4 ms·

You're forgetting important Google products where design or user experience played a crucial role in winning. Gmail - the dominant webmail platform that made p

You're forgetting important Google products where design or user experience played a crucial role in winning. Gmail - the dominant webmail platform that made pioneering use of AJAX; before it you had to refresh the page to check if you had new email. And whose inbuilt chat client crushed Yahoo Messenger/MSN/AOL. People came for the 1GB of free storage, stayed for the friends they made on chat. YouTube - Video juggernaut that has a pretty good community and mobile app. Sure it was an acquisition but it's been a Google property far longer than it was independent. If they weren't good at design or community-building they might have easily screwed it up; it's happened with Yahoo's Flicker acquisition. Google Productivity Suite - The UX on these is hit-or-miss actually; the Google Drive web UI is a massive fail for me. But you can't deny the success of these very consumer-focused applications. They've been executed very well and clearly enough people like them that the opinion of someone like me is irrelevant. Orkut - You might laugh but it absolutely ruled social in India and Brazil till Facebook caught on. Chromecast - it's done all right; 30 million sold so far Not to mention this one > Search driven by algorithms also misses the mark. Google Search's user experience was also revolutionary. Their homepage was (and still is) sparse and uncluttered; laser-focused on providing the user with the best search results and absolutely nothing else. They didn't try to become a "portal" like Yahoo even though everyone told them they were crazy to not capitalize on the popularity of their homepage.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
codeisawesome 9y ago
Don't completely disagree with you. But, Gmail: From my hazy memory of the time it was released: 1. Best usage of AJAX and providing complex interaction without refreshing the page. 2. More storage space than any other provider. Both, technical feats of excellence? Youtube: It was an acquired product, and there were quite a few points at which the YouTube community reacted angrily to Google driven changes, prominently when they made Google+ mandatory for comments. GPS, Orkut, Chromecast and Homepage decisions: I agree on your point here.
- runamok 9y ago
  Gmail in my opinion was powerful because it was used search vs. painstakingly moving messages into folders. It also had auto-threading so you would not have the clutter of re:re:re:re: ad nauseum... And most of all it was very fast.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > because it was used search vs. painstakingly moving messages In other words, we eliminate UX (folders, etc.) with superior technology (just search for whatever thing you need). Of course, people still use folders (renamed labels - that btw I think is a win, but most people afaik don't use that aspect too much). And BTW Inbox - their attempt to redesign the whole experience - is not that popular as I understand? > And most of all it was very fast. Technology! :)
  - jogjayr 9y ago
    Yes! Email conversation threads! I'd forgotten that one. Also a +1 for UX. You might quibble about this but recognizing that fast search is better than foldering is also UX. It seems obvious to us now but maybe it wasn't that obvious in 2006 (or maybe it was, I didn't know anything about UX or design back then). Yes making the search go fast is a technical feat and without good tech you can't have a good user experience even if the design is good (see WebOS).
smsm42 9y ago
Let's see: > Gmail This one gained popularity when promising a whopping for free 1Gb was crazy good offer. People seriously thought it's a gimmick that won't last. Now that you can pretty much buy 1TB drives with pocket change it sounds funny, but back then it was spectacular. UX had very little to do with it, and frankly I still kinda avoid using gmail website, much preferring to use mail client. > Youtube Excellent idea, and excellent decision whoever decided to buy it. Social aspect is not that clear - youtube comments are notorious for being utter garbage, and while everybody is using youtube, nobody does social networking on youtube. UX is ok, not spectacular. > Google Productivity Suite Google drive and google photos are UX epic fail, IMHO. I'm still pissed about them killing Picasa, it wasn't excellent but at least useful. > Orkut Yeah, this is an undeniable success in social networking, and everybody I heard from in Google are equally surprised and have no idea what happened there and why it took off. I suspect it's one of those "right place, right time" moments. > Chromecast That works reasonably well, but does it have any UX to speak of? Then again, maybe it's exactly Google's forte - the products that don't need any UX beyond plugging them in and turning them on. That, however, I think would also kind of play to my point of technology being stronger then UX. > They didn't try to become a "portal" like Yahoo Yes, they avoided a dumb mistake, which is a plus for them, but I'm not sure that this qualifies as being strong at UX. Unless you say that there is to be no UX anymore beyond the very basics - which, again, works for some tasks, but far from all.
- jogjayr 9y ago
  > That works reasonably well, but does it have any UX to speak of? Err...there's some reasonably complex setup there that they've smoothed out. The onboarding for a new Chromecast is flawless; you plug it in, type in your Wi-fi password and off it goes. Good design doesn't get in your way; it lets you do what you need to do, fast. The affordances for casting anything from your phone or tablet are obvious, and everything "just works". That's pretty darn good design, backed up by monstrously talented engineering to execute it well. > This one gained popularity when promising a whopping for free 1Gb was crazy good offer. I did point this out in my post. Other email providers quickly caught up though; Yahoo mail started offering 100MB that same year (2004) then soon increased it to 1GB[1]. So it wasn't the storage that made people stay. It was (as other people have pointed out) a more responsive interface, fast searching, conversation threads, and (IMO) integrated Google Chat. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Mail#2004_Updates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Mail#2004_Updates

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

codeisawesome 9y ago

Don't completely disagree with you. But, Gmail: From my hazy memory of the time it was released: 1. Best usage of AJAX and providing complex interaction without refreshing the page. 2. More storage space than any other provider. Both, technical feats of excellence? Youtube: It was an acquired product, and there were quite a few points at which the YouTube community reacted angrily to Google driven changes, prominently when they made Google+ mandatory for comments. GPS, Orkut, Chromecast and Homepage decisions: I agree on your point here.

runamok 9y ago
Gmail in my opinion was powerful because it was used search vs. painstakingly moving messages into folders. It also had auto-threading so you would not have the clutter of re:re:re:re: ad nauseum... And most of all it was very fast.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > because it was used search vs. painstakingly moving messages In other words, we eliminate UX (folders, etc.) with superior technology (just search for whatever thing you need). Of course, people still use folders (renamed labels - that btw I think is a win, but most people afaik don't use that aspect too much). And BTW Inbox - their attempt to redesign the whole experience - is not that popular as I understand? > And most of all it was very fast. Technology! :)
- jogjayr 9y ago
  Yes! Email conversation threads! I'd forgotten that one. Also a +1 for UX. You might quibble about this but recognizing that fast search is better than foldering is also UX. It seems obvious to us now but maybe it wasn't that obvious in 2006 (or maybe it was, I didn't know anything about UX or design back then). Yes making the search go fast is a technical feat and without good tech you can't have a good user experience even if the design is good (see WebOS).

smsm42 9y ago

Let's see: > Gmail This one gained popularity when promising a whopping for free 1Gb was crazy good offer. People seriously thought it's a gimmick that won't last. Now that you can pretty much buy 1TB drives with pocket change it sounds funny, but back then it was spectacular. UX had very little to do with it, and frankly I still kinda avoid using gmail website, much preferring to use mail client. > Youtube Excellent idea, and excellent decision whoever decided to buy it. Social aspect is not that clear - youtube comments are notorious for being utter garbage, and while everybody is using youtube, nobody does social networking on youtube. UX is ok, not spectacular. > Google Productivity Suite Google drive and google photos are UX epic fail, IMHO. I'm still pissed about them killing Picasa, it wasn't excellent but at least useful. > Orkut Yeah, this is an undeniable success in social networking, and everybody I heard from in Google are equally surprised and have no idea what happened there and why it took off. I suspect it's one of those "right place, right time" moments. > Chromecast That works reasonably well, but does it have any UX to speak of? Then again, maybe it's exactly Google's forte - the products that don't need any UX beyond plugging them in and turning them on. That, however, I think would also kind of play to my point of technology being stronger then UX. > They didn't try to become a "portal" like Yahoo Yes, they avoided a dumb mistake, which is a plus for them, but I'm not sure that this qualifies as being strong at UX. Unless you say that there is to be no UX anymore beyond the very basics - which, again, works for some tasks, but far from all.

jogjayr 9y ago
> That works reasonably well, but does it have any UX to speak of? Err...there's some reasonably complex setup there that they've smoothed out. The onboarding for a new Chromecast is flawless; you plug it in, type in your Wi-fi password and off it goes. Good design doesn't get in your way; it lets you do what you need to do, fast. The affordances for casting anything from your phone or tablet are obvious, and everything "just works". That's pretty darn good design, backed up by monstrously talented engineering to execute it well. > This one gained popularity when promising a whopping for free 1Gb was crazy good offer. I did point this out in my post. Other email providers quickly caught up though; Yahoo mail started offering 100MB that same year (2004) then soon increased it to 1GB[1]. So it wasn't the storage that made people stay. It was (as other people have pointed out) a more responsive interface, fast searching, conversation threads, and (IMO) integrated Google Chat. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Mail#2004_Updates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Mail#2004_Updates