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.

29 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

    2. Re:Can't find the button by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is Material Design the thing where I can't tell which part of the screen is a button and which part isn't?

      Exactly.

      And your befuddlement is not unique.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Can't find the button by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Guidelines for Material buttons here: https://material.io/guidelines...

      As you can see, when there is any confusion about things being buttons you use a box to make it clear. If apps fail to do that and you are confused, they are doing Material design wrong.

      Unfortunately, there are some poor imitations out there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Can't find the button by w3woody · · Score: 2

      Well, remember: in today's world, "design" is "what looks pretty and promotes the brand"--and today that's pastels and abstract shapes and cute little black and white animations which show off the horsepower of the GPU in the device.

      And it has absolutely fuck-all to do with computer-human interfaces or usability--as if we just dumped every SigCHI paper from the ACM from the 1970's to the 1990's on a great big bonfire.

    5. Re:Can't find the button by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      eBay isn't pretty -- but is is entirely usable and easily understandable. That's more than you can say about "material design" anything.

    6. Re:Can't find the button by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      Why not let the video remain visible as I peruse comments?

      Below, user CSS to accomplish a fixed video player when not in theater mode. It is for the newest YT design and is still a little rough around the edges. I use it for my main desktop which has a UHD screen. Use a User CSS extension/addon/plugin of choice.

      ytd-watch[theater] #top #player.ytd-watch {
          position: relative;
      }

      ytd-watch[theater] #top #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
          margin-top: 0;
      }

      ytd-watch[theater] #top #playlist.style-scope.ytd-watch {
          top: 0;
      }

      ytd-watch[theater] #top #related.style-scope.ytd-watch {
          top: 0;
      } /**********/
      @media (min-width: 1000px) {
          ytd-watch #player.ytd-watch {
              position: fixed;
              z-index: 3;
          }

          ytd-watch #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
              margin-top: 960px;
          }
      }

      ytd-watch #items.style-scope.ytd-watch-next-secondary-results-renderer {
              margin-top: 480px;
          }
      } /**********/
      @media (min-height: 630px) and (min-width: 1294px) {
          ytd-watch #player.ytd-watch {
              position: fixed;
              z-index: 3;
          }

          ytd-watch #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
              margin-top: 960px;
          }
      } /**********/
      @media (min-height: 980px) and (min-width: 1720px) {
          ytd-watch #player.ytd-watch {
              position: fixed;
              z-index: 3;
          }

          ytd-watch #info-contents.style-scope.ytd-watch {
              margin-top: 1440px;
          }

          ytd-watch #top #related.style-scope.ytd-watch {
              top: 720px;
          }

          ytd-watch #top #playlist.style-scope.ytd-watch {
              top: 720px;
          }

      }

  2. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently you haven't used the docs.google.com interface; it's a real piece of shit, somehow they managed to do worse than Apple & Canonical.

  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.

    2. Re: Is this a joke? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      Google hasn't created a compelling/popular new product in-house since the original Google Maps. That was... 2004?

      They still have a good search engine. Even that is probably on the decline, as they start to manipulate results for political and/or anti-competitive purposes.

      What I really want to know it's how much of Google's "advertising revenue" really comes from selling ads. And how much comes from selling political surveillance services to fedgov and other repressive regimes?

    3. Re:Is this a joke? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Informative

      The MBA-types didn't take over Google Maps. Google hired designers from Apple to redesign it. The story was on Slashdot at the time, and everyone groaned because we all knew what was coming. Sure enough, the first update from the new designers removed tons of options. I kept the last version as long as I could, and then one fateful day decided Google Maps was a waste of space on my phone. Haven't looked back since. Don't miss it at all, either.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Is this a joke? by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      And let's not forget the retarded "pinch to rotate" gesture. I don't think I've EVER met anyone, in the ENTIRE HISTORY of Google Maps for Android, who's INTENTIONALLY rotated a fucking map after the first time or two they've used it. It's one of those features that was cool to show off for 5 minutes, but actively harms the app's ultimate usability. I'm one of those people who've wished for YEARS that Google would add a preferences option to Google Maps for "disable rotate gestures"

    5. Re: Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google didn't create "Google Maps" either. it was developed by "Where 2 Technologies"(started by some Australians) which Google bought.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps

      They also bought YouTube. Some people don't even know YouTube is Google's property. It is a separate brand like Microsoft does with XBox.

      And they bought Android too, which was going to be a palm-like device with keyboard:

      https://m.androidcentral.com/look-back-google-sooner-first-android-phone

      That was until the iPhone was debuted and then Eric Schmidt (who was then on Apple's board) got the Android team to copy it, which lead to pressure on him to eventually to resign from Apple's board. The copying of the iPhone lead to Steve Jobs famously saying Android as it had become was a "stolen product" and declaring he would go "thermonuclear war on this. They are scared to death because they know they are guilty."

      http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1162728/steve-jobs-vendetta-against-google-believed-android-stole-apple-iphones

      And Android has now been turned into a way to distribute ads and track users for money. It's not really an OS. Its a Trojan Horse. It's an ad-distribution and "Big Brother" screen in one.

      So I don't think Google had created something useful "in house" since search.

      And they've always been Evil.

    6. Re: Is this a joke? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      With countries there's something called the Resource Curse

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty, refers to the paradox that countries with an abundance of natural resources (like fossil fuels and certain minerals), tend to have less economic growth, less democracy, and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources. There are many theories and much academic debate about the reasons for and exceptions to these adverse outcomes. Most experts believe the resource curse is not universal or inevitable, but affects certain types of countries or regions under certain conditions.

      I think something similar happens to companies. If they can make a lot of money doing something which doesn't require much innovation - selling ads(Google), getting revenue from pre installed software(Microsoft), getting a cut of software sales(Apple, Google, Valve), or having a large number of hardware customers who are locked in (Every mainframe manufacturer in the 70's and 80's but IBM is the best example, arguably Apple and Samsung now) - it tends to make them not worry so much about innovation.

      So in the short term they'll have little innovation but a healthy bottom line. Then the market will change and because they don't innovate they'll be screwed.

      It happened to IBM when people moved from mainframes to PCs. It's probably happening to Microsoft now as people move from PCs to phones and tablets. Apple and Samsung might well have problems if people stop upgrading to the latest flagship phone every two years when their mobile network offers it 'free' (aka 'in exchange for continuing to pay $50+ a month for another two years'). If your business is based on significant numbers of people spending $700-1000 on a new phone every two years, you've got problems.

      I.e. don't be surprised if Google and Apple end up going the way of Microsoft and IBM. They certainly deserve it for resting on their laurels and trying to convince people to upgrade to a new model with fewer features than the old one.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  5. Re:Joshua Topolsky's really good at being a shill by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google's designers are almost as good at design as Equifax is at security.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  6. Ell no by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    Cautionary tale: if you get righteously drunk with aliens, you richly deserve the soft, colorful, delightful anal probe you will not remember completely, save for the faint reckoning that your drinking is perhaps getting out of hand.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  7. 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...

    1. Re:How do we mod summaries? by dissy · · Score: 2

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

      The very top of the page by the Slashdot logo. Firehose -> All
      https://slashdot.org/recent
      .
      It's pretty sad seeing technical articles with 50 or less comments assuming they even get modded up and out of the firehose to the main page, yet many political articles per day with multiple hundreds of comments so damn consistently on a tech website, I wish more technical people would help mod the articles.

  8. 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.

  9. Re:Slashvertisement by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

    Not to mention that one of the products he is wanking over has a button that doesn’t even work properly so it had to be disabled with software. Maybe the nerds should have focused more on the engineering rather than then aesthetic design?

  10. Re:A new Slashdot low by sd4f · · Score: 2

    These tech writers are not technical people. They write about this sort of subjective stuff because they have no clue about what actually happens underneath, nor do they care. Their goal is to look hipster, put on black horn rimmed glasses when they don't need them.

    What we have now is an industry that just shills for google.

  11. Re:Joshua Topolsky's really good at being a shill by lucm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the bad fucking thing about this is that i have to listen some exec dolt talk about how they got some new whizwhiz wweewee guru now at gooooooooogle and how they're good at design now at gooooogle

    Don't worry too much about it. Everyone can tell their products are terrible. Google is not good at design.

    Compare Google maps and Bing maps. The UX on Bing maps is vastly superior. Same for Bing images. As a search engine Bing is awful but the frontend (at least for images) is much better. Even Yahoo Search gives a better experience for images than Google.

    Or look at browsers. Is changing settings a delightful experience in Chrome, compared to Firefox or Safari? Absolutely not. It feels weird, you can never tell if you've looked at all the options, and when you change something it's not immediately clear if it's saved or not. These are all things that a junior designer could tell are wrong.

    If you really want a scare, open the developer tools that every developer knows as F12 but that somehow Google is trying to migrate to CTRL-Shift-I. Try to find the cookies or SSL certificates. Depending on the version of Chrome, they're not gonna be in the same place. Why? What problem are they trying to solve? All that was needed in terms of features and capabilities was already present in Firebug years ago. Google is just horsing around.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  12. 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.

  13. Those All Look Terrible by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

    Why is a fluff piece about appearances on a site "for nerds?"

  14. Ok, this is pretty funny by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I followed the link and skimmed quickly, just to look at pictures. After the initial image of the upcoming products, there is a sweet ass picture of a phone that looks like it wipes the floor with all competitors. Unlike a lot of crap out there, it appears they left enough space in the case to fit in a real battery, and it has physical buttons too! Win/win. Finally, there's going to be be good phone hardware on the market! I was getting excited.

    Then the caption explains that it's the G1, the first Android phone. The best-looking product on the page is the one the author hates the most, and apparently Google too since you can't buy anything like that anymore.

    Fuuuuuuuuck....

    (To be clear, I was just judging the book by its cover. I'm not saying the G1 has a great processor or enough storage or anything like that. I'm just saying that it looks like an outstanding case compared to anything you can get from Google, Apple, Samsung, etc.)

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump