Don Norman is my new hero. Though I just found out recently, today as a matter of fact, just minutes ago. That's when I came across his essay: The truth about Google's so-called 'simplicity'.
Is Google simple? No. Google is deceptive. It hides all the complexity by simply showing one search box on the main page. The main difference, is that if you want to do anything else, the other search engines let you do it from their home pages, whereas Google makes you search through other, much more complex pages. Why aren't many of these just linked together? Why isn't Google a unified application? Why are there so many odd, apparently free-standing services?
Less — for the sake of less — does not always equate more. We should stop assuming that web users want to pound round pegs into round holes.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
I couldn't agree more.
Sometimes making things look and feel simpler just ends up making them more difficult and time consuming to use. Sure, there are a mind numbing amount commands one can put into the google search bar to do specific things, but wouldn't it be better to make such things intuitive and easy to do for everyone, rather than make it necessary for entire books to be written about becoming a Google "expert"?
Google is very seriously afraid of the stigma that is associated with the word "portal". It is for this simple reason that Google's pages aren't linked together.
Lately, however, they have been portalizing some parts of their sites. Calendar and Gmail are integrated and link to each other. Gmail has integrated talk. Gmail also has Maps links. And for webmasters, the Sitemaps site is seeing other Google tools integrated quite often. Adwords integrates Analytics.
Google seems to be a bit slow on the integration, but I think they are just trying to do things in ways that make sense instead of just throwing everything on one big homepage.
And then there's always this page:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/options/
This is true about Google, but one of the best things about such a simple page is it loads very quickly on pretty much any connection: broadband, modem, cell phone. Comes in handy when you travel internationally.
My feeling is that Google's main page serves an overwhelming percentage--maybe as high as 80-90%--of the type of service I use when visiting Google. Sure, you could design a page which incorporates the remainder, but why load and parse what you don't need? If you need one of the other services, there are direct links to them both on the main page and their URLs are very easy to remember (and bookmark, duh).
I think we (I assume by "we" you mean web designers) should stop assuming that we know what pegs web users pound and stop assuming we know all the holes into which they want to pound said pegs. Not all web users are alike, and it's very easy for web designers to talk about them as if they weren't in the room. Ask my mom whether she likes the main page for Google or Yahoo better.
Brilliant!
Its like that tip of the iceberg saying.
Indeed. I'm sure there are tons of things on google that I don't even know about. The other day one of my classmates mentioned google print and I was clueless (I still am).
Narayan has a good point about google loading quickly. Still, it might help if google got rid of its deprecated elements and learned what css is. Maybe they can google it.
Never thought of it that way. Here we are munching words over the state of Google's home page when we really should start touching on Google's overly complicated 1000-free-seperate-services network. I keep it simple - I don't never use them except for Google Earth for the sheer coolness of it.
Donald is right about the hidden complexities of Google, but for me: I don't care. If I want to search, I don't care how easy it is for me to do 500 other things, I just want to search.
That is why I think of Google as 'simple to use'. It gets out of my way and doesn't try to cross-sell me all the other products with every single page view.
Hell, all search engines have that clean elegant part to them: type your search terms into the box and hit "Enter."
Do they? Or do they have the search box and enter part, without the clean elegance, because they surround it with masses of text and images, like yahoo.com?
It's a matter of priorities I think. I assume Google does some research in how it's site is used. If 98% of the people are happy using the current searchpage, how could that be better? It could be true that people digging further, wanting to use the other services, are a bit more experienced on the web and don't have problems clicking a few times more. Or are able to bookmark or remember the specific url needed to visit one of the other services. Narayan is right that those urls are pretty easy to remember.
One thing that really annoyes me on the more portal-like pages like msn is the massive amount of random and commercial stuff. It all screams and flickers and moves with only one message: "click me!", "click me!". It's like walking into a large store. I'd like a big clean empty entry hall, having one sign for the most important directions I can take. I don't want 30 employees running towards me starting to tell me what to do, trowing tupperware at me and trying to sell me stuff I don't need.
But, I can imagine a simple and clean list of links with the 10 or 20 most used services at the lower half of the page would not be bad or making the page any heavier.
When Google first came out, "we" all looked at it and thought ... Who the heck did the logo? ... What's with the empty page and search box? However, the brilliance became evident when running a search. Google actually returned results you could use. So almost overnight, they became the leader in the industry.
Remember Excite? Hotbot? Early MSN (current MSN too)? Useless results and cluttered home pages.
However, I do think that Google is now stuck. My feeling is that they would love to start showcasing their 100s of products to everyone, but have been pounded into a round hole as it where by the fact that people hate change. I wish I could find that link about the user testing Google did a few years back on some new home page designs. The response from nearly all of their test users was "Where did the search box go and why did you change? No. We don't like it." So, they are stuck ... and in being stuck ... are still leading and we are forced to hear from clients that they want “Good, clean design. You know, like Google.”
Anyhow, I'll look around for the user testing and post the link if I can dig it up.
"Why isn't Google a unified application? "
Because I don't need my lawnmower to also make me coffee in the morning.
The trouble with Google is that they take the ethos of "search" a little too far. I think they'd rather you search for everything than offer you categorized links and/or navigation for their content.
Both schemes have their place and unifying everything into a "search for everything" model robs the user from discovering things he may not have thought to look for.
Oh come on... all the design zealots slag off Google! Did you not see the drop shadow on their Logo?
I think we (I assume by "we" you mean web designers) should stop assuming that we know what pegs web users pound and stop assuming we know all the holes into which they want to pound said pegs. Not all web users are alike, and it's very easy for web designers to talk about them as if they weren't in the room
By we, I mean anyone who makes websites/webapps. This includes designers, developers, producers, architects, writers, etc. It's highly unlikely that a designer made the decision to keep the Google homepage to a single form field. Rather it was a design decision likely made by the developers of the application.
Ask my mom whether she likes the main page for Google or Yahoo better.
I like where you're going with this... goodbye useability, hello momability.
Say what you will, but if the "usability" of something like Google doesn't include moms, the term usability is worthless, which I suspect it is anyway. Who knows what the demographics of google's users are, but I'd bet you an Uno's pizza that moms outweigh the small gaggle of web designers whining about a sparse homepage, maybe googol:1. Hell, I'd bet two pizzas. And a Portillo's combo.
On a related note, in this context, is it technically a gaggle or a herd?
Maybe Google should make their preferences more robust so that those who want more features can get at them easily. I, for one, use Google almost exclusively, precisely because it's not Yahoo. I have a friend at work who starts all of his web browsing at Google, even if he knows the URL. In his words, "To me, the web and Google are the same thing?". As deranged a notion as that may be, I suspect he's not alone in his sentiments. Most of my blind surfing starts in Safari's Google search box, so in a sense, my entry point to the web is almost always also a single-field entry.
This includes designers, developers, producers, architects, writers, etc. It's highly unlikely that a designer made the decision to keep the Google homepage to a single form field. Rather it was a design decision likely made by the developers of the application.
So? All of those roles you mentioned are designers. Every aspect of a web product is designed. Be it by the visual designer or the IA or the writer or the programmer.
Why would you assume a software designer made google's home page rather than a graphic designer or UI designer?
I like where you're going with this... goodbye useability, hello momability.
Enabling mom to use a site/product is not usability?
Maybe Google should make their preferences more robust so that those who want more features can get at them easily.
They already have. Just click the PERSONALIZED HOME link.
All of those roles you mentioned are designers. Every aspect of a web product is designed. Be it by the visual designer or the IA or the writer or the programmer.
I agree but not everyone does so I wanted to make sure everyone felt included.
Enabling mom to use a site/product is not usability?
Lighten up.
I think Norman is being disingenuous when he says "All search engines have that clean elegant part to them". Every design is 100% usable, if you focus only on the part of the design that is exactly what the user is looking for. You can't seriously equate two designs on the basis of their ability to facilitate a single task without incorporating the fact that one design makes that task painfully discoverable, center screen, with no distractions, while the other design buries that task in a mountain of unrelated, flashing, moving, garbage.
IMO, the reason Google is so popular is that they have focused on the single most important thing their users want -- finding things -- and decided that their home page would sacrifice the usability of all the other bells and whistles to focus exclusively on that one task. Sure, if that's not the task you're looking to perform, the Google home page doesn't help you at all. But obviously they are gambling (and successfully so far) that "finding stuff" is what the vast majority of their users want to do.
And it should be noted that they have done a good job of integrating many of their side projects into that one task. If you're looking for web pages, the search engine results page will help you, but you can get helpful results from the same interface if you're searching for a weather report, or a restaurant near you, or somebody's phone number, or a map of an address...
One part I completely agree with is that Google surely could be mor eunified with all it's services. All GMail accounts should be able to talk with eachother - information should be seamlessly exchangeable amongst all Google services like Google Print, Google Reader, Google Notebook, Google Earth etc.
For sure they are quite simple - but they're now spilling over into domains they'd probably never thought of when they started "search" - hopefully, they've started thinking of unifying all their services soon because I am going crazy logging into and logging out of all their separate services.
I do use a lot of them Google services :)
"Lighten up."
...says the guy on his 3rd month of this rant. ;o)
I like the fact that there is one field and only two buttons to do what -- as Narayan says 80 - 90% people do on Google. It's easy on the brain. (Actually, I just use the Google Search field on the Firefox toolbar, but never mind that.)
Sure, Yahoo as a bunch of stuff on their home page -- some no doubt useful-- but frankly, I don't need all that rubbish, and I don't need it on Google. While I do use gmail and google analytics, I just have a bookmark to those. I don't need a portal view of all the crap Google has to offer; I don't use it and I don't care.
Just one idiot's opinion, though.
For me Google is: Bookmarks in a Textbox, it's that simple, and probably can't get any simpler. I don't understand why you want complexity around that?
I feel what Don Norman is missing is: when I am searching for something, I am more interested in what I get back, rather than what I start out with. And if you look at the search results page of msn, and yahoo, guess what!! They look exactly like that of Google.
As someone who is searching 90% of the time, I don't really have a need for all that stuff you find on a yahoo or msn page. So I am more comfortable on a Google page, where I don’t have to mentally block out the clutter when I am starting a search.
I have been using ask.com a lot lately; I like the direction they are heading with web search.
Do they? Or do they have the search box and enter part, without the clean elegance, because they surround it with masses of text and images, like yahoo.com?
I perfer the text and images. The web is media, and I expect news headlines and pictures of Nelly next to my search box, so I don't have to look for them. Especially when I am searching for something I shouldn't be, and the wife walks in...then I can say "oh I was reading about some teen kids who blew up the death star." or "Nick and Ashley (Jessica's little sister) are now a thang!"
Seriously though, I am sick of the design trend that says "You're to ignorant to make a decision so we are only going to give you one option!"
I honestly feel like usability has gone too far. Usability has its place in design, but a plain white page with one object on it is insulting.
I am going to make a search engine that is a plain white page, with a text box. Nothing else, no logo, no title, no button, just the text box with the word "Search" in it.
When you type in your word, and hit enter, it will only return 1 link dressed up like the giant "Easy" button on the Staples commercials. When you click it, it will take you to what I feel is the most relevant page.
Wouldn't you feel belittled?
Seriously though, I am sick of the design trend that says "You're to ignorant to make a decision so we are only going to give you one option!"
I honestly feel like usability has gone too far. Usability has its place in design, but a plain white page with one object on it is insulting. I am going to make a search engine that is a plain white page, with a text box. Nothing else, no logo, no title, no button, just the text box with the word "Search" in it.
Wait a minute, folks: If any of you actually took a look at BOTH sides of the coin, you'd find that what they give you on their site is a starting block to build your own preferences. (Yahoo, etc... do this as well). The search engine literally is their starting block. Simple, easy to understand. Effective.
The meat of Google is in the applications designed and developed for open access and with one unique theme...the search engine application.
Hello! Search through your pics, music, videos, etc..? It's all designed using the underlying and unique programming that they have established and branded as their own identity.
I will subscribe to your Search Engine, John, when you actually take the time to write one. In the meantime, give people props for being unique and having a marketable product.
The grass is always greener, right? Why do designers/developers (and I am one) insist on 'improving' things that aren't broken?
What's wrong with simple interfaces? Simple, easy-to-use web sites are inclusive. They become familiar to users quickly, giving them confidence and empowering them to continue using those sites.
Why add a bunch of elements to the page if it will likely irritate users, or worse, scare them off? Developers should never add features without supporting data. I'm guessing Google isn't seeing the supporting data necessary to change their home page.
I always felt that Google site was simply underdesigned, not cleverly designed.
Of course, their historical design guideline of having a minimal home page, focused on the search form and not cluttered with portal style featurism, has been clever and remarkable.
But nothing in their actual design (home page, subsections, search results), screams state-of-the-art UI, information design, or information architecture.
Actually, it shows its limits now that google's offers of tools and services are much wider than web search.
They are so search focused that if I am on Google home page and I have to access any of their other sections, tools, or services, I just type its name in the search box and hit "I'm feeling lucky", rather than clicking on "more" and scan their obscure directory that looks like an university intranet portal of the nineties...
One thing is having a slim and simple homepage, one other is having a site which does nothing to assist users in finding their way and to expose its contents.
Yeah, then you can say a lot of things about the real need of fixing it...
Anyway, I just read this on arstechinca, and while the "slow uptake on new offerings" is probably related mainly on the quality of the offering themselves, I believe that Google should start thinking seriously about how they can improve findability and awareness of their stuff on their site... basically you get easiliy more info and access link to their stuff from the internet buzz and the blogsphere than from their site.
It still works but i think it's a bit insane.
OK - think back a few years ago when you first looked at OSX. Clean, elegant and a lot of the ugly stuff is hidden away. Well placed and easy to find when you need it, but otherwise not ther staring you in the face.
Bracketing usage by not only the type of user, activity and task, but frequency is critical. That, is just what Google does. WHat do you do most... it is right there. There is also the business component. You can not blame them AT ALL for any emphasis of what brings in the dollars. Design is NOT altruistic. Most of the time it is capitalsitic and profit motivated - and that is not bad.
I borrow from Norman all the time - form, function and fit - but there is also a finance or profit component that we as designers must recognize.
I imagine this is a subjective call. But an article that contends that Yahoo and Microsoft are easier to use seems a little odd to me.
He says:
"Take another careful look at Google's front page. Want a map? You have to click once to be offered the choice, then a second additional time to get to the map page".
Just search for the address your looking for or search for "Seattle Map". It's actually less work.
If you want to use Google Scholar, you're in a tiny minority of users. Bookmark it. Google is a search company with dozens and dozens of prominent offerings-- should the home page be a big menu of these? I bet you'd find that most people would say no.
Bah, enough of this. Just create a personalized Google home page. I gotta go pack.