4 ms·

Xoogler here, but I guarantee: 1) This conversation (and complaints) already happened, repeatedly and in-depth, months ago on various internal lists 2) The re

Xoogler here, but I guarantee: 1) This conversation (and complaints) already happened, repeatedly and in-depth, months ago on various internal lists 2) The response - the Decision is made, you're change averse/not a representative user 3) Whichever PMs/leads/designers involved had an OKR to do Something, so Something had to be done

igetspam 8y ago
I do not miss those days. "You're change averse" was the most common accusation made against anyone who disagreed with changes. Change for the sake of change is rarely a good starting point but that never mattered. The web teams would come up with new and shiny way to do things and everyone would have to jump through hoops to get their properties updated. I'll never forget when PDB was replaced with P. I couldn't make heads or tails out of it and neither could most engineers I knew but hey, at least it was different.
babuskov 8y ago
I fully understand this regarding the UI. But the new interface is much slower. I remember stories from years back when Google was beating everyone else in the search and webmail space that speed was one of the crucial components of their success. Have they lowered their standards or they just feel like they're too big to care?
colanderman 8y ago
> you're change averse It's funny that that's used like it's a negative thing. No-one wants their tools to change out from under them. Shuffling stuff around for no reason subverts learned skill in using a tool, decreasing its usefulness. And the only purpose of a tool is to be useful. The fact that Google makeovers are that – makeovers – rather than incremental enhancements, tells me that they don't really have a purpose beyond looking good, or allowing some internal rearchitecting that is incompatible with the old design. If the changes are really productivity enhancements, why save them up to roll out as a distracting redesign?

igetspam 8y ago

I do not miss those days. "You're change averse" was the most common accusation made against anyone who disagreed with changes. Change for the sake of change is rarely a good starting point but that never mattered. The web teams would come up with new and shiny way to do things and everyone would have to jump through hoops to get their properties updated. I'll never forget when PDB was replaced with P. I couldn't make heads or tails out of it and neither could most engineers I knew but hey, at least it was different.

babuskov 8y ago

I fully understand this regarding the UI. But the new interface is much slower. I remember stories from years back when Google was beating everyone else in the search and webmail space that speed was one of the crucial components of their success. Have they lowered their standards or they just feel like they're too big to care?

colanderman 8y ago

> you're change averse It's funny that that's used like it's a negative thing. No-one wants their tools to change out from under them. Shuffling stuff around for no reason subverts learned skill in using a tool, decreasing its usefulness. And the only purpose of a tool is to be useful. The fact that Google makeovers are that – makeovers – rather than incremental enhancements, tells me that they don't really have a purpose beyond looking good, or allowing some internal rearchitecting that is incompatible with the old design. If the changes are really productivity enhancements, why save them up to roll out as a distracting redesign?