5 ms·

So you have a preference for removing distracting cosmetic (non-functional) features. So do I. I probably will turn the background image off, but I could comfor

So you have a preference for removing distracting cosmetic (non-functional) features. So do I. I probably will turn the background image off, but I could comfortably live with it. Maybe I'm inferring too much, but your use of "crappy" and capitalising "NOT" suggests to me that this feature makes you angry. I think it's worth considering whether your reaction is a purely logical one, or partly an emotional one.

Gormo 16y ago
How could a reaction to an aesthetic change be anything but emotional?
- devinj 16y ago
  Pretty easily. If it's distracting or somehow bad for me, because of the aesthetics, I could dislike it for logical reasons. If I open up a law firm and then the decorator puts a gigantic mural of H.R. Giger's work on the walls, I'd probably be less than happy, and not because of emotional reasons (although it would be pretty creepy). It'd be bad for business. Similarly, if Google's new change increases load time or distracts me...
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    It changes my perception of the browser state, learned through years of familiarization. That I could get used to. But its a bad idea on so many other levels. Its an order of magnitude harder to compress, bogging down remote-terminal operation. It scrambles the desktop metaphor - I have multiple monitors, the browser is just one tool that is open, and now this circus-themed "background" stands out like a beacon but with no functional value whatsoever. It obscures controls (as widely discussed elsewhere) which is plain bad app design. It increases (marginally) load time. It "fades in" creating a distraction for the power user - my desktop doesn't dance around otherwise unless something significant is happening. Honestly, I have to wonder if you aren't emotionally defending Google, because these are mostly obvious reasons to detest this "feature".

Gormo 16y ago

How could a reaction to an aesthetic change be anything but emotional?

devinj 16y ago
Pretty easily. If it's distracting or somehow bad for me, because of the aesthetics, I could dislike it for logical reasons. If I open up a law firm and then the decorator puts a gigantic mural of H.R. Giger's work on the walls, I'd probably be less than happy, and not because of emotional reasons (although it would be pretty creepy). It'd be bad for business. Similarly, if Google's new change increases load time or distracts me...
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  It changes my perception of the browser state, learned through years of familiarization. That I could get used to. But its a bad idea on so many other levels. Its an order of magnitude harder to compress, bogging down remote-terminal operation. It scrambles the desktop metaphor - I have multiple monitors, the browser is just one tool that is open, and now this circus-themed "background" stands out like a beacon but with no functional value whatsoever. It obscures controls (as widely discussed elsewhere) which is plain bad app design. It increases (marginally) load time. It "fades in" creating a distraction for the power user - my desktop doesn't dance around otherwise unless something significant is happening. Honestly, I have to wonder if you aren't emotionally defending Google, because these are mostly obvious reasons to detest this "feature".