May 19th, 2006

Does Google Succeed Despite Bad Design?

Now that Google’s role is changing from scrappy underdog to serious contender in challenging Microsoft’s hegemony, the views of critics and observers are changing too, from an optimistic bright white to a downtrodden dull gray. Two world-class designers, Don Norman and Derek Powazek, have recently been very critical of the search giant’s design, suggesting that Google doesn’t know what they’re doing. Are they right? Does Google succeed despite bad design? I don’t think so.

Four years ago Google was at the height of its acclaim. They could do no wrong. Much was made of their new, simplified approach to search, evidence for which was echoed in their minimalistic homepage that featured little more than an input box and a submit button. And they held to that simplicity with amazing discipline, even to the point that their users noticed. Marissa Mayer explains in a 2002 interview with Mark Hurst:

“There’s this one user, a Google zealot - we don’t know who he is - who occasionally sends an e-mail to our “comments” address. Every time he writes, the e-mail contains only a two-digit number. It took us awhile to figure out what he was doing. Turns out he’s counting the number of words on the home page. When the number goes up, like up to 52, it gets him irritated, and he e-mails us the new word count. As crazy as it sounds, his e-mails are helpful, because it has put an interesting discipline on the UI team, so as not to introduce too many links. It’s like a scale that tells you that you’ve gained two pounds.” (Emphasis added)

Fast forward to 2006, four years later, and even though Google sports nearly the exact same interface they did then, opinions about it have changed dramatically.

Don Norman: “Anybody can make a simple-looking interface”

One of the first voices of dissent was Donald Norman, who in his own words has grown “sick and tired of hearing people praise its clean, elegant look.” He’s angry that Google gets credit for being so simple when all they’re doing is providing a single feature from their homepage: “Anybody can make a simple-looking interface if the system only does one thing.”

Norman doesn’t stop there. Surprisingly, he then turns the general opinion of search technologies on its head, saying that Google is complex while MSN and Yahoo are “easier to use”.

He comes to this conclusion by suggesting that it’s the extra features that count, the non-search features. He says that MSN and Yahoo make these other features easier to find than Google does, and though they might be more complex-looking they are actually much less “deceptive” than Google. He asks: “Why isn’t Google a unified application? Why are there so many odd, apparently free-standing services?”.

Norman has clearly gone off the deep end with this one. If, as he says, “anybody can make a simple-looking interface”, then why don’t they!? I wish every site was as deceptively simple as Google is! At times like these it is good to remember the great Leonardo Da Vinci, who said: “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

What Norman doesn’t pay homage to is the fact that 90+% of people who use Google use it for the single purpose that their interface is designed for: Search. They have no need for the other services Google provides and to them they would be a distraction, not a necessary component of some Google holism. So his hypothetical use case of wanting to find “Downloads” only represents a tiny fraction of the population…probably him and a few hundred thousand other people. How many people search? Billions.

Consider where Search is going: away from the home page. An increasing number of folks search on engines from the search box in the top right corner of their browser, without ever reaching the Google homepage. And with Microsoft planning on doing the same with IE7/MSN, it is clear that the homepage is becoming less and less important over time. Do people who use search from other starting points care whether they can find other stuff from the homepage? No, the thought never crosses their mind because they’re too busy searching for something of personal value.

Derek Powazek: the “anti-design search engine”

The latest salvo in the anti-Google campaign comes from designer Derek Powazek, who writes that the simplistic Google homepage, a seemingly smart marketing move, “was probably just design ineptitude. You don’t have to look much past Google’s Fisher Price logo to know it: These people have no use for design.”

Powazek calls Google the “anti-design search engine”. Not only that, but he refuses to believe that they know what they’re doing from a design standpoint.

Now before I go any further, I will point out that Powazek makes the same mistake that so many of us have made from time to time. He begins talking about design in visual terms, and ends up talking about it in general terms. He starts his piece by saying “when it comes to visual design, they’ve done pretty much everything wrong.”. But later, he generalizes to all design, saying “their homepage was utterly bereft of any hint of design.”

So is this just a case of Powazek’s aesthetic sensibilities being bruised, or is it a case of truly bad Design? I think it has to be the former, because to say that Google Search is poorly designed is to throw out the one metric by which we can all agree: usage.

You see, Google is far and away the most-used search engine ever. To suggest that it is poorly designed is to ignore the fact that everybody uses it. I’m not about to try to define design here but I’m leaning heavily toward the idea that the most-used designs are the most successful. What other criteria would be a better metric of success?

Nobody but designers seem to care what Google looks like. And until that happens, I think that Google should stick with what they’re doing. In fact, the comments left on Powazek’s article suggest that people have an amazingly strong emotional attachment to the service…and very few of them even mention the visual merits of the site at all. In other words, don’t fix what isn’t broken.

Don’t focus on the homepage, focus on the results page

The problem is that both Norman and Powazek are focusing on the wrong page. They’re focusing on the Google homepage when they should be focusing on the results page. That’s where the magic of Google is, that’s where their money is made, that’s why you and I use it every day. All other screens, the homepage, the Downloads section, Advanced Search, act only as barriers to the answers to our questions.

The success of Google doesn’t come from their sparse homepage, their goofy logo, or by “deception”. It comes from the ability to consistently give relevant results to our queries…end of story.

For Google to change its design strategy to satisfy the whim of a few designers would be suicide. It would ignore their amazing success to date, erode the emotional attachment of the people who use it, and start them down the slippery slope of compromising a simple, easy-to-use search engine.

Grab the RSS Feed

Comments ( 70 Responses so far )

1. Kesava Mallela on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

Well said. I would like to add the following: When you type in a movie in Google’s search box, it lists down the timings in the cinema near you. One doesnt need a “Google Movies” link on the homepage. It all depends on how well the semantics of the query be established. Not so surprisingly, Google is exceedingly good at this.

2. DeWayne Purdy on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

Excellent analysis, Josh. I think the last thing any regular Google user would want is for them to become the Microsoft Word of search engines, overloaded with features and bloated code. They’ve also made it very easy for me to incorporate their search code into my web pages, either to search my site or the entire web. That further drives home your point that the results are the key ingredient to their success, not a simple home page.

When Norman knocks them for saying anyone can create a simple home page, the problem is, no one does. It’s extremely hard for designers to focus on what’s truly important on a page, and forget the rest. Political pressures or runaway creativity often result in element after element being added to a page to make it beautiful (in the designer’s eye) or to have every conceivable choice, when people just want it to work.

3. Pauric on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

You hit the nail on the head Josh. It isn’t about design. I would argue the single biggest reason for google.com’s popularity is trust.

People trust the results for a number of reasons. Foremost is that while google makes its money from ads, it does not push ads on to the user. A quick scan of yahoo.com or msn homepages leaves me, as a user, feeling that the search result may also be tainted. There is nothing to say any of these engines are more or less trustworthy than the other.

In this modern world where we are all bombarded with ads, we have instinctively built up a natural resistance and a mistrust of anyone trying to blatantly sell us stuff we dont need. The most simple interface gives me that fuzzy feeling that I can trust the results to be simple, to the point and just what I asked for. The fact their text ads are relevant is further dispels my aversion to them

The second point of a disorganized product offering… I was interviewed (for want of a better word) by google over a 4 month period recently. I was left with the impression that they have become victims of their own success. It was an extraordinarily disjointed and frustrating process. I felt that they had no cohesive roadmap, no unified style guide and very little in the way of any idea how to leverage their various offerings in to a one-stop-shop user space.

It all came to a crunch when I suggested something of a my-space killer, a customizable homepage presentation layer which linked off to talk/mail/links/photos/calendar etc in a way that users could relate to. Their response “Sorry Pauric, we just don’t get it”. They simply did not see value in a unified offering.

Anyway, back to ‘design’, I would propose UI/UX designers view google.com as a Menu Builder. With any interface a user must walk through a menu of some description to get to the information they need. Google provide the quickest, most simple interface menu to the internet today.

4. tom on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

Excellent analysis. I agree completely.

You mention that Google’s other features (Downloads was the example you used) aren’t as easily found as on other search engines. But since the basic web search is the main point of Google, why not just search for the feature one is looking for?

Personally when I’m trying to find something crazy in the Google Labs or Google’s April Fool’s joke two years ago, I just use Google search. Just because there aren’t 300 links in sidebars like on MSN or Yahoo doesn’t mean that the information isn’t very accessible. It also shows me that Google has pride in their (search) product, which makes me happy to use their services.

5. Colm on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

I read Don Norman’s criticism and found it absolutely hilarious. His main complaint being that it’s so hard to find things in the greater Google site like Scholar or Translate or whatever…

It seems in all his concern about design he has overlooked the function of Google’s homepage, search!

If I want the ‘Google Translate’ service I simply type into that simple little form ‘google translate’ and hit the “I’m feeling lucky” button. Hey presto, up pops the ‘Google Translate’ page.

Same for ‘google scholar’, ‘google maps’, ‘google blog search’… Those standalone apps that fall under the company’s umbrella shouldn’t need links (well not on the homepage anyway), their search should be good enough to let you find them!

6. Pauric on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

There two things I want to bring up Colm.

Firstly googles search and its subfunctions (lucky, translate, dictionary etc) are a single product. Josh said:”He comes to this conclusion by suggesting that it’s the extra features that count, the non-search features. He says that MSN and Yahoo make these other features easier to find than Google does”

Yahoo and msn make it easier to get to their other product offerings. Google keeps it simple. Do take a look at google’s customized homepage though.

The second point I’d like to highlight is that while you and I are fairly internet savvy and can use google search as a command line interface, I know a surprising amount of people that type URLs in to google search. As UI designers we must not forget, correction, -we must design for- people who dont have the time to learn and remember the search subfunction. I’m not saying the answer is yahoo or msn but google disparate product offering is a huge opportunity lost. The whole is great than the sum of the parts.

7. Eddie on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

Although I agree, I’d like to bring up one point of discussion…

you said:
“Consider where Search is going: away from the home page. An increasing number of folks search on engines from the search box in the top right corner of their browser, without ever reaching the Google homepage…Do people who use search from other starting points care whether they can find other stuff from the homepage? No, the thought never crosses their mind because they’re too busy searching for something of personal value.”

To me, that actually means that google homepage should then focus more on providing a traditional type of homepage that tells me more about what they do and where I can find their services.

You’re right, I haven’t loaded th homepage in years, I use my browsers address bar to search. So when I do go there, it’s to do a special search.. although like others have mentioned, I just search from my address bar for the service mentioned.

As this trend continues, maybe that’s actually a reason for google to provide more value to the homepage. I agree that 90 percent of users just want to search, but if a growing number of people don’t even need the homepage for *that* then what else are you going to do with it?

8. Pauric on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

Good points Eddie, I would say that google know this. Did you know for example that you can type a street address in to the URL in firefox to bring up googlemaps?

9. Pauric on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

oh, I forgot, and unrecognised (404) entries in to firefoxe’s url box return I’m Feeling Lucky result. Not sure if people know this already, apologies if this is common knowledge.

Pingback: multineedia » Blog Archive » Does Google Succeed Despite Bad Design?

10. Daniel Szuc on May 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

“The problem is that both Norman and Powazek are focusing on the wrong page. They’re focusing on the Google homepage when they should be focusing on the results page. That’s where the magic of Google is, that’s where their money is made, that’s why you and I use it every day” - Great point!

There is so much opportunity to look at ways to optimize the design of the results page in terms of navigating within results, displaying specific content based on the search in question (how would search results on a financial product look different to a search on a car to a camera to a ipod etc etc).

Why is there still a need to show 10+ pages of results in the page footer (when users only every look at 2-3 pages before either giving up or starting again?)

11. Paul Coddington on May 20th, 2006 (Comment) #

“Why is there still a need to show 10+ pages of results in the page footer (when users only every look at 2-3 pages before either giving up or starting again?)”

For some users and some topics, but often what I am looking for is on the 20th page or so. Some topics return a lot of noise. If you go for the top results when looking for certain products, you may be taken to the most featureless and expensive options (because their company has more exposure due to putting more money into that exposure than product development).

Many ‘top’ results are merely low-grade or partial (subscription preview) magazine articles or book advertisements on the fringe of the topic, not the actual topic itself.

I don’t see the point of complaining about this - the first page is the only one loaded to your browser by default. Why begrudge other people having the option to view more? If you only want to look at the first 2 pages, then don’t click on any others! It is like saying “I don’t see why McDonalds should offer 1/4 pounders because I don’t eat them” - neither do I, but obviously some people do.

“Yahoo and msn make it easier to get to their other product offerings.”

Yes they do, and the presence of the ‘other offerings’ suggests the search box may be looking within that subset of content or biased in some way.

In the end though, I prefer to use Google because I don’t get a faceful of commercials every time I open it. I have my own life, and I minimise the ability of commercial interests to invade it (and that is why my homepage is either Google, or my own ‘intranet’).

Besides, as someone mentioned, Google does offer a custom homepage option for those who want it. Something for everyone, not just one stereotyped demographic of which I and many others are not a part.

Pingback: links for 2006-05-20 at disambiguity

12. Paul on May 20th, 2006 (Comment) #

Definition is everything
Hola. We need to agree on a definition for what design is before we can have a useful discussion on design. Otherwise you are just debating the definition of the word design and either argument could be right.

Design: Pretty to look at is not all that important
Google really is a great example of how “design” is perceived by the public. If something works then “design” (I am defining design here as looking pretty) is not important. The google logo uses drop shadow and embossing in the way that a first time photoshop user would apply them but people don’t talk about that, they talk about Google page ranking, getting in the top 10 first page results. Google is ubiquitous with search and for one reason, it works better than all the rest. I’m not even talking about the crazy algorithms and stuff they use, just the functionality of the search tool.

Design: Easy to use not always pretty
If you look at Google from a usability/accessability “design” perspective, then they have made a number of good choices. Black text on a white backround for improved readablity. Links are default blue and underlined to increase link acuity. Decent sized fonts so some one over 40 can see them… these design choices perhaps are more imporant than the aesthetic ones.

I can’t believe I just spent 10 min writing this. yeesh.

Pingback: Sparkplug 9 >> bizhack » Blog Archive » Simplicity and sophistication

13. Daniel Szuc on May 21st, 2006 (Comment) #

“For some users and some topics, but often what I am looking for is on the 20th page or so. Some topics return a lot of noise”

How do you know what you are looking for is on the 20th page? Or the 10th page? Or the 100th page?

How much time are users willing to invest to find what they need before trying another search engine or alternative channel altogether?

Suggest there are design opportunities to expore and help users explore deeper results pages instead of pogo sticking around hoping or guessing to find what users want.

Its the equivalent of putting your hand into the big old cookie jar, hoping/guessing you will find the cookie you really want (because you can get a glimpse of it through the glass) but not exactly sure where its positioned in the jar.

Also suggesting there are some “search legacy designs” in place, not necessarily because they are the best, but because they have become a quasi accepted standard.

Question: How could the results page be improved?

14. Pauric on May 22nd, 2006 (Comment) #

So, I rarely look past the first page. If what I’m looking for is not there then I refine my search.

I base my second search on what the system produced against the keywords in my first search.

I would explore the possiblity of allowing users to search within their initial results. Instead of the search terms being a get it right first time, help the user built up their search terms itteratively based on what falls out of the results.

15. Pauric on May 22nd, 2006 (Comment) #

I visualise this working similar to the way del.icio.us suggests tags for your bookmark. You start with a very general search term, google scans the results and attempts to group the results based on common terms, present those common terms and allow the user to add them to the inital search item.

Any reason this wouldnt work in practice?

16. Gabriel on May 23rd, 2006 (Comment) #

I have to agree and disagree — Google’s tools are usually well designed in themselves, but the integration of their toolset is almost non-existent. Don Norman wasn’t cracking on the search interface, he was cracking on Google for what they’ve completely neglected to do — make the products work well together as a seamless set of tools. e.g. why aren’t there pushpins in Google Maps for all of my friend’s addresses?

Derek Powazeck’s point about Google resonates with me too, but I think he takes it too far. It’s not that Google CAN’T design good systems — Gmail, Google maps are absolutely fantastic. It’s that they HAVEN’T designed a package that makes it easy to use all of the tools together, which is what annoys Don Norman, Derek Powazek, and me. I think that Google WILL solve the integration problem, but it’s there.

Pingback: Underived.net » Blog Archive » Does Google Succeed Despite Bad Design?

17. Pauric on May 25th, 2006 (Comment) #

Gabriel, I argee with your conclusion that Google isnt tying things together very well. But in doing my research for the google interview I uncovered some very worrying problems.

They have a large number of extraordinarily talented people and they’ve pulled those people together in a short period of time. These teams and individuals are trying to make their mark, prove themselves. Its not a trivial matter to get all those people towing a standard company design line without peeving them. Creatives like to be individuals and dislike being told what to create.

In my personal experience when we had half a dozen ‘creatives’ working on our UIs we had a huge problem with consistency, integration, consensus. After the dot com bust downsizing and outsourcing I’m the sole creative looking after the UIs, I have a much easier job pushing through company wide design implementations. Consistency is a big thing in my job, less so with google. Their issue of integration might be a little easier to solve but again it requires a mandated direction from above.

For google to ’sort itself out’ it will need a design czar and their creatives will need to be submissive to the czar(s) direction. This in turn will make it not such a fun place to work (probably), but will produce a product set that meets user needs more closely.

In my humble opinion (o;

18. Pauric on May 25th, 2006 (Comment) #

When I say large… I nearly fell of my chair when they told me they had +40 UI designers. Thats a BIG problem. Think… herding cats.

19. pauric on May 29th, 2006 (Comment) #

leading on from my proposal that google.com should be viewed not as a search engine but as an interface building tool here is an interesting article on how/why people use and will continue to use google.com

http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2006/052906buzz.html?page=1

Pingback: Navarik : : Thursday links :: The Marine Data Network™

20. rahul ajmera on June 16th, 2006 (Comment) #

am a fan of google. I understand that there is a problem of intergration but i feel that its a question of decision on what service one wishes to use and when that decision is made. Almost like making a choice of what shops one wishes to visit before entering a market. The inherent assumption that google makes is that the user knows what service he wants before reaching the page and that to me is a fair assumption. It also displays a certain level of confidence (or over confidence, guess time will tell) that if the users wish to access any of the other services like froogle, Gmail etc they will reach out to them directly. Its definitely not trying to push the other services down the users throat forcibly like the other portals.

Pingback: Blog For Thought » Blog Archive » Interesting Google Design story

21. Pauric on June 20th, 2006 (Comment) #

I agree with you completely Rahul. I tend to think of Google as a large Mall on the interweb. They currently do not make it easy for the surfer/shopper to go from one shop to the next. There is no central atrium to stress the analogy.

You, I and I guess most readers of this blog should recognise that we’re dealing with humans and not technopiles. Humans dont write blogs, install firefox extensions or use gmail for file storage. They take kids to parties, forget birthdays and dread filing taxes (froogle/calendar/spreadsheet). Provide the services in a nice big interweb mall and let humans get on with doing human type things.

Pingback: Caffeinated Gonzo! » K.I.S.S. Me Again Please

22. Pavan Kulkarni on July 23rd, 2006 (Comment) #

Nice analysis, Josh!
I do agree with you! And I don’t understand what the fuss about the homepage is all about? Does giving a splendid UI and releasing the functionality behind it in SPs look like a better design to these guys?
I have a purpose and I’m serving it! That’s the shot for Google…..I guess!

23. Ryan on July 31st, 2006 (Comment) #

It is my opinion that google is trying to diversify its services however also wants to make sure that its search function still stands out to be the No.1 reason people use Google. As such it may seem that they are ill-advertising their other services. Its just a precautionary measure as far as I’m concerned.

24. Kelly Felix on August 21st, 2006 (Comment) #

Just keep a look at google’s SERPs. Is it me or are the results for google’s organic searches getting less and less relevant and their paid submissions through Adwords are getting more and more relevant. I hope Google wakes up to the fact that both MSN and Yahoo are making a serious effort to get up the No.1 Search Engine and by leaning out their search to profit more isn’t the smart way forward with such strong competition.

25. Rich Jerk on August 21st, 2006 (Comment) #

This is very true, google is doing this to squeeze publishers and forcing them to use their sponsored areas of the search so they can get more profits.

26. Butterfly Marketing on September 21st, 2006 (Comment) #

Lets look at it this way guys, google is a profit machine, whatever “imperfections” that we see in google is directly related to it being a profit machine. If it were a 100% efficient in search it would not bet 100% profitable.

27. Bad Credit on September 21st, 2006 (Comment) #

If you notice the search discepencies with google continues we will see Yahoo and MSN slowly creeping towards the first position. I think you Internet Marketers out there would have noticed that MSN is getting better with its search results.

28. Montoya on September 29th, 2006 (Comment) #

“It comes from the ability to consistently give relevant results to our queries…end of story.”

That hasn’t been true for at least a year now. I don’t know why people are still so committed to relying on Google for search, it’s really chock full of adsense-spam and irrelevant listings with high page rank but mediocre relevancy. Google used to be really good at returning great results, but right now they have a lot of work to do to fix their problems.

29. shingo on October 17th, 2006 (Comment) #

I don’t think the minimalistic Google homepage was supposed to be attractive. Larry and Sergey never claimed they were (good) designers. They just wanted a no-nonsense site, showing visitors what they have to offer: Good search results.

30. web design mumbai on November 18th, 2006 (Comment) #

google always gives good search result.and lastly it depends on user which he wants.

31. Baku on November 19th, 2006 (Comment) #

Thanks for article. We all use Google for search and there is no need in good (long loading site-design as yahoo or msn) I like Google way.

32. Andreas on November 24th, 2006 (Comment) #

Home Equity Loan - Selected Resources For Home Equity Loan

33. Lukas on December 20th, 2006 (Comment) #

Thank you, In my opinion yahoo and msn are faster and completer.

34. Clemens on December 21st, 2006 (Comment) #

Google is slow and not complete but we all use it.

35. Markus on December 21st, 2006 (Comment) #

Thank you. Google is the greatest search machine ever

36. Karin on December 22nd, 2006 (Comment) #

Thank you I love Google and use it all the time

37. Thomas on December 25th, 2006 (Comment) #

Actually I find Google minimalistic, intransparent and very slow to list but so what everyone uses it.

38. Aglaie on December 25th, 2006 (Comment) #

For me Google has a bad design and I prefer yahoo very much.

39. c2600 on December 27th, 2006 (Comment) #

Most of you have no clue what you are talking about. I am a webmaster myself, and have actually made search programs.

This article is total one sided and misquoted!

Google:
1. They spy on you less then the other search companies.
2. Google has the largest index!
3. Google is WAY faster! Simple page, faster code, more servers.
4. Google has less adverts, and dose not hide adverts in links. Unlike ASK, Yahoo, MSN, etc…
5. Fast high quality results.
6. Simple layout.

I don’t think there site layout is special or hard to make. Also, it is not a new idea to have a simple layout.

I think Google, is major brand name. Once you get people to use it for some time they are not going to change back. That is unless there is not a major change.

I think Google gets way to much credit, they are not that great. But, They are still better then everyone else on the market.
============================================
“How could the results page be improved?”
The reason why you don’t get good results on the 20-100+ page is because there is not very much it has to go by. There are literally Billions of pages you just narrowed it down to about a 1,000 with probably 2-3 keywords.

If you want better results, know what you are looking for. Use direct key words, quotes, or advanced search!

What you are looking for:
“Mario Super Adventure”
Bad search word: Game
Don’t expect the word game to find
“Mario Super Adventure” on the first try.

A search engine just narrows down the results, to what it probably is.

In a search page 1 & 2 are the main pages users ever see on average. Best page gets top links! Every search site dose this, Google just dose it slightly better.
===============================================
Lets see Google tools real hard to find, first page click the link more!!!
Here is a link:
http://www.google.com/options/
How can you all be so dumb it is on the home page!

40. Brad Adams on December 31st, 2006 (Comment) #

The design doesn’t matter that much when the functionality is great. Google is the best at what it does, the design is not important.

41. Web Hosting India on January 6th, 2007 (Comment) #

google is guru.i love google and i like it very much

42. Dreams Designing on January 19th, 2007 (Comment) #

I agree fully with the author of this article. Designers like Donald Norman and Derek Powazek seem to forget that the first thing you should think of when creating a design is whether it would serve its purpose well (sell a product, provide a service, make information easily accessible) and NOT whether it would show off the designers’ capabilities well!
Google is one of the highest estimated companies in the world. Does anybody doubt that they can afford to hire ANY designer they want to in order to make their home page as interactive as a gaming site for example? They have chosen this minimalistic design on purpose; it serves Google’s purpose - currently the best Search Engine on the web.
I definitely agree with: “The success of Google doesn’t come from their sparse homepage, their goofy logo, or by “deception”. It comes from the ability to consistently give relevant results to our queries…end of story.” but would only add that their minimalistic design only helps them provide their quality service.
That’s what I like in Google the most - they have always been user oriented and I hope they WILL stay that way in future.

43. Ensure on January 19th, 2007 (Comment) #

It,s really nice website when you open this site you will get to see mysterious of this website.

44. Bahis on January 22nd, 2007 (Comment) #

The weird thing is that people actually DO look at googlepage 14, check your logs and you`ll see…

45. Andre on January 30th, 2007 (Comment) #

Everyone likes google so what I prefer yahoo since a long time.

46. Markus on March 24th, 2007 (Comment) #

In my opinion Google does a poor design but hey who cares they are the number one

47. Tina on April 11th, 2007 (Comment) #

Not only Google does a poor design but also the functionality is for me behind Yahoo

48. Lummerland on April 23rd, 2007 (Comment) #

It´s a very interesting Blog and simple answer of many questions.

49. Sportwetten on May 20th, 2007 (Comment) #

This is very true, google is doing this to squeeze publishers and forcing them to use their sponsored search so they can get more profits.

Pingback: Peter Van Dijck’s Guide to Ease » Blog Archive

50. Matt on June 1st, 2007 (Comment) #

Yes anyone can make a simple interface just like anyone can make a million dollars. How many people do it?

51. Andre on June 14th, 2007 (Comment) #

Yes it does of course a poor design, got poor links but everyone is using it, so what?

52. Anton on July 13th, 2007 (Comment) #

Indeed a very bad design, but good functionality.

53. Baku on July 18th, 2007 (Comment) #

The usability is everything when we speak about such web-services as search, mail, etc. Users don’t need beautiful design. They need comfort, speed and clarity. And Google has it.

54. Wetten on August 12th, 2007 (Comment) #

I rarely look past the 1st page. If what I’m looking for is not there then I refine my search.

I base my 2nd search on what the system produced against the keywords in my 1st search.

55. Credit Cards on October 2nd, 2007 (Comment) #

I disagree strongly with Don Norman. He seriously underestimates Google. Yes, Google is simple, but that is exactly what makes Google so popular. In addition, Google may have a simple looking interface, but their technology is quite sophisticated.

56. e-okul on January 6th, 2008 (Comment) #

e-okul
Hi,
google is guru.i love google and i like it very much

57. EM Wetten on January 13th, 2008 (Comment) #

Unrecognised 404 entries in to firefox’s url box return I’m Feeling Lucky result. Not sure if people know this already, apologies if this is common knowledge.

58. iyinet webmaster forumu 2008 seo yarışması on February 6th, 2008 (Comment) #

Thanks

59. iyinet webmaster forumu 2008 seo yarışması on February 8th, 2008 (Comment) #

Indeed a very bad design.

60. Dijital Fotoğraf Makinesi on April 7th, 2008 (Comment) #

how a beautiful site, cool thank youu

Pingback: Why is the Google new favicon so ugly? | Wisdump

Pingback: New Google Favicon (sucks or not?) « worth.Posting

Does Google Succeed Despite Bad Design?

Don Norman: “Anybody can make a simple-looking interface”

Derek Powazek: the “anti-design search engine”

Don’t focus on the homepage, focus on the results page

Comments ( 70 Responses so far )

Add Your Comment

Preview...