2 ms·
Are you testing the value or user demand for that feature? I agree with the GP. Screenshots reduce information density, increase bandwidth (load time), and for
by hellcow 10y ago
Are you testing the value or user demand for that feature? I agree with the GP. Screenshots reduce information density, increase bandwidth (load time), and for me take even longer to visually parse than a text result. That is, they interfere with what I consider to be the most important things I need from a search engine. Having screenshots populate over time as they load moves my eyes around the page and acts as a distraction--at least for me.
Google tested a similar "view a screenshot of the search result" feature a while back. You'd hover over a result and it'd show the screenshot in a column to the right. For whatever it's worth, they axed it, although I don't know the reasons why.
- fivesigma 10y agoI think it works better than text in some types of searches (shopping for example). Distraction isn't really a problem once you've used it for a while. Again, different strokes.
- woah 10y agoHovering over the link to get a screenshot is a completely different dynamic and doesn't seem to save much time over just clicking on the link and seeing for yourself. This gives you a high level overview. I just tried it with a search for some information about linux network drivers and I was able to read the text on the screenshots without opening any of them. Also Google is notorious for putting out half-baked prototypes and quickly abandoning them, so it might very well be that the concept does better with a more dedicated team. I'm going to give this a shot for a few days and see how it is.
- wolfgang42 10y agoI think the 'random things popping all over' problem could be solved if the display of each screenshot was deferred until the previous one had appeared. That way you'd get a continuous flow of things popping up in order of importance, instead of stuff all over.