrome..
I use the address bar in Firefox thanks to its handy-dandy I'm-feeling-lucky submission (and neatly tuned confidence -- it will take you to Google.com if unsure). Try typing "paul graham's homepage" in your address bar and see where it takes you.
Some usability flaws:
- There are no back buttons when cycling through domains (or any indication on what number of domain you're on - perhaps an iPhone style page counter would do?)
- For Google, there are much more than 3 options. A "..." item would probably be most logical.
- I would have absolutely no idea whether to click the contextual button to cycle through domains, perhaps it should just be faded rather than invisible.
- No submit button. I havn't used one in years, but it doesn't mean my mum hasn't either.
- There are no back buttons when cycling through domains (or any indication on what number of domain you're on - perhaps an iPhone style page counter would do?)
- For Google, there are much more than 3 options. A "..." item would probably be most logical.
- I would have absolutely no idea whether to click the contextual button to cycle through domains, perhaps it should just be faded rather than invisible.
- No submit button. I havn't used one in years, but it doesn't mean my mum hasn't either.
I agree Taitems.
I also think that the images should be pre-loaded to avoid a short blank spot on the page when you first start flicking through the search options.
I also think that the images should be pre-loaded to avoid a short blank spot on the page when you first start flicking through the search options.
Ctrl + 1, 2, etc are shortcuts to switch tabs in Firefox and hence jumps tabs after hitting the shortcuts. Adding e.preventDefault() in "KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS" should help.
These are also shortcuts to the Speed Dial websites of Opera 10 and allow to switch tabs under Google Chrome.
I'm not sure they are appropriate for a web app.
I'm not sure they are appropriate for a web app.
Probably a Mac user. Cmd + 1, 2 etc switches tabs there.
Well... this is actually an okay redesign. A rare creature. Most designers do far worse, e.g. http://www.andyrutledge.com/google-redux.php . Also, it reminded me of Duck Duck Go http://duckduckgo.com/ created by HN user epi0Bauqu.
Any time you post a redesign of a major Google page, isn't the burden of proof really hard? I'm under the impression that there's an avalanche of data backing up every pixel on those pages. If Google starts setting search results in Comic Sans, you're still going to have to start by assuming that Comic Sans is making them a shit-ton of money.
Google's extensive testing does not preclude the possibility that their design sucks. The original "simplicity" of their service was entirely accidental; if I'm not mistaken Sergei either didn't know enough html or didn't care enough to bother making it any more complicated.
Religiously testing will only lead to a local maximum and ignores the possibility that the design may have not been great to begin with.
Google's homepage is not even remotely close to the standard a highly competent minimalist designer would offer. Little attention to detail, remedial typographical choices, a 90's looking poorly executed Logo, random UI elements with no clear purpose. It's very much like an engineers interpretation of what a minimalist designer would do.. which is exactly what it is.
All of their products are on the utilitarian end of minimalist design and could stand to be improved significantly from an aesthetic perspective without actually changing the interface noticeably.
Religiously testing will only lead to a local maximum and ignores the possibility that the design may have not been great to begin with.
Google's homepage is not even remotely close to the standard a highly competent minimalist designer would offer. Little attention to detail, remedial typographical choices, a 90's looking poorly executed Logo, random UI elements with no clear purpose. It's very much like an engineers interpretation of what a minimalist designer would do.. which is exactly what it is.
All of their products are on the utilitarian end of minimalist design and could stand to be improved significantly from an aesthetic perspective without actually changing the interface noticeably.
Or, Google has spent the 0.00038% of its gross profits that it would take create an optimally aesthetic version of its home page, A/B tested it against www.google.com, and found the aesthetic version less effective.
Aren't we allowed to redesign things just for the joy of showing people what we think things should look like? I mean, Jesus Christ, when people post Google or Craigslist redesigns here we get so bitchy about it. I've always seen these redesigns as sorts of "covers" of the original site. It's like Hendrix playing All Along The Watchtower. It's a riff on an idea for the sake of being creative.
You know what? I liked this redesign a lot. I like how white it is. I like the smaller logo. I like the effort the author put into making each logo look really crisp, the Wikipedia one in particular. I like that there are only four words on the entire page. I like the blue bar around the search box. So seeing this page made my day a little more enjoyable, and I'm glad it was posted here. No, I don't think it would be a good idea to implement this, but maybe that wasn't the point.
You know what? I liked this redesign a lot. I like how white it is. I like the smaller logo. I like the effort the author put into making each logo look really crisp, the Wikipedia one in particular. I like that there are only four words on the entire page. I like the blue bar around the search box. So seeing this page made my day a little more enjoyable, and I'm glad it was posted here. No, I don't think it would be a good idea to implement this, but maybe that wasn't the point.
You're allowed to do whatever you want. The redesign here is pretty. But the cart is probably dragging the horse, and it's always worth contrasting "what works" with "what designers think is best".
Compare what a competant designer comes up with to Google's home page and start asking "why did Google do it this way", and you might learn something new.
Compare what a competant designer comes up with to Google's home page and start asking "why did Google do it this way", and you might learn something new.
But of course. Google's raised controversy among its designers for focusing on hits over aesthetic. We've had that talk before.
I've actually always been against that mindset myself, and I've argued against it before here. I don't necessarily think it's a good thing to sacrifice everything just to boost numbers. If we had an Internet where there were half a dozen really good search engines where each one handled search a little bit differently, I'd much prefer that to the current situation. But I'm in the minority there.
I've actually always been against that mindset myself, and I've argued against it before here. I don't necessarily think it's a good thing to sacrifice everything just to boost numbers. If we had an Internet where there were half a dozen really good search engines where each one handled search a little bit differently, I'd much prefer that to the current situation. But I'm in the minority there.
The design looks great, but I had to think to use it, so that’s where it fails. Although it does raise the idea that Google homepage could do with redesign. On that who uses the I'm feeling lucky button? Google probably have some stats saying its really popular, but I reckon its just from people clicking on it by accident.
> Although it does raise the idea that Google homepage could do with redesign
Bear in mind Google religiously maintains it's home page for speed and usability and brand awareness. It's an icon.
Changing it would be an awful move for them.
Bear in mind Google religiously maintains it's home page for speed and usability and brand awareness. It's an icon.
Changing it would be an awful move for them.
Bearing in mind consideration likes search button, you don't know you can cycle domains until hover, can't go back, can't see how many domains there are etc...
I'm quite impressed with this surprisingly, it looks nice and clean. Maybe a little less border on the textbox but otherwise very nice.
I'm quite impressed with this surprisingly, it looks nice and clean. Maybe a little less border on the textbox but otherwise very nice.
As some already pointed out, this isn't really a "google homepage redesign," but just a clean, simple startpage for a variety of search engines. I know you've got to figure it out at first, but once you do it works I think.
I don't see this as an actual suggestion for Google as much as a really cool version; especially since the source is offered. (I'm tweaking it and making it my homepage, now. :D)
Great job!
Great job!
Nifty but indeed relying a lot of user awareness
Info button, at the right bottom of the page! I found it looking at the source before noticing it was on the screen. usability--
eh...
You don't have to use the keyboard shortcuts, you can hover over the logo and will see an arrow appear... You can cycle through search engines that way as well.
You don't have to use the keyboard shortcuts, you can hover over the logo and will see an arrow appear... You can cycle through search engines that way as well.
Is it just me, or is that arrow barely visible?
The colors are sorta nice, but I shouldn't have to be told there is an arrow to realize it.
The colors are sorta nice, but I shouldn't have to be told there is an arrow to realize it.
I agree... It took me a while to notice it too before I clicked it and the logo changed.
Simply too much space between the logo and the search box.
That looks awesome.
As I almost never actually look at their homepage using Google from toolbars or browsers directly this is of marginal interest.
Not everyone on the planet is die hard web two point oh bleeding edge geeeeeeeniusssses like us.
There is no context. I don't know what I am supposed to do. Why is there no submit button? I'm supposed to magically realize that enter = submit? Not everyone knows what google is. It is quite absurdly annoying to assume our "above average" knowledge of the internet is a common trait.
Please someone add a link list of all the funny, outrageous, sad, and outright weird stories about how real people actually use the internet.
Google is a service that people in the "real world" use. Please keep that in mind.