Google Testing Completely Revamped Look 195
SharkLaser writes "Google's search engine has always looked pretty much the same since it was introduced in 1998. However, Google is now testing a revamped look that is the largest change the search engine has ever done to its website. The new look strips the black bar running horizontally at top and places it as an openable menu on the left side. The move is said to promote Google's other services without making the search engine too cluttered. The new side menu is also more similar to Chrome OS and allows Chromebook and Google's website to have the same look and feel. Another consequence of the move is that it now takes users two clicks to enter other services such as Images and News, which is said to improve the amount of ad clicks and visitors advertisers get. Considering that European Commission is examining claims of Google downgrading rival websites and U.S. senators are calling FTC to inspect Google for unfair practices, the move comes at a surprising time."
Googlebashing every second article? (Score:5, Informative)
Getting desperate much? Is this a new year project? Submitter [slashdot.org] is almost exclusively a Googlebashing troll.
And the Googlebashing has no connection to the rest of the fine summary.
Slow news cycle I guess. Let's put something else in the queue.
Re:Googlebashing every second article? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I agree 100%. I relish the days that /. was unbiased with all the submitted articles about MicroSoft, Apple, Oracle, Python, C++, JavaScript, Religion, Governments, Global Warming...
Re:Googlebashing every second article? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I agree 100%. I relish the days that /. was unbiased with all the submitted articles about MicroSoft, Apple, Oracle, Python, C++, JavaScript, Religion, Governments, Global Warming...
You spelled "Micro$oft" wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Googlebashing every second article? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Googlebashing every second article? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If it's true, of course it's controversial" -> it's their own website. They are free to promote or not promote whomever or whatever they life. They are a business...it would be like forcing McDonalds to show advertisements for Burger King.
"not to mention anti-competitive and therefore illegal. It's all about context" -> most competition is anti-competitive. By their very nature, companies are always trying to outmaneuver other companies.
"The vast majority of content on the internet is found via searc
Re: (Score:2)
"If it's true, of course it's controversial" -> it's their own website. They are free to promote or not promote whomever or whatever they life. They are a business...it would be like forcing McDonalds to show advertisements for Burger King.
Competition law exists because things really aren't that simple. In a capitalist society, healthy competition is what helps ensure prices are low and products are constantly improving. At some point, a company can do so well in one market sector (yes, usually because they've earned it), that they can use that leverage, if they so choose, to gain an unfair advantage in another market sector. Sure, there's a grey area, but there's limits. This is well established under monopoly and dominance provisions within
Re: (Score:2)
t's their own website. They are free to promote or not promote whomever or whatever they life. They are a business...it would be like forcing McDonalds to show advertisements for Burger King.
And similarly, Microsoft should have been allowed to promote thieir own web browser?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately an almost meaningless assertion these days due to people seeking to establish "controversy" as a tactic in achieving some other goal.
How so? It's pointless to make such a statement without saying why. Merely offering other products seems entirely unproblematic under established competition law [wikipedia.org]. For example it seems to me there' no evidence of tying, anyone is free to choose which of Google's prod
Re: (Score:2)
If it's true, of course it's controversial; not to mention anti-competitive
Stop right there!
I'm a bit thick - please explain how Google is anti-competitive? Are they stopping other player in the advertising game? Are they threatening companies that buy advertising by adjusting prices on the basis of exclusive contracts?
I spend a lot of money on paid advertising with a five of the major search engines (Google is number 3, despite the alleged monopoly) - and only one of those companies has ever asked if I used another company (Bing). And they didn't offer me any incentive to drop G
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads.
I'm yet to see any evidence of that - despite the amazing coincidence of an inquiry taking place in the US at the same time as in Australia.
All I heard so far is people saying it happens - but failing to supply a shred of proof. So I call bullshit.
First the claim was that Google was giving paid advertising (like I buy) an unfair advantage over "organic search results"... In Australia, despite refusing to "prosecute" because they were unable to find an evidence to support the claim ACMA was still dragged to
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I get annoyed when people still herald the clean and fundamentally unchanged design of the Google front page, saying the company is dutifully staying true to its roots.
Other than that pop-up in the upper right corner urging people to install Chrome, of course. You can indeed close it, but it shows up every time you use a non-Chrome browser.
Re: (Score:3)
SharkLaser is one of Apple Troll bonch's Accounts (Score:2, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/~bonch [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/~SharkLaser [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It is when they're pushing them in the usual search results. It's somewhat cheating, and certainly not honest.
So because I pay Google to advertise my sites - my sites shouldn't appear in the search results as well? Why? The do with Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex.
That's why Google is probably giving them that prominence by moving them to better places, but outside the search results.
Probably? Probably? Is that what they taught you to say at shill school? I don't think so - I think they told you to "sound convincing, if you state it like a fact the fools will believe it's a fact".
That's what EU has been giving them trouble for, anyway.
No it isn't. Not even close. Keep guessing - or use a search engine, it'd be quicker - any one - the answers the same. Allegations of breaching privacy - yes. Paid a
Re: (Score:2)
Real journalists are supposed to push their own views. That is an integral part of journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Real journalists are supposed to push their own views. That is an integral part of journalism.
The original news link is from the BBC, which is required to be as un-biased as possible when reporting news.
Any bias and pushed viewpoints are from the submitter of the article to slashdot (arguably irrelevant to the actual article and just added to push their viewpoint further). Whether someone who submits a link from an actual news source and adds their own biased commentary to slashdot is a Real journalist is also up for detate (but risks invoking the True Scottsman fallacy)
Re: (Score:2)
required to be as un-biased as possible when reporting news
That's a BBC policy, but it doesn't address the expectations we should have of journalists. Nevertheless, the policy itself (if it is as worded, which I doubt) is at best implemented after the bias of omission, and at worst would result in a completely meaningless stream of non-news. The purpose of journalism is to provide information, illumination and context about important facts. Every facet of that pursuit is biased—determining which facts are important, determining what context should be included
Re: (Score:2)
Journalism is necessarily directed by interest, and the questions asked are necessarily directed by distinct concerns about distinct details. The world is composed of innumerable facts, and to report all of them without discrimination is to completely undermine journalism. To be a journalist is, inherently, to discriminate between which facts are important and which facts are unimportant. That is by definition pushing a view.
Re: (Score:2)
It is if you're a monopoly. Microsoft got into the same trouble over Internet Explorer in the 1990s.
If Google had popups warning you that your non-Chrome browser was a risk, if Google had no set prices for advertising - and told you it'd cost you double (or more) if you used other advertising companies, if Google copied every successful app that ran on Android and released their own version with Android and made it as hard as possible for the original app to be used on Android, if Google offered management golf club and holidays under the table in return for over-riding the purchasing decisions of the tec
Re: (Score:2)
microsoft made it impossible to use netscape? or anything else? i think you didn't quite understand the whole matter.
Re: (Score:2)
No they didn't. I can't decide if you're ignorant, stupid or paid to do this. Microsoft got into trouble because they made it almost impossible to use the alternatives. They're still trying to do this with Bing.
Funny, I managed to use Netscape on Windows quite happily in the 90s until Netscape themselves fucked things up with Navigator/Communicator 4.
Re: (Score:3)
Google products (mostly services) represents a completely different paradigm to Microsoft products (mostly software), call it post-desktop or whatever, but it's not even fully-realized yet. It's a bit pre-mature to compare them to Microsoft.
It's so hard to tell between paid shilling or general idiocy nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
It's so hard to tell between paid shilling or general idiocy nowadays.
I think the main idiocy around here recently has been fanboys calling people paid shills just because they don't think that Apple/Google/whoever are the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel, or that Microsoft are more evil than Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler put together.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is a compliment to call somebody a paid shill. It at least he or she is getting paid for mouthing such useless drivel. Certainly smarter than doing it for free.
Re: (Score:2)
same could be said for microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything gets bashed here. Frankly I find the quality of bashing inferior at least - a long-dead issue about a deprecated google app engine that was cute but impractical and unpopular, and a non-newsworthy page redesign issue with non sequitur low-risk and very old regulatory FUD just tagged onto the end without any rhyme or reason. If you're going to bash Google, at least put some effort into quality bashing and not bring this weak sauce. And hey, does it have to be twice an hour on the same target?
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem with the trolls is their so inefective. I mean goodness, they're not even ugly enough to crack my screen just from looking at their posts. What we need are some ogres that are ugly nuff to curdle milk in the cow, fracture your screen with their reflection and mean enough to untangle a gordian knot
Re: (Score:2)
phase i: do no evil (Score:1, Offtopic)
phase ii/ order 66: do only evil
MUAHAHAHAHA
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Order_66 [wikia.com]
i'm joking but in all seriousness, i know a lot of slashdotters think of google as a darling, but google represents something else now: power. and all power is eventually corrupted
I, for one, (Score:2)
am shifting my interweb searching to search engines that don't productize me. [duckduckgo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I, for one, (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd never even heard of DuckDuckGo, and then suddenly I see all sorts of "testimonials" in this thread. That seems really odd, especially given that, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], it is now starting to occasionally be ad-funded (whereas before it was totally funded by its developer). Coincidence, or astroturfing?
Re: (Score:2)
Astroturfing? In MY Slashdot?
It's more likely than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything is all shills and secret conspiracies.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you remember Google when it started ?
Every geek on Slashdot was speaking about it, because it was so much better than the other search engines.
In a few years, Google became the company we know.
Now, Google is not the most preferred search engine anymore, there is no real competition, but DuckDuckGo seems to be a nice contender.
Re: (Score:2)
er, duckduckgo is powered by bing, so not really a search engine at all. just an interface to another one.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really (taken from another post):
http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-sources [duckduckgo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
ah, good work. That article is making me think I should give it a go. Sounds interesting.
If nothing else, it sounds like they're attempting to bring competition back to search - may they succeed!
Re: (Score:2)
Just wondering what else you haven't heard about? the iPhone, Android.... wikipedia... the sun?
DDG has been making progress in certain circles, some people really love it. I haven't, i still like google, but i have been hearing about it for a year now, maybe longer.
Re: (Score:2)
But it really doesn't find good results and now that I know it has Bing for it's search, I see why. It has some neat features, but I actually tried to use it and ended up going back to Google because I couldn't find stuff.
Re:I, for one, (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't using Yahoo technically still using Bing [techreport.com]? I wonder if the results are counted twice if they come up in Yahoo and Bing over-inflating the result.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, techies are also the same people who can exploit Google back. i.e. Install privacy addons, No-Script, Ad-Blockers etc and use Google services without giving anything "back".
With Google you take what you get. Yeah maybe you wont get the Capital-F-Freedom that Stallman or the kind F/OSS supporters want, but you get positive business news associated with Linux. Why wouldn't Linux supporters like that? You should remember how it was earlier with companies being able to fund negative press campaigns agains
I would never notice. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I rarely see the start page, but this looks like it affects the results pages also.
Re: (Score:2)
I use the start page mostly to avoid gmail in my face. Funny how I use Google more to search than for mail. And Bookmarks. And Reader.
Re: (Score:2)
I use a customized iGoogle page as my start page.
On a side note - I'd forgotten Google used to include an exclamation point in their logo [bbcimg.co.uk]. Bring back the exclamation - make Google exciting once again! They should just steal Yahoo's, since they really don't deserve one anymore...
Re: (Score:2)
I have to ask though, does anyone actually use the google.com start page?
Yes, it's better than most as a homepage as it loads quickly and doesn't make your eyes bleed. I suppose most people use facebook now though.
Completely Revamped Look (Score:5, Insightful)
"Completely Revamped Look"
Its hardly as if they turned the front page into a clone of yahoo with too much information yelling at you.
They just moved the top to the left. I don't see why this is even news.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Like all big companies who hunger for constant growth, Google will only get worse as time goes on, and may even face a speedier than usual decline unless they actually sell shit (real hardware or software products, not just sets of "mouse clicks") lik
Re: (Score:3)
You must not have looked recently... they have stores for music, movies, and books, and have for at least 6 months or so.
Re: (Score:3)
It's really not news to anyone who uses Google products. It's their Google+ menu now on the search page.
In general they are whitespacing and boxpadding things up, but this new menu is basically my current iGoogle pulldown menu with icons.
It's like Google is becoming Yahoo (Score:4, Insightful)
I get the old version of Google if I'm using my desktop but the new one with my laptop. It's very annoying. Reminds me of the multiple versions of yahoo that I use to get. And worse, it's starting to feel that google.com is turning into the latest "portal" website.
The new interface requires more mouse movement than the older and cleaner google. It now takes one drop menu and one side expansion menu to get to "finance". Plus, sometimes my search query doesn't transfer from "web" (now "search") to "images" or "finance".
Re: (Score:2)
well they do have a portal version of their site... going back a while already. (igoogle.com)
it's just that people don't actually want to use it so they have to bring it to the main page.
Re: (Score:2)
Though it does not require me to perform an extra click, it still annoys me, because for some reason it is always already dropped down.
Classic (Score:5, Insightful)
Google would do well to offer something like-
http://classic.google.com/ [google.com]
That turns the clock back even more. No animations, no music, no pop-up junk on the side for search results (instant previews or whatever they call it), etc.
I think that Google might need to offer new stuff to attract the type of person that finds the likes of Bing amusing. Having choice is a good thing. However, forcing [yet more] eye candy on people is going to alienate those (like me, who are already irritated) who just want minimal, fast, simple. Something that isn't distracting, irritating, CPU loading, complex, and doesn't use mouseovers or javascript. Personally, I would even prefer a new domain for it, like cgoogle.com so it can be easily whitelisted.
Re:Classic (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure would be nice. But google seems to be having a "automaker" complex. "We're so big, we're so great, we're so kick ass. The peons will take what we give them and like it. Where else will they go?" For those that don't get it, GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC and so on said the same thing back when Japan was crushing them in the 70's and 80's. AMC didn't survive. Chrysler nearly didn't.
Yeah I really don't like the changes at all, and by going with what's been said on their groups pages? The majority there don't like it at all. But then again, those are the people who can find them.
Re:Classic (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Classic (Score:5, Interesting)
Google would do well to offer something like-
http://classic.google.com/ [google.com] [google.com]
Everytime they screw up the Google search page (which I have made my home page since 1999) I try to find a way to disable it and revert to the classic mode, and if I can't find it, type a bunch of searches on the latest Google screwing with the search to see how others are coping with it (or not).
And each time I find quotes from that Marisa whatever saying she will do whatever she wants to it, they want to be on the cutting edge (or at least not left behind by Bing's changes or whatever).
This is only happening to my laptop so far, not my desktops, but doesn't appear to be a way to revert it.
The experience with Google is slipping day by day, attributed to Marisa's (or whatever her name is - I don't feel like Googling it in a rant against Google) perpetual meddling with it as that constitutes her justification for existence at Google.
But everything else is worse. If it gets bad enough I'll use scripts to display the Google pages the way I want but it hasn't come to that yet. She's basically a major annoyance to me so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right you are, anonymous coward. I *must* be the only one, since others have already agreed and modded the posting to the max now.
You are a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. About as meaningless as postings from anonymous cowards?
bring back the 1998 design. (Score:2, Insightful)
it's way better. why do you think I'd like to have links to my mail and notifications on my page? if I wanted a fucking portal I'd have stuck with altavista.
Re: (Score:2)
it's way better. why do you think I'd like to have links to my mail and notifications on my page? if I wanted a fucking portal I'd have stuck with altavista.
What's wrong with having a link to gmail on Google's page? That's the easiest way for most people to access it, who wants to bother with a separate email client nowadays?
Surprising Time? How so? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it a surprising time? A few ongoing legal procedures means that they can't make aesthetic changes to their website? Also, it does not take "two clicks" to enter Google Images - just a mouseover and a click.
I'm pretty sure the last two sentences were just tacked on as flamebait, as they are either false or unrelated.
Great ... more javablot (Score:3)
for shit I (and many others) dont care about, if we did we would have clicked the links at the top of the page, we are not stupid or blind but thanks for thinking we are
Google is like a TV network (Score:2)
How is Google using search to promote their other properties any different from FOX airing ads for upcoming shows during a football game? If they didn't have any real competition, I could understand it, but the search market has lots of competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
How is Google using search to promote their other properties any different from FOX airing ads for upcoming shows during a football game? If they didn't have any real competition, I could understand it, but the search market has lots of competitors.
If you have overwhelming dominance in one area, it is illegal to leverage that dominance to gain in other markets. It is legal to bundle shampoo and conditioner and sell them as a package right up until you gain dominance (guidance is 70%) of either the shampoo or conditioner market. As far as I know, no one has alleged Fox has 70% market share of, well any market. Google, on the other hand is estimated to have reached this dominance in several markets including mobile advertising where some put their marke
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, Google had less than 65% market share. Not very dominant if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, Google had less than 65% market share. Not very dominant if you ask me.
65% is fairly close, but then you have to specify a market to have a share of it, and a lot of antitrust law deals with defining the relevant markets. Take a subset of customers, like mobile phone users, then subtract out all of the services that don't work for mobile users and does Google have more than 70% of the remaining share? Is that influencing other markets where they have bundled a service with their products? Then again, you have to also remove non-relavent shares of the market, where they are not
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can't "define" markets by choosing arbitrary subsets, like "search engine providers with 'oogle' in their name, or Application search providers for mobile computers with an 'apple shaped' logo on them. The entire market is the entire market.
You're an idiot. You have to define what the "entire market" is in order to meaningfully discuss or evaluate it.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what it is that you are saying Google has a monopoly in. Their search market share is about 65%. I would say it isn't a monopoly because there are basically no barriers to entry for a new competitor. If it went to court, it would be easy for Google to show how things like Facebook and Apple's Siri are disrupting their business.
If you define their business as advertising, then it might be a different story. I have no idea what their market share is in online advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what it is that you are saying Google has a monopoly in. Their search market share is about 65%. I would say it isn't a monopoly because there are basically no barriers to entry for a new competitor.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding why we have antitrust law. It is not about insuring other companies can compete in a market and destroy the monopoly. It is about making sure the monopoly does not grow to influence other markets and damage commerce in general. If the point was to prevent monopolies we'd make monopolies illegal.
Regardless of what barriers to entry there are, the question at hand is if Google has enough influence in a given market, that they have to obey specific laws with regard
Google. Shark. Jump. (Score:1)
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
I could, but there's no need. The title says it all.
Marketing drone in TFA sez: (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you compare the original Google home page to today's version, you will see that a makeover every so often can certainly be refreshing."
This is quite possibly the single stupidest meme in the long, sad history of stupid web design memes, and it's been the death of many a once-fine site. No, a makeover on a familiar (good) interface is not "refreshing." It's irritating, especially since it pretty much always means adding clutter to something that used to be clean and functional. It is usually pushed on users with a patronizing explanation, after a "beta" period in which people loudly and repeatedly point out its flaws, and the new interface eventually becomes the default (or only) choice with none of the problems found in "beta" addressed.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there's something wrong, fine, fix that and leave the rest alone. And for God's sake, listen to the users.
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of disagree--change can be refreshing, but can easily be a hassle. On the PS3, Netflix has changed the design quite often. Sometimes it's for the better, and sometimes it's not. The worst design change was when they briefly took away the "recently watched" section from the home screen. Made watching TV shows a very painful process.
That said, I like Google's current design a lot better than the old design(s). My only complaint is that the black at the top doesn't match other Google properties. T
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I'll admit to being something of an interface Luddite -- most of my favorite web sites looked better, IMO, 10+ years ago. If we could have 20th-century interface simplicity with 21st-century connectivity, I'd be a happy camper. I have no idea if this is a majority opinion or not.
If the majority of users of a site I frequent prefer a new interface, as long as the content's good, I'll generally go along with it. What bugs me, like I said, is the combination of change-for-change's-sake with the patron
Re: (Score:2)
I can get behind change for the sake of change being a poor motivation. But if you are going to make functionality improvements, I see that as a good reason to change aesthetics. As a random example (because I happened to be on the site when I got the reply notification), GOG's current interface blows away their old one. Their old one was fine, but the new one has a lot more functionality, and they tied that functionality addition with a UI facelift. I think that's a good way to do it, because having a
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the Internet.
If you don't like using their "cloud", GTFO.
-The Internet
P.S. If you don't have the snap to figure out that it's YOUR BROWSER that's displaying their content, and that you can control YOUR BROWSER such that it can be customize the pages it displays however you like: Well then, I don't have the patience to teach you how to do it... You'll just have to "Bing" userscripts yourself, (ugh...).
P.P.S. My local grocer changed his store layout to make it easier for their stockers, thu
Re: (Score:2)
This is quite possibly the single stupidest meme in the long, sad history of stupid web design memes, and it's been the death of many a once-fine site.
It's a great argument against using cloud computing
You never know when your service provider want to do a "makeover" of the visual interface, ruining your productivity.
Compared to the horrible changes happening to Gmail, the so called "new look", the search interface bastardization and "makeover" to make the UI more complicated and harder to use are ju
They are not getting enough ADHD users (Score:2)
They are the ones who click the adverts.
Why risk what works? (Score:5, Insightful)
After puzzling over it a while they realized this value was the number of words on their homepage that month; it was this guy's way of reminding them that a simple interface was working well and contrasted distinctly with the likes of yahoo!.
Fast forward to today, and the double-layer of scrolling frames on the new front page looks suspiciously like Word 2010 or Facebook. Not nearly as bad, mind you, but suddenly showing some disturbing similarity.
I bet that guy wants to punch them in the face right now.
Google: you make the vast majority of your money on the ads that go with your simple, powerful search engine. Don't fuck it up by filling your products with endless references to your other products and trying to control the entire internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that guy wants to punch them in the face right now.
These days Google has implemented spam filtering, so the periodic e-mails with numbers in them probably wind up in /dev/null
Come to think of it... I think any e-mail to google winds up in /dev/null, after
being answered by an automated system that basically tells you "Little Ant, why don't you try
go posting in the forums, or something"
Re: (Score:2)
Not to troll (No.. Really...) but I do wonder how many of the people bemoaning the new changes Google is making are the same people who, when another one of Google's services is retired (health, etc..) say "Today was the first time i ever heard about Google%NowDeadService%..."
I think they have a pretty hard line to walk. They now offer so many services, but everyone complains when there are more than 5-10 words on the homepage? How would YOU solve that dilema? I don't think they are doing too bad a job at i
Re: (Score:2)
After puzzling over it a while they realized this value was the number of words on their homepage that month; it was this guy's way of reminding them that a simple interface was working well and contrasted distinctly with the likes of yahoo!
Or may be, there was no reason, and this guy was one of these folks here [latitudes.org].
Not a fan... (Score:2)
I had no idea it was limited. As one of these random testers I'm not a fan of the new look. I just switched back to the old look for gmail and calendar. The old look while not as clean in over all design presents the information much clearer. The borders are of higher contrast and text is easier to read. Also going from gmail to calendar used to be a single link, now it requires clicking the drop down menu, going to the bottom for more, then back up to the top for calendar.
But as I use ad block + and give g
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this part of what CSS what supposed to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably using metrics which measure how long test subjects spend looking at certain elements. Being hard to read slows down the user and makes the element seem more important to analysts.
New? (Score:2)
I guess I'm special. I've been seeing this "new" look for a couple of weeks now.
Why can't people speak English? (Score:2)
From the article:
"Constant revision and improvement is part of our overarching philosophy," he said.
What is the difference between an overarching philosophy and a philosophy?
Re: (Score:2)
You can have a philosophy on specific issues, e.g. "Having a clean, minimalist main page is central to our design philosophy". An overarching philosophy gets applied to everything, from the webpage to the cafeteria.
Who the F uses the Google page anyway? (Score:3)
Lots of complaining going on here. I probably wouldn't like the new look myself, as I much prefer simple, uncluttered interfaces anyway. But I can't remembrer the last time I had to go directly to the google.com website. Searches happen through the dedicated search box in Opera or Firefox, not by navigating to google.com. I also don't use any of their services, from calendar to google apps.
Now get offa my lawn.
Re:One of the unlucky testers (Score:5, Informative)
Click the gear icon. Select revert to classic.
For how long this will work...