News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by hellbanner on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:03PM (#10154880)
Google's userinterface, in gmail.com, at least, has gotten progressively worse, and worse, and worse, and worse since its inception in my experience and everyone I've asked about this.

... don't know what else to say. I question if their designers use their own products.

Latest bugs worth mentioning: Chrome still has an issue that can cause microphone to not work in Hangouts. Gmail.com has added a "Your plug-in google talk will no longer be supported soon" ...

Re:Google’s look, evolved by DanBC on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:04PM (#10154886)
Google maps is incredibly frustrating to use. I can't understand what user testing they do.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by arikrak on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:47PM (#10155202)
In their bid to keep things clean and automatic, they really made everything more confusing. I know people who have gotten lost because they didn't realize Google maps was hiding directions. They always try to do things instantly instead of letting the user press enter. (This is especially annoying on Google Express.) There's something to be said for the old web when you clicked and then got results...
Re:Google’s look, evolved by scintill76 on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @08:31PM (#10156746)
I hate that feeling of having to type as fast as possible, so the instant fetching won't waste bandwidth or distract me before I've finished giving it all the information it will need. Multi-step processes like getting directions can be annoying this way, as it reloads every time you change a parameter (like entering an address, swapping source and dest. addresses, or changing transportation mode), so if you have to do all three to get what you actually want you're really going to be waiting. Am I just a weird user? I mean, I know my frustration isn't very rational, but is user frustration ever rational? It hurts the product either way.

Sometimes I just do a general Google search (from Chrome's omnibar with Instant searching disabled) for the directions I need. It usually auto-detects it's a maps query and has a card ready to go with options. Then I don't have to wait for suggestions to load or for the map to pan around.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by arikrak on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @07:45PM (#10162637)
I just tried a one-step query in Google Maps itself, and it worked, so that's helpful ("From Address 1 to Address 2").
Re:Google’s look, evolved by qq66 on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:09PM (#10154922)
What changes would you make to Google Maps, with a basic set of assumptions? (let's say, you can't dramatically increase the cost, you can't hurt Google revenue sources, and you have a team of ~20 engineers to work on the changes).
Re:Google’s look, evolved by TheOtherHobbes on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:19PM (#10154990)
I'd change it back to the way it was prior to the redesigns.

It used to work fine. The big problem with the current version is the almost complete absence of legible affordances.

There are all kinds of buttons with logos on them that do stuff. But until you learn what they do, their functions are mysterious.

Basic things like Traffic used to be obvious, one-click features. Now they're hidden in the burger menu, so at best they're two clicks away, and at worst a non-trivial percentage of users has no idea they exist. (Etc.)

Re:Google’s look, evolved by tammer on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:32PM (#10155074)
I second all of the above. For me, though, the major regression is the priorities of the search field. Prior to the redesign Maps seemed to know the exact location I needed regardless of the amount of detail I included in the query (i.e. tossing in the name of an intersection without street/ave/blvd info). Now, I seem to need to almost always include exact details (zip, precise USPS-blessed street address) for it to find what I'm looking for.

Not all the time, but enough of a difference that it feels seriously hindered post redesign.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by tedunangst on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @04:08PM (#10155324)
Sticking the UI over top of the map really is silly. The 10 pixels of map I can still see between the search box and the border of the screen are completely useless, but make the page considerably noisier (more edges/transitions).
Re:Google’s look, evolved by tajen on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @05:07PM (#10155745)
I too enjoyed the side bar. It's mysterious but it made me feel like there was more real estate. The map wasn't covered with boxes, whereas in the new design the 40% left handside of the map is unusable. Also, when searching a place, it resets the zoom, it zooms until I see the inside of that place (such as, the city center), whereas I generally want to see where the city is located with a bit more context. Same for a path: it puts the origin and destination on the viewport edges, whereas I generally want to locate the route, therefore see slightly more context. Slightly enough that it's painful.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by fierycatnet on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @05:47PM (#10156001)
I agree. When they've updated their maps it was frustrating, it still is. Old version was much much better.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by DanBC on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @04:24PM (#10155408)
(The app, on iOS)

I have no idea how to switch between satellite and map view. I have no idea where to look for that option - or if that option exists. There's a burger menu, so I tap that. There's a list of options. Satellite is in that list, and is highlighted. The option I want, and I don't know what it's called, doesn't appear to be in that list of menu items. I tap the map to collapse the burger menu. I hold the screen then release. A pin is dropped. I don't think I want a pin, but I have no idea how I dismiss the pin. When the pin is placed a small thing pops up at the bottom of the window. None of that looks relevant. I, completely accidentally, pull it, and a bit more appears. None of that is relevant either (but now I've accidentally discovered how to get street view). I pull it again because something happened the first time and yet more stuff appears, but nothing relevant. I realise that it can't be this hard, so I go back to the burger menu and unintuitively click "satellite". I don't want satellite, and this menu item is already highlighted, and it never occurs to me that someone would put a toggleable item in a list of menu entries without any indication that it's a toggle. But bamn there it is.

So, how would I change Maps? Just put a few more affordances in there. Maybe watch how people unfamiliar with the app try to do stuff.

There are lots of things I like about maps. There's some churn in businesses on my street and maps always seems happy to change info.

In the past there was a ton of research into user interaction with UI. Obviously loads of that fails on mobile, but Google is a smart data driven company that could create a new body of work for mobile.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by yakshemash on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @05:35PM (#10155923)
I know you're making a bigger point, but just in case you are still wondering: have you tried to touch the highlighted satellite option again to unhighlight it? Some of the items in that menu enable and disable layers. Satellite is one such layer. Keep in mind that some of the layers are mutually exclusive, so you can't have public transport layer and traffic layer, which probably makes sense as it avoids cluttering by layers which are rarely needed simultaneously. This was confusing to me until I got a hang of it. This has been the case on Android for a while, but I have never tried the iOS app, so its behavior may be different. Besides that, I get your pain about pins being dropped whenever the map is touched (or clicked on desktop) to get rid of drop-downs and menus.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by digikata on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:57PM (#10155261)
I hate the dynamic dialog underneath the map search box that automatically shrinks and expands in and out with various location information on it. It seems to always close when I want to look at it, and expand to cover the area of interest when I don't care about the info. A user has to spend some time trying to figure out the rules when the dialog expands or contracts or fight the logic... I would much rather prefer maps take a dedicated portion of screen for that info, and let me show or hide it explicitly.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by bhandziuk on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @04:29PM (#10155439)
This is a huge pet peeve. Things growing and shrinking as you click on them. The link is in one place when my brain tells my finger to click but by the time the mouse button is depressed the link has moved somewhere else.

I guess it's just the sacrifice we make for a cool looking web page.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by lighthawk on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @08:06PM (#10156641)
Suggested changes:

1. Ensure you can enter two addresses into the search delimited by " to " and it be able to correctly split into directions, as you would expect. I tend to expect this to work and it took maps messing this up several times on different occasions to burn it into my head to put the destination address in the search, then click on directions, then enter my starting address.

2. If I type in "from (address)" and search it should show my address in the top of the directions from/to and focus on the "to" field. This is really broken currently, because it always seems to think I want directions to somewhere instead of from. Similarly, if I type in "to (address)" it should open directions and place the address in the correct field.

3. Sometimes the "near me" feature doesn't work. Try it with all sorts of things like "bathroom near me" and see how well it works.

Speaking of mass transportation, it'd be great if Alphabet could spend some money and effort on that. It makes much more sense from a business point-of-view than Google cars do- how much more R&D money is going to be sunk on that before all is said and done? Will it be worth it? Electric cars have to get their energy from somewhere, and everyone having their own car takes a toll on the environment. I understand it's a big place, but if you have the money to roll out fiber and wifi everywhere, you can buy buses, which are much cheaper.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by archagon on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:53PM (#10155239)
Does GMaps use WebGL? I remember a brief moment in time during some WebGL beta when everything worked incredibly smoothly: scrolling, zooming, you name it. Personally, my main frustration with GMaps is the lagginess, as well as the fact that it looks interactive while it's loading the initial tiles, but is in fact just a series of still images.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by lancewiggs on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @04:54PM (#10155651)
Stop pretending you don't know where I am when I'm not logged in. I'm not going to log-in as I don't trust you, but I know you know who I am anyway.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by plonh on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @12:38AM (#10157452)
If you know they know who you are why don't you log in, and if you don't trust them then why do you use the site at all
Re:Google’s look, evolved by hellbanner on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @11:14AM (#10159760)
Yeah, this is an insult to our intelligence.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by cknoxrun on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @10:12PM (#10157063)
Yes! This is exactly how it used to work.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by Whitespace on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @12:56AM (#10157502)
- Stop forcing users to sign into google maps mobile just to save their home/work directions. They took that option away and it's infuriating to old farts like me that I will _deliberately have a worse experience_ just so I don't have to sign in

- Stop hijacking basic user interactions like the mouse click. On desktop, if you click the map it will reverse geocode where you clicked (and show you the nearest road to it.) Although I understand the utility of such a feature, I have never ever wanted that. I live in NYC and no one has a car. I just want to change focus off of the constantly expanding and moving navigation window thing. I search for something, then click the background, and now my search is gone. Then I click the location area to get my search back, and nothing happens. I click the background to get rid of the stupid useless direction window, and now everything is gone. Oh, except the thing I clicked is now reverse geocoded for me. Infuriating.

- I challenge people to do the following on desktop: share a location in the middle of a park (hint: drop a pin first)

Re:Google’s look, evolved by kuschku on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @10:21PM (#10157082)
Here some of my current complaints:

I (and all my friends) switched to here.com maps after Google has horribly old (2005) data, has a horrible UI, and is generally unusable. In many cities in my region whole districts are completely missing from the maps[1], MapMaker is not available, and in general it’s just a huge mess.

Even worse: It loads so slowly (compared to here.com or bing.com or openstreetmap.org) that sometimes it takes several minutes to load an area while competitors load instantly.

And then there are cities where Google tried to add the new 3D buildings, but the result is so horrible that the satellite view is not usable anymore, for example Vienna [2]

[1]: Compare https://goo.gl/maps/e4awg https://www.here.com/?map=54.35326,10.0714,17,satellite [2]: https://goo.gl/maps/LUHiN

------

And here some suggestions:

- Allow the user to turn of 3D buildings. They are annoying, kill loading times, and are buggy and just a mess of polygons that looks more like abstract art than buildings.

- Use recent satellite imagery. When Bing and Here maps have images that are 10 (!) years newer than what Google uses, it’s just inacceptable

- Stop having a UI where everything changes while people click on it – Google’s own guidelines say that you should keep stuff predictable. Especially due to the slow loading times people often try to click somewhere, while they try to click some box moves, and they click something completely different. This is extremely frustrating, I’d even begin to call it clickjacking.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by jvolkman on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @12:08AM (#10157378)
There's an option to disable 3D in the menu to the left of the search bar.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by kuschku on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @12:25AM (#10157420)
See? That’s one of the largest issues. Totally useless UI, no one finds any option. Thanks, btw, but that still doesn’t fix the satellite imagery from 2005 or the obscenely slow loading times (and extreme performance issues, Google maps is just soooo slow).

I, and everyone I know now switched to here, and we’ll probably stick with that for the next years.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by mzjs2 on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @07:03PM (#10156395)
Vector tiles that work with trackpads correctly. (try to use two fingers on a trackpad to zoom in, and compare that to https://www.mapbox.com/mapbox-gl-js/examples/).

Also, the new faux-3d effect in the satellite imagery is really irritating.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by lysium on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @12:34AM (#10157439)
It's mostly functionality that was available in earlier versions, but I cannot find it anymore (or is it gone?):

- goo.gl-Link to this map

- Terrain-mode

- collapse white search box w/o loosing all entered data

- enter 'from:xxx to:yyy' for navigation

- extra stops (routing)

The best thing about maps that I really love (and why I am willing to fight with the UI) is the address recognition: I can put almost anything into the search box and it will find the address I had in mind. No street/city separation, no extra box for businesses, no strict order of name, address, zip code, city. And if it's unclear to maps, the suggestions almost always include what I had in mind.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by danielbln on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @05:32AM (#10158203)
- goo.gl-Link to this map: burger menu, share, short link

- extra stops: once you've set up a basic route, a little plus appears under neath the red target marker in the dialog box, however, this does not seem to work with public transport routing

No idea about the other ones. Personally, I'm slightly miffed about the fact at some point the keywords "home" and "work" stopped working, or that Gmaps sometimes accepts English words in the search query (as in 'X to Y'), but sometimes only German words ('X nach Y'), despite my OS and browser language set to English.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by bhandziuk on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @10:39AM (#10159480)
"Home" seems to be ok but "home" just gives me Home Depot results. Though if it's a Thursday or for some reason cloudier than normal "Home" will also give me Home Depot results.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by hellbanner on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @11:12AM (#10159746)
* Disable that "feature" which rotates the map to show directions based on which way I'm facing. Why? Because a) I know my directions and b) GPS is frequently OFF and it rotates all screwy.

* Remember which city I'm in and index search results FIRST against my historical results and SECOND against local results and LASTLY against the world database at large. It's very frustrating re-opening google maps app, tying in something I queried for 10 minutes before and it starts auto-completing to somewhere across an ocean or two.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by bhandziuk on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @04:27PM (#10155426)
No more attempting to make things 3D when you zoom in. Way way too slow.

Scroll wheel should zoom in instantly (go to maps.bing.com for how to do this a little better, though to be fair to everyone Bing did take a step towards Google in the last ~month with their maps update and it is much slower. It used to be open as soon as you hit enter in the address bar)

Generally the maps could label streets more frequently. Far too often I'm confused about what street I'm looking at because the label is somewhere off screen.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by 72deluxe on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @10:06AM (#10159194)
a. Bring back the sidebar.

b. On Android, add a menu option to download maps - "OK MAPS" is not obvious, easy to remember or in any way sensible in the slightest.

c. Make 3D mode work smoothly on an Android tablet. I have the LTE version of the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 edition and it is jerky, stuttery and slow in 3D mode. Compared to Apple maps on the base model iPad3 next to it, it is poor indeed.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by Nicholas_C on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:35PM (#10155104)
I've never, ever used Google maps on a computer and had it work well. It's always at least a little laggy/slow even on a 60Mbps connection on a nice laptop.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by brainburn on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:12PM (#10154946)
I think above all they test on fast internet connections.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by TylerE on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:25PM (#10155028)
Honestly, I have an ~110Mb cable connection (From a fast CDN I can acheive downloads in excess of 13MB/sec) and new Google Maps is still a dumpster fire that is inferior to old Google Maps in every way I can imagine.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by jonknee on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:36PM (#10155111)
Ditto and I have a gigabit connection. Slooooow. I just profiled the maps start page and it transferred 2.5MB in 182 requests and took 2.56s to load. This compared to 544ms for the Google homepage. It's like their optimization team never got invited to Google Maps.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by kzhahou on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:29PM (#10155058)
It's a CPU+GPU hog.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by brianfryer on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:07PM (#10154910)
The loading times on Google maps are a lot higher than they used to be, for sure.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by hrnnnnnn on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @03:27AM (#10157861)
I recently tried OSM and was sharply reminded of how fast Google Maps used to be. OSM has almost no perceivable lag.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by 7952 on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:24PM (#10155026)
It always feels like they concentrate on the mobile navigation product and ignore the desktop which has a much wider range of uses.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by sixothree on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @06:33PM (#10156261)
Google Maps on the iPhone really is awful. Sometimes you swipe to close something, sometimes you click a teeny tiny little x, sometimes you click a left arrow as in going back.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by jbrooksuk on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @04:52AM (#10158095)
I get so confused with Google Maps every time I use it to find trip lengths. I can never work out how to add a destination.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by krick on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @09:45PM (#10156993)
To be fair, are there good web maps? OSM is much worse, for instance. Google maps are pretty usable by comparison.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by kuschku on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @10:16PM (#10157070)
I (and all my friends) switched to here.com maps after Google has horribly old (2005) data, has a horrible UI, and is generally unusable. In many cities in my region whole districts are completely missing from the maps[1], MapMaker is not available, and in general it’s just a huge mess.

Even worse: It loads so slowly (compared to here.com or bing.com or openstreetmap.org) that sometimes it takes several minutes to load an area while competitors load instantly.

And then there are cities where Google tried to add the new 3D buildings, but the result is so horrible that the satellite view is not usable anymore, for example Vienna [2]

[1]: Compare https://goo.gl/maps/e4awg https://www.here.com/?map=54.35326,10.0714,17,satellite [2]: https://goo.gl/maps/LUHiN

Re:Google’s look, evolved by plonh on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @12:41AM (#10157464)
Apropros of the other Google thread today, the here.com link completely fails: it shows an full screen ad for the mobile app, with no way to get to the map.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by kuschku on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @10:09AM (#10159217)
For me it works just fine.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by hellbanner on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @11:15AM (#10159769)
Thanks for the alternative!!
Re:Google’s look, evolved by chrismarlow9 on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @04:38PM (#10155508)
Use it through voice. Eg, "Navigate to XXX". Easiest way I've found to use it.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by shdon on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @06:02AM (#10158274)
That works reasonably well if you're in an English speaking country. In other countries, not so much. Especially when trying to specify an address.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by austinjp on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:05PM (#10154891)
Amen.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by hellbanner on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @11:15AM (#10159771)
Does anyone reading this work at Google?
Re:Google’s look, evolved by thecatspaw on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:08PM (#10154920)
I never had any issue with Google maps apart from slow loading maps (which is probably my connections fault). What issues are you experiencing?
Re:Google’s look, evolved by lackbeard on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @05:26PM (#10155866)
I agree and I wish I had insight into what exactly is going on inside Google. A couple of hypotheses:

1. Someone (or a group of people) within mistakenly believes this design aesthetic[1] is good and have gained a lot of political power. I guess they like things that look pretty in screenshots instead of things that are actually useful or intuitive?

2. They're heavily optimizing for some metric (engagement, user growth, whatever) that is orthogonal to (or has a small component along) the usability vector.

[1] Simplistic defaults, not easily configurable, flat, tons of whitespace, etc...

Re:Google’s look, evolved by vectorjohn on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:54PM (#10155245)
Well, you didn't ask me, but I think it's gotten progressively better, and better, and better. Different, sure, and if your definition of worse is "different than before", well, you aren't going to like it.

So, just to give a counter point.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by alooPotato on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:13PM (#10154959)
I'm curious, do you have any specifical examples of things that got worse? I.e. density, new compose moles? Why are they worse for you specifically.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by bradleyjg on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:23PM (#10155019)
The nine dot menu instead of a small header row was a terrible change. First because it is an extra click every time for a commonly used task and second because no one had any clue what the hell nine dots were supposed to mean. A friend of mine that worked at google told me the official name is "app drawer". I have no idea how that's supposed to look like a drawer.

More generally the entire move from words to pictograms looks to me like a regression to a technology that was superseded by a superior one 5000 years ago.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by alooPotato on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:27PM (#10155050)
Really? That seems smart to me. How often do you use the links in that drawer? Seems better to remove all that text up top and replace with a small icon for something that is rarely used.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by kuschku on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @10:24PM (#10157097)
Before, I actually used the top menu to navigate from one Google service to another.

Now, I just rely on Firefox’ autocompletion of the URL bar, or I just use Thunderbird instead of GMail, or here.com maps instead of Google maps.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by com2kid on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @08:29PM (#10162755)
Every time I want to look at my calendar I need to re-remember where the hell they hid it at.

I expect it to be in the drop down on the left, since Gmail and Google Calendar are otherwise so well integrate, but nope, it is hidden in the little square.

The first couple times I had to actually Google how to access my calendar from within Gmail (I can always go to calendar.google.com of course)

Re:Google’s look, evolved by mattmanser on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @04:45PM (#10155557)
Ugh, you definitely do not use more multiple google services if you think that.

Even today, years afterwards, I was on the phone checking my calendar and I totally lost the train of the conversation as I was hunting in that dumbass thing for the calendar.

The worst part is that, yes, the top was getting stuffed, but instead of letting you choose what you wanted in your menu, they added that navigation monstrosity instead.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by vectorjohn on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @07:05PM (#10156412)
I just find it bizarre the number of people that do this. For me, I open a new tab, and start typing "calendar.google.com", but I don't even get past c or ca on most computers before it autocompletes.

And can't you customize that menu? Just make it work for you.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by foxylad on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @09:48PM (#10157003)
For service I use frequently, I pin a tab so they are always open. So for me, the app drawer is rarely used.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by alooPotato on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @06:02PM (#10156098)
I just leave calendar and gmail open all the time.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by YoureWrong on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:33PM (#10155083)
Well, I for one used those links to navigate between Google properties: from Gmail to YouTube, for instance.

Now I just don't go to YouTube when something on Gmail piques my interest.

That one click was a huge amount of effort for casual browsing, and forces a re-evaluation of idle browsing between properties.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by stevepike on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @05:10PM (#10155771)
Wow, this menu is so useful! I got annoyed when they removed the links to the different apps and just assumed this 9 dot thing was a part of their new account switcher design and never tried clicking on it.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by beeboop on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @09:31PM (#10156946)
It requires three clicks to edit the subject line and I still sometimes click in the wrong place trying to find it and I've edited subjects dozens of times. It also requires it to open in a different editor. The default reply window is a tiny piece of shit by default. They added the stupid tabbed system that I turn off every time I have to make a new gmail account. It's not always clear whether I want Google or Gmail settings to change some preference, and the buttons for them are right next to eachother. Hangout chats blink until you click within that specific hangout box. I can't even find the option to link GMail accounts but I know I've done it before. If you hit reply and make no changes then close it, it saves it as a draft. Spam and Trash folders and all labels are hidden by default (have to expand). I could go on.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by CydeWeys on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @03:19PM (#10154991)
Everyone at Google uses gmail.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by inthewoods on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @06:07PM (#10156132)
When you say gmail.com has gotten worse, do you mean the overall quality of the application or the user interface design? You say the first but the examples you mention sound like bugs.
Re:Google’s look, evolved by 72deluxe on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @10:13AM (#10159262)
The priority inbox thankfully can be turned off. It was trying to solve a problem that didn't exist - the ability to sort messages. The tagging of incoming mail with tags sorted that problem, and search made finding mail a moot point too.

I disabled priority inbox on browser and mobile devices and it's very usable again, so thanks to whoever kept that as an option.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by kodr on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @06:13PM (#10156160)
try the new inbox, I find it pretty slow, with all the sliding tabs, and with less features (no raw text, hard to edit inline, etc...)
Re:Google’s look, evolved by SmellyGeekBoy on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @07:40AM (#10158539)
Also they recently removed the ability to save images directly from Google Image Search in Chrome on Android. In what world does removing functionality make life better for anyone?
Re:Google’s look, evolved by 72deluxe on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @10:10AM (#10159227)
This appears to be an irritating trend. Look at the gedit redesign on GNOME3 and see how the removal of all buttons and features is heralded as a GOOD thing?!?!?!

I understand the "let's not confuse the user" approach but simplifying everything down to have zero features reduces the computer to a useless tool, as all the features have gone. It's like a Swiss army knife where they decided that all the blades and options were too fiddly and confusing so they just give you a spork instead.

Re:Google’s look, evolved by raisedbyninjas on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @06:48PM (#10156327)
Have they added a way to select which microphone to use yet? I mean a way to do it outside of an active call.