A great example of begging the question. The basic assumption is that Google's UIs are unpopular without any evidence that this is true; given the wide popularity among the people I know (even the designers) I think it'd be more accurate to say that Google is successfully producing clean, functional designs and not even attempting web design contest entries.
UI is more than looking pretty - gmail is popular because it stays out of the way and lets you focus on content, which it handles quite well; in contrast, iTunes increasingly feels like a train-wreck because they swap icons without fixing any of the quirky behaviours and non-standard interface conventions which users must memorize. It was also a confusing comparison because a UI for managing a tightly-curated, highly-structured list containing on average a few thousand items pre-selected by the user isn't obviously relevant to arbitrarily searching across billions of unknown items.
Hi there---Thanks for reading. Actually wasn't begging the question at all, or even contesting the results of the testing. Obviously UI is about more than looking pretty, but I was arguing the the Google Instant experience is a good example of testing producing a result that's far from optimal (and which could be a lot better).
As for iTunes, obviously, if you read the piece, I wasn't comparing it to Google. I was comparing the process that produced it -- and how Apple has always gotten better in UI, with each generation, while adding complexity. I don't think Google can really say that for themselves, as the profusion of Google products shows.
I just read the article. In it, you assume the product could be better, as you just repeated here ("could be a lot better"). Please explain how that's not begging the question.
That was a premise of the article, that the Instant experience was a failure. Obvs, you can disagree, but that's a starting point, for an article that's mostly concerned with answering "Why"
I agree. The author seems defensive, as if logical tests are not a rational basis for design.
Google Search is an information service, and IMHO, it seems they maintain a healthy respect for information itself. Google feels like they let the information guide their UI, which I appreciate. -I love my german car because in so many places, I can experience utility trumping style. Makes me want to drive.
Comments
A great example of begging the question. The basic assumption is that Google's UIs are unpopular without any evidence that this is true; given the wide popularity among the people I know (even the designers) I think it'd be more accurate to say that Google is successfully producing clean, functional designs and not even attempting web design contest entries.
UI is more than looking pretty - gmail is popular because it stays out of the way and lets you focus on content, which it handles quite well; in contrast, iTunes increasingly feels like a train-wreck because they swap icons without fixing any of the quirky behaviours and non-standard interface conventions which users must memorize. It was also a confusing comparison because a UI for managing a tightly-curated, highly-structured list containing on average a few thousand items pre-selected by the user isn't obviously relevant to arbitrarily searching across billions of unknown items.
Hi there---Thanks for reading. Actually wasn't begging the question at all, or even contesting the results of the testing. Obviously UI is about more than looking pretty, but I was arguing the the Google Instant experience is a good example of testing producing a result that's far from optimal (and which could be a lot better).
As for iTunes, obviously, if you read the piece, I wasn't comparing it to Google. I was comparing the process that produced it -- and how Apple has always gotten better in UI, with each generation, while adding complexity. I don't think Google can really say that for themselves, as the profusion of Google products shows.
I just read the article. In it, you assume the product could be better, as you just repeated here ("could be a lot better"). Please explain how that's not begging the question.
That was a premise of the article, that the Instant experience was a failure. Obvs, you can disagree, but that's a starting point, for an article that's mostly concerned with answering "Why"
I agree. The author seems defensive, as if logical tests are not a rational basis for design.
Google Search is an information service, and IMHO, it seems they maintain a healthy respect for information itself. Google feels like they let the information guide their UI, which I appreciate. -I love my german car because in so many places, I can experience utility trumping style. Makes me want to drive.