Slashdot Mirror


Google Is Really Good At Design

Joshua Topolsky, writing for The Outline: The stuff Google showed off on October 4 was brazenly designed and strangely, invitingly touchable. These gadgets were soft, colorful... delightful? They looked human, but like something future humans had made; people who'd gotten righteously drunk with aliens. You could imagine them in your living room, your den, your bedroom. Your teleportation chamber. A fuzzy little donut you can have a conversation with. A VR headset in stunning pink. A phone with playful pops of color and an interface that seems to presage what you want, when you want it. It's weird. It's subtle. It's... good. It's Google? It's Google.

It was only a few years ago that Google was actually something of a laughing stock when it came to design. As an aggressively engineer-led company, the Mountain View behemoth's early efforts, particularly with its mobile software and devices, focused not on beauty, elegance, or simplicity, but rather concentrated on flexibility, iteration, and scale. These are useful priorities for a utilitarian search engine, but didn't translate well to many of the company's other products. Design -- the mysterious intersection of art and communication -- was a second-class citizen at Google, subordinate to The Data. That much was clear from the top down.

Enter Matias Duarte, the design impresario who was responsible for the Sidekick's UI (a wacky, yet strangely prescient mobile-everything concept) and later, the revolutionary (though ill-fated) webOS -- the striking mobile operating system and design language that would be Palm's final, valiant attempt at reclaiming the mobile market. Duarte was hired by Google in 2013 (initially as Android's User Experience Director, though he is now VP of design at the company), and spearheaded a complete reset of the company's visual and functional instincts. But even Duarte was aware of the design challenges his new role presented. "I never thought I'd work for Google," he told Surface Magazine in August. "I had zero ambition to work for Google. Everybody knew Google was a terrible place for design." Duarte went to work on a system that would ultimately be dubbed Material Design -- a set of principles that not only began to dictate how Android should look and work as a mobile operating system, but also triggered the march toward a unified system of design that slowly but surely pulled Google's disparate network of services into something that much more closely resembled a singular vision. A school of thought. A family.

11 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Joshua Topolsky's really good at being a shill N/T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    this post intentionally left almost blank

  2. Can't find the button by lorien420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is Material Design the thing where I can't tell which part of the screen is a button and which part isn't? I loved webOS, but the whole "everything is a uniform color with no way to tell what is what or how to interact with it" is one of the dumber design ideas for computers.

    --
    "[We'll be] really getting inside your head and making it an unpleasant place to be" -- Trent Reznor
    1. Re:Can't find the button by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more. This so called material Design is what is responsible for the horrible interface GMail has?

      In almost all Google products, they have adopted light colors for the font. These things aren't easily seen!!

      YouTube is even worse! The whole thing is from the 90s.

      Why, you may ask: For the desktop version, the whole page scrolls away if one is to read comments. Why not let the video remain visible as I peruse comments?

      If you are interested in video on the right, clicking to play subsequent video gets rid of that selection. I just don't get it!!

      Photos: No logical sorting exists. Google relies on AI for this! It's insane!

      Calendar: Huge bars as if one sent Google to Maximize screen real estate. Copying an event from one time frame to another is still not possible!

      One conclusion: It's sad that a [rich company like ]Google is horrible at design.

  3. Same bullshit as other modern companies UIs... by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They call "Material", but it's the same unicolor as other companies. I.e, icons with no meaning (triangle for back, square for home... or circle for home?), no color, no underline to indicate clickable text (nor buttons), no border or shadow to help you to identify a window, no text to help and lack of shortcuts for the advanced users, extensive use of light text color in white background, no way to customize a thing. Appears that the cool in modern design is just ignore every HCI rule that was build in the last 40 years.

    1. Re:Same bullshit as other modern companies UIs... by AbRASiON · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've been chanting what this guy has been saying for YEARS.

      Every point of his post is correct, FLAT colour, NO borders, NO defining lines, NO text labels, not even colour coded icons anymore, all one colour, it's a god damn sloppy disgusting joke that's HUGELY DIS-intuitive to me, I STILL double check what I'm clicking because I don't know what it is, BECAUSE IT'S NOT LABELLED!

      Colour coded, labelled, borders make a massive difference.
      Modern design is awful. but hey, some moron gets to call it 'clean'

    2. Re:Same bullshit as other modern companies UIs... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They use a left triangle for back, the same as your web browser and your VCR and your tape deck.

      No such button. A *right* pointing triangle means play. *Two* left triangles means rewind. Is that the same as "back"? Not really.

      Stop making things up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. Is this a joke? by Whatsisname · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this a joke?

    I know this may just sound like old-man-curmudgeon speak, but many of their products were much better in the earlier days. Maps is the most dramatic example. The new maps, once MBA-types took over it, runs considerably slower and has a worse UI than the original maps.

    The earlier android versions were also much better looking, much better looking than the recent flat-ui idiocy.

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously. Their admin UIs in particular are as bad as anything. Incoherent, rambling things that hide entire new regions beneath unassuming controls. And each region with its own original layout and interaction model.

      My favorite fails are the easy-to-miss dropdown in Gmail beneath the Gmail icon, which houses two whole options (that have nothing in common with each other), one of which—contacts—should be integrated with mail in a much more sophisticated, zero-nav way. And the Gmail refresh button that gives absolutely no feedback when pushed: not that you pushed it, not that it's doing what you asked, not when it's done. So... F5 it is. These ridiculous things have persisted for several years each.

  5. How do we mod summaries? by Gussington · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enough of modding comments, I want to be able to mod this fucking awful summary and article out of existence...

  6. Are you high? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. Google is HORRID at design.

    We have 4 different chat apps (voice, hangouts, allo, duo), 2 different map apps (waze and google maps), two different forms of email (gmail and inbox) and so on and so on. And it doesn't always integrate cleanly. I want to use hangouts as my dialer all the time, but by default it opens up my system dialer on android. I can use sms via hangouts, or google voice, or its own messaging app.

    It's a fucking mix mash of well designed widgets.

  7. Re:Slashvertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's just the "minimalism is always good design" crowd. I've never understood them. Form should follow function and good design is defined by interactions not appearance.