I don't think Yahoo! has ever been a dot.has.been. Yahoo! is such a large company that they are perceived as a somewhat faceless corporate behemoth (at least among techies). Google, on the other hand is perceived as a more nimble, dynamic and adaptable company. Google is, of course, much smaller than Yahoo!, but still quite a large company (1900+ employees).
For techie folks who follow the Yahoo! bloggers, that "faceless" perception of Yahoo! is changing I think. Ironically, Google is beginning to appear a bit like a faceless corporation in the way they present themselves on the Web. Anyone who reads Google's official blog can't fail to notice how phoney and vapid it sometimes seems. As if each entry that's been posted has been run through a "press-release" language filter (I wonder if every entry is vetted before being posted). The other aspect is their secrecy - this is understandable to an extent. For me, the problem lies with their purchase of Blogger - I wish they would give some hint of what they plan to do with the service. Nothing has been announced or information given on the direction of the service - meanwhile, other companies like Six Apart are forging ahead with new features and growing mindshare. Now, Yahoo! is jumping into the fray with their imminent launch of Yahoo! 360.
I really dislike the new re-design of Google groups. I'm sure they must have done some user-testing on this, but it just seems like a leap backwards in many respects from their previous design.
Finally, I'm sure that Google remains the default search for many people, but I have noticed that other search engines like Alltheweb and Yahoo! Search often give comparable results. I don't think one can say (with as much certainty as in the past) that Google always provides the best search results. As an example, compare a search for the terms Open Source Usability on Google, Yahoo! and AlltheWeb. Not much to choose between them.
For starters, the image doesn't have any scratches or floaters on it. It also doesn't jitter around or flicker like film. Oh, and the colors tend to be considerably brighter.
Film doesn't flicker - it has been projected in cinemas at 24 frames per second for over 70 years. It this was a problem for film-goers, I think it would have been noticed by now. Problems like scratches are due to poor handling on the part of projectionists. Dim and muddy-looking pictures are usually because cinema operators don't use the correct illumination from their projection bulbs (turning the illumination down makes the bulb last longer - advantageous for the cinema owner, but not for the viewers watching the film).
Film handled correctly can easily provide bright, sharp, colourful and stable images. Yes, film eventually begins to degrade after being run X number of times through a projector, but you can easily keep a print in pristine condition for a few weeks at least (more than enough for most film releases). Too few cinemas seem to care about presentation quality unfortunately.
My concern is that digital film resolution still seems to be a moving target. An improvement in film stock doesn't require new projection equipment. But what happens when digital resolution increases? That would require an upgrade of the digital projection equipment to take advantage of the improvement, and that's going to be costly.
The introduction of digital cinema will be good thing if it breaks the distribution stranglehold that keeps so many international and independent films off cinema screens.
Rather than incrementally changing what has become the de facto UI over tha past 20 years, he was willing to step out of the box, get some metrics and push a vision for "easy to use" software and interfaces.
I absolutely agree. The current direction of (mainstream) user-interface design is incredibly dull. In Raskin's book The Humane Interface, some of his ideas throw up more questions than answers, but he at least articulates a genuinely different model of interaction from the current WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers) mode of operation shared by Mac, Windows and Linux.
He once remarked that there was little difference between Mac and Windows. I know that's likely to raise the ire of Mac users, but I think he was right. Any interface on the Mac can be duplicated on the PC (and vice-versa), and this includes the number of steps taken to complete a task. No, this won't necessarily make the PC more pleasant to use - the point is that both platforms share the same methods of interaction with minor (although important) differences.
Consider Java: how could such a language promise cross-platform capability if these two operating systems were really so different in their behaviour and methods of interaction? Or iTunes? How could Apple write iTunes for Windows which pretty much mimics the same functionality as the Mac version if Windows didn't share the same fundamentals as the Mac?
You can argue about the aesthetics of the interface, the general simplicity of operation the Mac has over similar tasks in Windows (and hence the general "user experience"), but none of this changes the fact that both systems share a common UI foundation. No-one seems to be challenging this existing framework - looking beyond it (gimmicky 3-D interfaces haven't impressed me) and that's why the direction of interface design feels so stagnant.
The new design of Google Groups
on
Google Tidbits
·
· Score: 1
From the article: 12. They listen to feedback actively. Emailing Google isn't emailing a blackhole.
I'm pleased to hear this. I occasionally use Google Groups and they seem to be developing a new layout. However, I'm not too keen on the new design.
When viewing a newsgroup, Google Groups currently displays subject, date and most recent poster in a horizontal line. This makes it easy to scan the page because dates, subject and poster are all neatly aligned on top of each other.
However, the new design displays small excerpts from messages instead of just the message headers. This is the default view, but you can change it by clicking on a View Titles Only link.
The new "viewing with message text" display makes it difficult to scan the page. Everything seems to float a bit arbitrarily on the page because there are no longer any strong visual cues to guide your eye around the page. No more neat alignment. What's more bizarre is that the most recent post to the newsgroup doesn't always appear at the top of the page(!).
There's also a rather meaningless "Active older topics" column (at least I haven't quite discovered its purpose!). The new design does offer some new features, such as the ability to "watch" certain topics, but overall, the appearance of the new beta feels inferior to the current design (at least to me).
Perhaps it would be worthwhile emailing Google about these concerns though, if they really do listen to feedback.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Yahoo! has ever been a dot.has.been. Yahoo! is such a large company that they are perceived as a somewhat faceless corporate behemoth (at least among techies). Google, on the other hand is perceived as a more nimble, dynamic and adaptable company. Google is, of course, much smaller than Yahoo!, but still quite a large company (1900+ employees).
For techie folks who follow the Yahoo! bloggers, that "faceless" perception of Yahoo! is changing I think. Ironically, Google is beginning to appear a bit like a faceless corporation in the way they present themselves on the Web. Anyone who reads Google's official blog can't fail to notice how phoney and vapid it sometimes seems. As if each entry that's been posted has been run through a "press-release" language filter (I wonder if every entry is vetted before being posted). The other aspect is their secrecy - this is understandable to an extent. For me, the problem lies with their purchase of Blogger - I wish they would give some hint of what they plan to do with the service. Nothing has been announced or information given on the direction of the service - meanwhile, other companies like Six Apart are forging ahead with new features and growing mindshare. Now, Yahoo! is jumping into the fray with their imminent launch of Yahoo! 360.
I really dislike the new re-design of Google groups. I'm sure they must have done some user-testing on this, but it just seems like a leap backwards in many respects from their previous design.
Finally, I'm sure that Google remains the default search for many people, but I have noticed that other search engines like Alltheweb and Yahoo! Search often give comparable results. I don't think one can say (with as much certainty as in the past) that Google always provides the best search results. As an example, compare a search for the terms Open Source Usability on Google, Yahoo! and AlltheWeb. Not much to choose between them.
Film doesn't flicker - it has been projected in cinemas at 24 frames per second for over 70 years. It this was a problem for film-goers, I think it would have been noticed by now. Problems like scratches are due to poor handling on the part of projectionists. Dim and muddy-looking pictures are usually because cinema operators don't use the correct illumination from their projection bulbs (turning the illumination down makes the bulb last longer - advantageous for the cinema owner, but not for the viewers watching the film).
Film handled correctly can easily provide bright, sharp, colourful and stable images. Yes, film eventually begins to degrade after being run X number of times through a projector, but you can easily keep a print in pristine condition for a few weeks at least (more than enough for most film releases). Too few cinemas seem to care about presentation quality unfortunately.
My concern is that digital film resolution still seems to be a moving target. An improvement in film stock doesn't require new projection equipment. But what happens when digital resolution increases? That would require an upgrade of the digital projection equipment to take advantage of the improvement, and that's going to be costly.
The introduction of digital cinema will be good thing if it breaks the distribution stranglehold that keeps so many international and independent films off cinema screens.
I absolutely agree. The current direction of (mainstream) user-interface design is incredibly dull. In Raskin's book The Humane Interface, some of his ideas throw up more questions than answers, but he at least articulates a genuinely different model of interaction from the current WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers) mode of operation shared by Mac, Windows and Linux.
He once remarked that there was little difference between Mac and Windows. I know that's likely to raise the ire of Mac users, but I think he was right. Any interface on the Mac can be duplicated on the PC (and vice-versa), and this includes the number of steps taken to complete a task. No, this won't necessarily make the PC more pleasant to use - the point is that both platforms share the same methods of interaction with minor (although important) differences.
Consider Java: how could such a language promise cross-platform capability if these two operating systems were really so different in their behaviour and methods of interaction? Or iTunes? How could Apple write iTunes for Windows which pretty much mimics the same functionality as the Mac version if Windows didn't share the same fundamentals as the Mac?
You can argue about the aesthetics of the interface, the general simplicity of operation the Mac has over similar tasks in Windows (and hence the general "user experience"), but none of this changes the fact that both systems share a common UI foundation. No-one seems to be challenging this existing framework - looking beyond it (gimmicky 3-D interfaces haven't impressed me) and that's why the direction of interface design feels so stagnant.
From the article:
12. They listen to feedback actively. Emailing Google isn't emailing a blackhole.
I'm pleased to hear this. I occasionally use Google Groups and they seem to be developing a new layout. However, I'm not too keen on the new design.
When viewing a newsgroup, Google Groups currently displays subject, date and most recent poster in a horizontal line. This makes it easy to scan the page because dates, subject and poster are all neatly aligned on top of each other.
However, the new design displays small excerpts from messages instead of just the message headers. This is the default view, but you can change it by clicking on a View Titles Only link.
The new "viewing with message text" display makes it difficult to scan the page. Everything seems to float a bit arbitrarily on the page because there are no longer any strong visual cues to guide your eye around the page. No more neat alignment. What's more bizarre is that the most recent post to the newsgroup doesn't always appear at the top of the page(!).
There's also a rather meaningless "Active older topics" column (at least I haven't quite discovered its purpose!). The new design does offer some new features, such as the ability to "watch" certain topics, but overall, the appearance of the new beta feels inferior to the current design (at least to me).
Perhaps it would be worthwhile emailing Google about these concerns though, if they really do listen to feedback.