Google



  • I don't know about you, but I know a number of people (myself included) that use several of googles products, and they have always been easy to get to by just going to www.google.com and selecting from the list at the top. So what do google do in the infinite wisdom? They hide that bar until you move the mouse and then gradually fade in the items over a number of seconds. I mean, WTF? I now have to bookmark the places I use or suffer a delay every time I wish to use such a feature. 

    WTF have you done that Google?! Did you really think there were that many people confused by the one strip of text at the top when you have that huge logo in the centre?! Did you really think people would use alternative search engines because of the useful bar? WTF were you thinking! 

    I know it's completely useless to post such comments on googles own forums, as we know Google don't read them, or at least, don't care about what people write. You can thousands of people complaining and they never write a single reply and just ignore everyone. "We do it our way, if you don't like it, go somewhere else". I think a number of people may well just do that ! First you FUBAR GMAIL, and now you do the same to the "hub". 

    </rant>



  •  That's high-grade ranting, but:

    - What are you talking about?  The bar's still there for me, and I don't see any options to hide it.

    - What have they done that you consider to have FUBARed gmail?



  • @Mole said:

    I don't know about you, but I know a number of people (myself included) that use several of googles products, and they have always been easy to get to by just going to www.google.com and selecting from the list at the top. So what do google do in the infinite wisdom? They hide that bar until you move the mouse and then gradually fade in the items over a number of seconds. I mean, WTF? I now have to bookmark the places I use or suffer a delay every time I wish to use such a feature. 

    WTF have you done that Google?! Did you really think there were that many people confused by the one strip of text at the top when you have that huge logo in the centre?! Did you really think people would use alternative search engines because of the useful bar? WTF were you thinking! 

    I know it's completely useless to post such comments on googles own forums, as we know Google don't read them, or at least, don't care about what people write. You can thousands of people complaining and they never write a single reply and just ignore everyone. "We do it our way, if you don't like it, go somewhere else". I think a number of people may well just do that ! First you FUBAR GMAIL, and now you do the same to the "hub". 

    </rant>

     

     

    Either they only do this in your localized version for some crazy reason, or your browser is somehow buggy.

    At least for me (Germany, FF 3.5.5) they actually do that fade-in thing but the whole animation takes less than a second as opposed to several seconds.

    What browser and plugins are you using? Maybe something is messing with JS's setTimeout()/setInterval() functions?



  • @PSWorx said:

    Either they only do this in your localized version for some crazy reason, or your browser is somehow buggy.

    At least for me (Germany, FF 3.5.5) they actually do that fade-in thing but the whole animation takes less than a second as opposed to several seconds.

    What browser and plugins are you using? Maybe something is messing with JS's setTimeout()/setInterval() functions?

    It appears instantly for me, but only once I move the mouse.  If I just let it sit there, it never appears.  I never used those links, but I find this to be annoying as well.  One of the things I like about Google is how simple the search page is.  I don't need fancy JS fade-in bullshit.  It adds nothing to the experience and is distracting.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    One of the things I like about Google is how simple the search page is.  I don't need fancy JS fade-in bullshit.  It adds nothing to the experience and is distracting.

     

    If by "simple" you mean the UI design, this was a try to make it even simpler. If you mean the page's source code, uh, did you ever take a look at it?  They were already using all sorts of obfuscated compiled JS magic before this new change. (Valid HTML? I guess if you're powerful enough to get out your own browser you don't need to bother with that...)


    What I find annoying, though, is the specialized firefox home page. It's pretty much an exact copy of the standard home page - except that they removed the link to GMail for some reason. Which happens to be the only one of those links I'm actually using.



  • I'm getting this too, both on Firefox 3.5 and 3.0.  Don't really see the point: it makes the page look empty, the fade-in effect is annoying, and if you're not aware of it, the first thing you'll say is "WTF?  Where's the rest of the page?"

    Why they'd make this change is beyond me.  My guess is whoever is in charge of stuff like this said "yay flashy effects!" and it happened.  I hope this isn't a harbinger of unfortunate changes to come.



  •  @PSWorx said:

    What I find annoying, though, is the specialized firefox home page. It's pretty much an exact copy of the standard home page - except that they removed the link to GMail for some reason. Which happens to be the only one of those links I'm actually using.

    The Gmail link is there.  It's the last one before "more".



  •  On the www.google.com/firefox page, I see 'Books' instead of 'Gmail'.



  • @PSWorx said:

    If by "simple" you mean the UI design, this was a try to make it even simpler.

    How in the fuck do you think this is simpler?  It simplifies nothing, it's just a flashy effect.



  • The most annoying thing about the custom Firefox homepage is that they removed the language tools link. AFAICT that's the only change (I do see the gmail link). Unfortunately it's the only link I use. The first thing I do is change the homepage to the default google one.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @PSWorx said:

    If by "simple" you mean the UI design, this was a try to make it even simpler.

    How in the fuck do you think this is simpler?  It simplifies nothing, it's just a flashy effect.



    Sure it does, now it's only a search bar and two buttons.

    Most people can just type in their query and press enter...

    And if you for some reason need to use those links (that everybody know are there) YOU HAVE TO MOVE YOUR MOUSE ANYWAYS.



  • @MHolt said:



    And if you for some reason need to use those links (that everybody know are there) YOU HAVE TO MOVE YOUR MOUSE ANYWAYS.

    Lies. Tab + enter work just fine for visible links. L2Keyboard.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @MHolt said:


    And if you for some reason need to use those links (that everybody know are there) YOU HAVE TO MOVE YOUR MOUSE ANYWAYS.


    Lies. Tab + enter work just fine for visible links. L2Keyboard.


    Which, funnily, isn't an issue either, as tabbing out of the search field will bring out the links as well.



  • @MHolt said:

    Sure it does, now it's only a search bar and two buttons.

    Oh, holy shit you are stupid, but here we go:  A lot of people are going to move the pointer at some point, whether to select the text box (I know you don't have to do it, but people will), click the submit button (once again, lots of people do that instead of hitting enter) or just in the process of reaching for the mouse.  So instead they get links that randomly fade-in.  Hell, I'm a software engineer and I didn't know what the fuck was going on the first couple of times I saw this.  And neither did other techies, as evidenced by this thread.

     

    @MHolt said:

    And if you for some reason need to use those links (that everybody know are there) YOU HAVE TO MOVE YOUR MOUSE ANYWAYS.

    So, it's a good idea to hide links until you move the mouse because everybody knows they are there and everybody knows you have to move your mouse to find them.  Not to mention that you have to move the mouse, wait for them to appear and then move to the link you want, instead of just, ya know, moving for the fucking link in the first place.

     

    I don't like it, but I'm not saying it's really horrible or anything; I just find it distracting and annoying.  However, I do hate people who come up with lame excuses for a weak UI "enhancement".



  • @PSWorx said:

    What I find annoying, though, is the specialized firefox home page. It's pretty much an exact copy of the standard home page - except that they removed the link to GMail for some reason. Which happens to be the only one of those links I'm actually using.
    Additionally, before I started using Google Apps, I found this page to be useless because if I want to search, there's a special text box for it RIGHT FUCKING THERE.

    With the Google Apps links at the top, it is less useless.  I generally type the url for the apps I use in anyways.  It's not a big deal for me.  reader.google.com or usually "read" <down> <enter>.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @MHolt said:

    Sure it does, now it's only a search bar and two buttons.

    Oh, holy shit you are stupid, but here we go:  A lot of people are going to move the pointer at some point, whether to select the text box (I know you don't have to do it, but people will), click the submit button (once again, lots of people do that instead of hitting enter) or just in the process of reaching for the mouse.  So instead they get links that randomly fade-in.  Hell, I'm a software engineer and I didn't know what the fuck was going on the first couple of times I saw this.  And neither did other techies, as evidenced by this thread.

     


    Oh right, so because you're too stupid to get it, and your friends are idiots as well, then everybody are idiots... Of course people will move their mouse, so fucking what, then it will fade in.. The interface is still cleaner without moving the mouse.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @MHolt said:

    And if you for some reason need to use those links (that everybody know are there) YOU HAVE TO MOVE YOUR MOUSE ANYWAYS.

    So, it's a good idea to hide links until you move the mouse because everybody knows they are there and everybody knows you have to move your mouse to find them.  Not to mention that you have to move the mouse, wait for them to appear and then move to the link you want, instead of just, ya know, moving for the fucking link in the first place.

     

    I don't like it, but I'm not saying it's really horrible or anything; I just find it distracting and annoying.  However, I do hate people who come up with lame excuses for a weak UI "enhancement".

    And I hate people who hate everything just because it's new and they don't "understand" it... I just thought people here of all places would be smarter than that, I guess I was wrong, and I guess it's not allowed not to think like the group, oh well.



  • @Aaron said:

    The Gmail link is there.  It's the last one before "more".


    @kc0a said:

     On the www.google.com/firefox page, I see 'Books' instead of 'Gmail'.

     

    @Kemp said:

    [...] (I do see the gmail link) [...]


    I find it interesting that some people can see the link and others don't. So apparently they do this depending on locale. I wonder why. (I see "books" too, like kc0a)



  • @PSWorx said:

    I find it interesting that some people can see the link and others don't. So apparently they do this depending on locale. I wonder why. (I see "books" too, like kc0a)

    On http://www.google.ca/firefox I see:

    Web Images Videos Maps News Books Gmail more


    It could also depend on the person being logged into something, however I think the locale thing is more likely.



  • But why does it have to fade in at all? Why can't it just appear instantly as soon as you move the mouse? This is about as annoying as Microsoft stupid "Smooth scrolling". Sure it looks prettier, but it takes you longer to do what you decided to use the computer for. I didn't spend megabucks on a PC so everything can gradually smoothly fade in and slide around. I paid that money because I want things to be snappy. It really pisses me off when other people goto great lengths to slow me down. Its like they want me to spend extra time at the PC to look at all the fancy effects which I couldn't give a fuck about. 

    At least you can turn off Smooth scrolling, fadein menus, etc. Google has no such option. 



  • @MHolt said:

    Oh right, so because you're too stupid to get it, and your friends are idiots as well, then everybody are idiots... Of course people will move their mouse, so fucking what, then it will fade in.. The interface is still cleaner without moving the mouse.

    Hell, why not just have a blank page until you start typing?  That would be "cleaner".  And everybody knows that pure, untainted whiteness is the Holy Grail of UI design (as well as the KKK).

     

    @MHolt said:

    And I hate people who hate everything just because it's new and they don't "understand" it...

    I never said I don't "understand" it; it's clearly eyecandy.  However, it's pointless, distracting eyecandy that makes the interface marginally more difficult to use.  What benefit do you see here?  Your tiny brain has yet to vomit forth any argument in favor of it.

     

    @MHolt said:

    I just thought people here of all places would be smarter than that, I guess I was wrong, and I guess it's not allowed not to think like the group, oh well.

    Oh noes, the whiny douchebag is being oppressed!  ;_;



  • @Mole said:

    They hide that bar until you move the mouse and then gradually fade in the items

    Hmm...  That's funny, it seems perfectly normal to me.

    OH!  If I *actually* use a browser with javascript support, I see get the same behavior.  It also fades in if you use any accessibility keys that simulate mouse actions.

    However, good news: if you don't allow javascript, this change goes away, and you get the links straight off.  Welcome to NoScript, Google.

    Morons.



  •  Morbius is right.

     To me, it seems like a Mini-Me version of Microsoft Office's new "ribbon": A change just because "we can". Orders of magnitude less annoying, but annoying (and pointless) nonetheless.



  • @SQLDave said:

    A change just because "we can".
     

     

    Which is the source of the biggest FAILs in web design. Yeah, its annoying. Only noticed it today and thought it was the shitty wireless network I was on but realised after a sec it was js bullshit.



  • @Mole said:

    They hide that bar until you move the mouse and then gradually fade in the items over a number of seconds. I mean, WTF?

    It didn't used to do this.  It seems to be a fairly new "feature".  Hey, the 12 milliion engineers who work for Google have to do SOMETHNG.

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @MHolt said:

    Oh right, so because you're too stupid to get it, and your friends are idiots as well, then everybody are idiots... Of course people will move their mouse, so fucking what, then it will fade in.. The interface is still cleaner without moving the mouse.

    Hell, why not just have a blank page until you start typing?  That would be "cleaner".  And everybody knows that pure, untainted whiteness is the Holy Grail of UI design (as well as the KKK).

     

    @MHolt said:

    And I hate people who hate everything just because it's new and they don't "understand" it...

    I never said I don't "understand" it; it's clearly eyecandy.  However, it's pointless, distracting eyecandy that makes the interface marginally more difficult to use.  What benefit do you see here?  Your tiny brain has yet to vomit forth any argument in favor of it.

     

    @MHolt said:

    I just thought people here of all places would be smarter than that, I guess I was wrong, and I guess it's not allowed not to think like the group, oh well.

    Oh noes, the whiny douchebag is being oppressed!  ;_;

     

     

    Jesus, who pissed in yall's corn flakes? What a bunch of mholes.



  • @monkeypants said:

    Jesus, who pissed in yall's corn flakes? What a bunch of mholes.
     

    You must be new here.



  • @monkeypants said:

    Jesus, who pissed in yall's corn flakes? What a bunch of mholes.

     

    Don't worry. Morbs just got his own copy of "2000 Insults for All Occasions" and needs to practice.



  • @monkeypants said:

    Jesus, who pissed in yall's corn flakes? What a bunch of mholes.

    I have helpfully highlighted the parts of your post that are not actual words; out of twelve words, two are not real.

     

    Tallying it up, we see you have a 16.7% Unintelligibility Index.  This is not good, but still puts you far ahead of MHolt.



  •  I'm surprised you guys actually bother going to the Google home page. For search there's the tab on the right, for everything else of Google's I have a folder on the toolbar with direct links to each google product I use. If I want to open all, I just middle click on the folder and all open in individual tabs



  • @Mole said:

    But why does it have to fade in at all? Why can't it just appear instantly as soon as you move the mouse? This is about as annoying as Microsoft stupid "Smooth scrolling". Sure it looks prettier, but it takes you longer to do what you decided to use the computer for. I didn't spend megabucks on a PC so everything can gradually smoothly fade in and slide around. I paid that money because I want things to be snappy. It really pisses me off when other people goto great lengths to slow me down. Its like they want me to spend extra time at the PC to look at all the fancy effects which I couldn't give a fuck about. 

    At least you can turn off Smooth scrolling, fadein menus, etc. Google has no such option. 

    Fading is not about "fancy" or "pretty."  It is about eye focus.   The new Google home page, when you view it, only has one thing to look at.  So no matter ifyou go there every day, or have never been there, your eyes only have 1 place they can possibly be drawn to.  Then the reason the other links don't just appear is that if that were to happen they would immediately draw attention and your eyes would be drawn to them instead of what you are looking at.   By fading in, your eyes remain focused where they were,while you gradually become aware of everything else. 

     

    I'm not saying I like the thing any more than you guys, but it isn't really that stupid.  If I were them I would have made it fade in immediately after the page finishes loading.  That would have the benefit of drawing your eyes immediately to the search bar, while avoiding the strange behavior of fading in when you move the mouse.



  •  I only used google because it was an easy hub to there other products. Now I have a html file that I use instead which contains more links and no annoying JS crap. Bookmarks menu is too slow.



  • @Mole said:

    Bookmarks menu is too slow.
    Browser? Number of bookmarks?



  • @tster said:

    That would have the benefit of drawing your eyes immediately to the search bar, while avoiding the strange behavior of fading in when you move the mouse.

    I think it's pretty obvious what you're supposed to do on the Google homepage, but I've been told I have a higher than average IQ so I can't speak for everyone. Invariably there will be an idiot who clicks on "language tools" or something to do a normal web search. (It amazes me how far we as a species go to cater for others who are clearly inferior to us.)

     

    I, for one, am sick of all this "this must be right because the Almighty Omniscient Usability Experts told us so!!11oneoneoneeleven" crap. There was absolutely nothing wrong or distracting about the old homepage. It was perfectly obvious that you could search for stuff by typing in the box and clicking the button (or pressing enter, if you have the level of intelligence required to do that).

     




  • @tster said:

    Fading is not about "fancy" or "pretty."  It is about eye focus.   The new Google home page, when you view it, only has one thing to look at.  So no matter ifyou go there every day, or have never been there, your eyes only have 1 place they can possibly be drawn to.  Then the reason the other links don't just appear is that if that were to happen they would immediately draw attention and your eyes would be drawn to them instead of what you are looking at.   By fading in, your eyes remain focused where they were,while you gradually become aware of everything else. 

    What do we have here? Are you really trying to tell us you’d first look at the toolbar on the top, or the links below the search, before you focus on the huge Google logo and the rather large input box below it?
    Besides, most users are going to move their mouse and make the links visible anyway. Which, in turn, moves their attention to the things that suddenly appear out of nowhere.

    Personally, I think the static page was less confusing than having things suddenly pop up.



  • @scgtrp said:

    I think it's pretty obvious what you're supposed to do on the Google homepage, but I've been told I have a higher than average IQ so I can't speak for everyone. Invariably there will be an idiot who clicks on "language tools" or something to do a normal web search. (It amazes me how far we as a species go to cater for others who are clearly inferior to us.)

    I, for one, am sick of all this "this must be right because the Almighty Omniscient Usability Experts told us so!!11oneoneoneeleven" crap. There was absolutely nothing wrong or distracting about the old homepage. It was perfectly obvious that you could search for stuff by typing in the box and clicking the button (or pressing enter, if you have the level of intelligence required to do that).

    Let me guess. Your favourite text editor is vi?



  • @random.next said:

    @tster said:

    Fading is not about "fancy" or "pretty."  It is about eye focus.   The new Google home page, when you view it, only has one thing to look at.  So no matter ifyou go there every day, or have never been there, your eyes only have 1 place they can possibly be drawn to.  Then the reason the other links don't just appear is that if that were to happen they would immediately draw attention and your eyes would be drawn to them instead of what you are looking at.   By fading in, your eyes remain focused where they were,while you gradually become aware of everything else. 

    What do we have here? Are you really trying to tell us you’d first look at the toolbar on the top, or the links below the search, before you focus on the huge Google logo and the rather large input box below it?
    Besides, most users are going to move their mouse and make the links visible anyway. Which, in turn, moves their attention to the things that suddenly appear out of nowhere.

    Personally, I think the static page was less confusing than having things suddenly pop up.

     

    Did you read a single fucking thing I wrote?

    1.  I said I don't like the fading

    2.  I'm not arguing that the new page is easier to use than the old.  I'm arguing that fading is not just about fancy effects

    3.  Like I said, fading causes their attention to not move to things because they do not suddenly appear.



  • @PSWorx said:

    Let me guess. Your favourite text editor is vi?

    Nope, nano. vi has that "but hjkl are clearly superior to arrow keys because a small percentage of the population agrees!" thing, similar to most of these UI "enhancements"; nano works relatively logically and I don't even need the help bar at the bottom anymore.

    (Really, Kate, but if I had to pick a CLI editor, nano.)



  • Well,  I've just been asked a question by someone who obviously doesn't have an IQ of 2000, unlike scgtrp. They normally use Google to find stuff in the UK, so they typed in "google.co.uk", typed in there search requirements, hit enter (yes, they are that clever), got there search results, then changed the radio box from "the web" to "pages from the UK" and clicked search. The problem? They said "I used to be able to do it before pressing enter, but that option has disappeared now, so I have to submit and then change it." and then asked if there was other search engines that supported the same feature. When I replied with "They made it simpler to use by removing the clutter. Try moving your mouse whilst its in the window, but below the toolbar, then the options you want will appear." they replied "Thats stupid!". 

    So, hiding things when people are used them not being hidden, confuses a number of people, and makes a certain percentage of others angry, as it slows them down. 

    It's just like Microsoft when brought out there "We'll only show you the most often used menu items and hide the rest.". People knew where everything was, and were confused when half the menu items disappeared. Thankfully, disabling that "feature" was quite easy. 



  • I'm using IE7 on XP sp3 in New York - subsecond fade-in on lightly loaded zippy box with virtually no addins.



  • @Mole said:

    ... So, hiding things when people are used them not being hidden, confuses a number of people, and makes a certain percentage of others angry, as it slows them down. 

     

    Next, some idiot car manufacturer will work out how to "hide" the turn indicators, because most of the driving population doesn't know how to use them anyway. This will obviously improve the usability of the car by reducing the available control inputs for most people most of the time... :/



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @monkeypants said:

    Jesus, who pissed in yall's corn flakes? What a bunch of mholes.

    I have helpfully highlighted the parts of your post that are not actual words; out of twelve words, two are not real.

     

    Tallying it up, we see you have a 16.7% Unintelligibility Index.  This is not good, but still puts you far ahead of MHolt.

     

    By God's Wound's, Jeeves, you must have been a Rhodes scholar to perform that brilliant analysis! How odd that you didn't surmise that mhole is a combination, a portmanteau if you will, of MHolt and asshole. So, again, 

    @monkeypants said:

    What a bunch of mholes.

    Give my best wishes to The Right Honourable The Lord Patten of Barnes, if you should happen to bump into him in the fish'n'chips line. I remain, sir, 

    Your humble servant,

    monkeypants



  • @monkeypants said:

    By God's Wound's, Jeeves, you must have been a Rhodes scholar to perform that brilliant analysis!

    Usually it's "his wounds" or "Christ's wounds".  Unless you're a Unitarian, but those people are all assholes.

     

    @monkeypants said:

    How odd that you didn't surmise that mhole is a combination, a portmanteau if you will, of MHolt and asshole.

    I figured it was either this or that your fat fingers slipped on your Cheeto-slick keyboard and fumbled.  Regardless, it's not funny and your intent was hardly clear.

     

    @monkeypants said:

    Give my best wishes to The Right Honourable The Lord Patten of Barnes, if you should happen to bump into him in the fish'n'chips line.

    Oh God.

     

    @monkeypants said:

    Your humble servant,

    monkeypants

    I know you're my servant; everybody ultimately serves me.  That you even feel it necessary to state it leads me to doubt your sincerity.  Worship is a demand of the insecure, lesser gods.



  • @tster said:

    Fading is not about "fancy" or "pretty."  It is about eye focus.   The new Google home page, when you view it, only has one thing to look at.  So no matter ifyou go there every day, or have never been there, your eyes only have 1 place they can possibly be drawn to.  Then the reason the other links don't just appear is that if that were to happen they would immediately draw attention and your eyes would be drawn to them instead of what you are looking at.   By fading in, your eyes remain focused where they were,while you gradually become aware of everything else. 


    @tster said:

    3.  Like I said, fading causes their attention to not move to things because they do not suddenly appear.

    You're overlooking one critical thing. Motion or change draws attention even better than static difference (the links and search bar are different from the plain white background). The fade-in effect is fast enough to register as a change, at least to my eyes. The existence of the links on the top has barely registered to me when I haven't needed them, but last week when I saw the fade-in effect for the first time, I immediately went "Hey, what's here? Oh, just the old link bar." If you wanted the links to appear sneakily without the user noticing, the effect would have to last tens of seconds at least, in which case it would be far too slow to be usable.



  • @Mole said:

    The problem? They said "I used to be able to do it before pressing enter, but that option has disappeared now, so I have to submit and then change it." and then asked if there was other search engines that supported the same feature. When I replied with "They made it simpler to use by removing the clutter. Try moving your mouse whilst its in the window, but below the toolbar, then the options you want will appear." they replied "Thats stupid!". 
     

    Yup. I'm just waiting for when my manager discovers this new 'feature'. She once asked me to remove the search box from our website... and pointed to the Google search box in the top right hand screen of her browser.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Worship is a demand of the insecure, lesser gods.
    Speaking of which, why aren't you fuckers worshipping me?  Nobody told you to stop.



  • Hey I like the fading, it's very Web 2.1

    Also the Google homepage interface was so crowded all over the place, that I think it's good they do the fade in thinigie to remember me they have that tool bar on top.

    They could have tried to be less subtle. Like make the top bar orange and blinking, so it doesn't get lost on that sea of overpopulated design

    Now someone go to google blog and find out why they did that. I don't really care, but it would be mildly interesting to read why they did it



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @monkeypants said:

    By God's Wound's, Jeeves, you must have been a Rhodes scholar to perform that brilliant analysis!

    Usually it's "his wounds" or "Christ's wounds".  Unless you're a Unitarian, but those people are all mholes.

     

    FTFY.



  • @tgape said:

    However, good news: if you don't allow javascript, this change goes away, and you get the links straight off.  Welcome to NoScript, Google.
    Wow.  Welcome to every google app not working if you turn it on.

    docs? nope

    reader? not a chance

    maps? works.  quite well if you consider mapquest to have had a good interface in 1999.

    Google video? you're kidding, right?

    Gmail actually fails pretty loudly and gives you the option of using an inferior interface.

    Wave failed the most miserably

    That's all I tested, because that's all I use.

    So in short, thank you Google for "upgrading" your front page in such a way that the best solution to the newfound problem fucks your other products.



  •  Did they make the bar on the top load using an asynchronous load mechanism to ensure that the main page appears as fast as possible? I mean damn it loads so damn fast!



  • @belgariontheking said:

    So in short, thank you Google for "upgrading" your front page in such a way that the best solution to the newfound problem fucks your other products.

     

    This is what happens when you have a company with thousands of employees who have to do SOMETHING in order to justify their existance.  They can't just sit around and say "We don't need to change anything because we're already number one."   This is sort of like Google's version of "New Coke".

     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.