The home-page UI team need to be seen to be doing something to justify their budget, but the google box is sacred. Hey, let’s do something ajaxy! Where? Ah, anywhere, everywhere, who cares. Now, lets think of a reason why we did it…
I think it will blow over.
Not to say it won’t be a great opportunity to see how the effects impact usability, maybe even open up a new UI design trend. I’m just suspicious of the stated flow here – did user research really drive this decision, or is it a convenient way to flog the changes?
]]>Google might gain some increased brand awareness, but having to wait for a pointless animation feels strange for the normally efficiency-obsessed Google. I’m not against animations per se, but had it been faster I think it wouldn’t have minded so much, but now it’s a couple of hundred ms too long.
That said, Google might be experimenting with using their start page for more advertising and branding – there’s a Chrome ad there now (I’m using Safari), and they’ve been showing Android and/or Droid ads as well.
]]>For me, it’s telling that Marissa Meyer writes that they “want users to notice this change”; they’re drawing attention to Google rather than making search more effective, which feels more like a marketing approach.
But I think the main point is that “efficiency” isn’t the same for Google as for a user – for Google it’s probably the amount of searches done over time, which isn’t usually an ordinary user’s goal.
]]>As a techie, I don’t think I’m unusual in this behaviour, so I’m a little suspicious of the note in Marissa Mayer’s post that they’ve been using the fade in within Google and their people have really come to like it. Really? How many Google staff look at their home page unless they’re involved in it?
Hmm, perhaps it’s one of those companies that sets everyone’s browser home page to be the company site and won’t let them change it ;-)
]]>