You can switchback to one column in the 'more' menu.
>> "How do you read this, particularly in three-column mode, and be reasonably sure not to miss a post?"
I think that might be your problem. Maybe Google doesn't think many people want to see every post in their stream. Personally I just skim through it and see what catches my eye. I much prefer this design (2 column, my 15" monitor apparently isn't large enough for three regardless of the lagre whitespace to either side of the two columns).
Given the fact that I can switch to one-column layout, I should probably shut up now. But just for the sake of a lively debate, let me say this: if I can't read the thing, I can't skim it either. I just don't know how to move my eyes around. Instead of skimming for the posts that I find important, I would end up making a random choice between things I see and things I overlook. But then perhaps that's fully intended with any kind of social media: you can never be sure if you missed anything or not.
For what it's worth, I felt the same way when I first dogfooded the new multi-column layout. I couldn't figure out how to read my stream. While reading a post, I kept getting distracted thinking about where I should focus my attention on next. It made scanning my stream more stressful and I was confident that I did not like it. This was before they added the option to switch to a single stream view, so I couldn't do much but submit my feedback and deal with it.
Then, one day, the G+ team added the option to switch back to single stream view. I thought "great!" and immediately went into G+ to switch back to single-stream mode. And I hated it. I hated having to scroll so much. I hated not being able to scan a large number of posts with a quick glance. I hated all the unused space on either side of the stream.
I'm not saying the same thing will happen to you, but maybe give it a week before giving up on it. You may just find that it grows on you.
First off, I admit that I am hypersensitive to any form of bastardization of language. So please don't hate me for I'm going to say, I'm just a victim of my hypersensitivities. But: the word "stream" in the English language means "a steady flow or succession." Or, if you prefer the CS definition, it means "a sequence of data elements made available over time." When I'm looking at a set of boxes of different heights arranged in three columns with no apparent ordering, then I'm not looking at a stream. As other commenters have pointed out, the multi-column layout is more than a different way of displaying things. It redefines the entire experience of receiving posts as something different, something Pinterest-like. Maybe that's a good idea. But please, let's don't call it a stream.
I would normally let this go, but I really dislike the holier than thou attitude with your "bastardization of language". Computer Science and mathematics would be much poorer if it didn't allow for people to generalize concepts. So let's get started.
You live and learn. I always thought "Let's don't" was a joke, something you say facetiously to indicate that you do care about grammar. It turns out that "Let's don't" has arrived in that grey area between grammatically right and wrong where many consider it just non-standard, but not wrong:
It's surprising and bizarre to me how comments like this are common in the CS world. If you are okay with "stream" now being more than just a small river, why are you artificially drawing the line as to what exactly the term may refer to?
I switched from the multi-column to the single column as soon as I found out I could switch back. And I agree, the single column is possibly even more hideous than the multiple panels (but easier to parse).
However, this is not the same view as the previous interface. This was the (very) old:
Since the sides were filled (with random stuff that, granted, you mostly ignored) the whitespace wasn't an issue. With those things removed, the vacuousness is much more noticeable. Also, the color of the whitespace wasn't that ugly gray that screams out "I'm not doing anything! Fill me with something!". Unfortunately, reducing the window size doesn't help because the chat panel will now overlap it. Speaking of which (and this is a change that I'm actually quite upset about), it is now much more difficult to determine which contacts are actually online.
I stared at the panel for a bit, tried to figure out why the people at my contact queue didn't seem to have any green indicators (they were all offline), then tried to determine who _was_ online (difficult since the indicator just blends into the photo, and clicking on a user's profile doesn't always reveal their status). Looking again today, it's still difficult to determine who is actually online.
I'm with you on that. If all blocks in a row were the same height, then a left-right-left scan would be just fine even at 3 or 4 columns. But this is not a left-right-left scan. It is a jaggy left-right-down-left-up-left-down. I never got past that enough with Pinterest to even try to find value in that site. I tolerate it on Facebook but really dislike it. If it had been like that when I first thought of joining Facebook, I may not have even bothered (at least until I was socially shamed for not having a Facebook). And now G+ has it. Oh well. I'll never get my money back for any of these service so they can keep moving my cheese I'll keep bitching about it. ;)
I don't see the problem, sweeping left-to-right-to-left while scrolling seems to work for me to skim it (the icons and text identifying the source at the top of items and the pictures are the main visual points of interest and I use them to decide if I want to read more of an article.)
But I suppose its one of those things that's likely to be highly subjective.
I agree with your general point. Are you aware that j and k work in multi-column format too, though k seems to not move enough to make the top of the post visible from under the fixed horizontal bar.
Comments
You can switchback to one column in the 'more' menu.
>> "How do you read this, particularly in three-column mode, and be reasonably sure not to miss a post?"
I think that might be your problem. Maybe Google doesn't think many people want to see every post in their stream. Personally I just skim through it and see what catches my eye. I much prefer this design (2 column, my 15" monitor apparently isn't large enough for three regardless of the lagre whitespace to either side of the two columns).
Given the fact that I can switch to one-column layout, I should probably shut up now. But just for the sake of a lively debate, let me say this: if I can't read the thing, I can't skim it either. I just don't know how to move my eyes around. Instead of skimming for the posts that I find important, I would end up making a random choice between things I see and things I overlook. But then perhaps that's fully intended with any kind of social media: you can never be sure if you missed anything or not.
Disclaimer: I work for Google.
For what it's worth, I felt the same way when I first dogfooded the new multi-column layout. I couldn't figure out how to read my stream. While reading a post, I kept getting distracted thinking about where I should focus my attention on next. It made scanning my stream more stressful and I was confident that I did not like it. This was before they added the option to switch to a single stream view, so I couldn't do much but submit my feedback and deal with it.
Then, one day, the G+ team added the option to switch back to single stream view. I thought "great!" and immediately went into G+ to switch back to single-stream mode. And I hated it. I hated having to scroll so much. I hated not being able to scan a large number of posts with a quick glance. I hated all the unused space on either side of the stream.
I'm not saying the same thing will happen to you, but maybe give it a week before giving up on it. You may just find that it grows on you.
First off, I admit that I am hypersensitive to any form of bastardization of language. So please don't hate me for I'm going to say, I'm just a victim of my hypersensitivities. But: the word "stream" in the English language means "a steady flow or succession." Or, if you prefer the CS definition, it means "a sequence of data elements made available over time." When I'm looking at a set of boxes of different heights arranged in three columns with no apparent ordering, then I'm not looking at a stream. As other commenters have pointed out, the multi-column layout is more than a different way of displaying things. It redefines the entire experience of receiving posts as something different, something Pinterest-like. Maybe that's a good idea. But please, let's don't call it a stream.
I would normally let this go, but I really dislike the holier than thou attitude with your "bastardization of language". Computer Science and mathematics would be much poorer if it didn't allow for people to generalize concepts. So let's get started.
1) Streams branch and merge all the time.
http://www.mightystreamradio.com/PHOTOS/STREAM%20PHOTO%202.j...
If anyone's bastardizing the language, it's computer scientists being overly restrictive with their allusions.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphrys_law
> But please, let's don't call it a stream.
"But please, let's not call it a stream."
You live and learn. I always thought "Let's don't" was a joke, something you say facetiously to indicate that you do care about grammar. It turns out that "Let's don't" has arrived in that grey area between grammatically right and wrong where many consider it just non-standard, but not wrong:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/let%27s
What I find really interesting is that in British English, it's "Don't let's." How does that happen? But we digress.
"Don't let's" is grammatical - "do not let us" is the opposite of "let us". A bit old-fashioned, though.
Ah, of course, I should have seen that. Now it all makes sense. Thanks for explaining!
It's surprising and bizarre to me how comments like this are common in the CS world. If you are okay with "stream" now being more than just a small river, why are you artificially drawing the line as to what exactly the term may refer to?
In a real stream fish aren't forced to swim single file.
But it’s a stream of water, not a stream of fish. Fish swim in schools. I guess the G+ ‘stream’ could be renamed to ‘school’, but that’d be confusing.
I switched from the multi-column to the single column as soon as I found out I could switch back. And I agree, the single column is possibly even more hideous than the multiple panels (but easier to parse).
However, this is not the same view as the previous interface. This was the (very) old:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tUWGu4XpE2Q/UVj5I-YMCQI/AAAAAAAAAi...
And here is the most recent old:
http://cdn.dejanseo.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Google...
and the new (single stream):
http://www.wojdylofinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Scr...
Since the sides were filled (with random stuff that, granted, you mostly ignored) the whitespace wasn't an issue. With those things removed, the vacuousness is much more noticeable. Also, the color of the whitespace wasn't that ugly gray that screams out "I'm not doing anything! Fill me with something!". Unfortunately, reducing the window size doesn't help because the chat panel will now overlap it. Speaking of which (and this is a change that I'm actually quite upset about), it is now much more difficult to determine which contacts are actually online.
I stared at the panel for a bit, tried to figure out why the people at my contact queue didn't seem to have any green indicators (they were all offline), then tried to determine who _was_ online (difficult since the indicator just blends into the photo, and clicking on a user's profile doesn't always reveal their status). Looking again today, it's still difficult to determine who is actually online.
I'm with you on that. If all blocks in a row were the same height, then a left-right-left scan would be just fine even at 3 or 4 columns. But this is not a left-right-left scan. It is a jaggy left-right-down-left-up-left-down. I never got past that enough with Pinterest to even try to find value in that site. I tolerate it on Facebook but really dislike it. If it had been like that when I first thought of joining Facebook, I may not have even bothered (at least until I was socially shamed for not having a Facebook). And now G+ has it. Oh well. I'll never get my money back for any of these service so they can keep moving my cheese I'll keep bitching about it. ;)
I don't see the problem, sweeping left-to-right-to-left while scrolling seems to work for me to skim it (the icons and text identifying the source at the top of items and the pictures are the main visual points of interest and I use them to decide if I want to read more of an article.)
But I suppose its one of those things that's likely to be highly subjective.
>> But I suppose its one of those things that's likely to be highly subjective.
Words of wisdom. Thanks.
I agree with your general point. Are you aware that j and k work in multi-column format too, though k seems to not move enough to make the top of the post visible from under the fixed horizontal bar.