5 ms·
I just visited duckduckgo.com again (though full of hesitation) and as a designer I can tell you: 1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simp
by neya 14y ago
I just visited duckduckgo.com again (though full of hesitation) and as a designer I can tell you:
1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses (For Eg. Google, Bing have a very simple design). They don't design Search engines to be simple because they like it that way, because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work best. For example, DDG uses a red menu-bar on the top which tells me they haven't done as much research. I keep repeating this, but hopefully enough people will realize this:
DO NOT over-use red. Red is used to denote only important elements on a website (like a sign-up button), a call-to-action element (For example, compose button on Gmail). Look at DDG, they have a whole top-bar in full red.
2) As a general user, there is no difference between DDG and Google in my eyes because both have a sponsored link at the top. Both try to benefit from my searches, so I see no perceivable difference between Google and DDG. Now, I already know Google has a superior Search algorithm, period (from what I perceive). So, there is not a single reason for me as an end-user to use DDG over Google.
And one more - Look at the irony, even you reference them by DDG and not DuckDuckGo, whereas you reference Google by just Google and not by any other short form. This is exactly what I meant. Brand Naming is something that we don't even pay attention to, but plays a much much important role.
- othermaciej 14y agoWhat's complex about the design? The main page seems brutally simple compared to Google or Bing. And the search results pages do not seem to have more interactable elements than Google/Bing. What is your metric of simplicity here? Your one example is use of the color red, which may be an issue of taste or branding but not really simplicity. (And there are reasonably popular sites with very prominent red elements, like cnn.com)
- cadab 14y agoI dont see your first point. The home page is as simple as the rest, just a logo and search box. http://cl.ly/image/2E1A3Z2i0h1e http://cl.ly/image/2E1A3Z2i0h1e
- irahul 14y ago> 1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses Enough people have already said it. I feel like a broken record but what's very complex about a text box and a logo? > because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work best. Interesting. Do you have any citations to back it up? I haven't heard of Google researching what colors work best for a search interface. Or bing for that matter. > DO NOT over-use red. The thing about design advice is everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs. Even if I started listening, I would never have a definitive, agreed-on opinion. > Red is used to denote only important elements on a website (like a sign-up button), a call-to-action element (For example, compose button on Gmail) Where is this definitive design rule book of yours? As long as you have sufficient contrast, that is enough to attract attention to important elements. Are you saying if I have a red background and a white compose button with black text, user will somehow see the background as call-to-action and not the button? Now don't go on how red background will not look very good. That's not the point. The point is color alone doesn't decide which section of the page is important. > Look at DDG, they have a whole top-bar in full red. Since they merge in serach box with the bar, that section is important. > Now, I already know Google has a superior Search algorithm, period (from what I perceive). This has been done n times. There is no clear pattern when it comes to choosing google vs bing results in a blind search result. As far as the end user is concerned, it's not possible to tell which one is algorithmically superior. > Look at the irony, even you reference them by DDG and not DuckDuckGo, What's the irony here? > whereas you reference Google by just Google and not by any other short form. This is exactly what I meant. Brand Naming is something that we don't even pay attention to, but plays a much much important role. Oh my. How much it has hurt Microsoft. They should have just called themselves MS and be done with it. I can't fathom how much of a hit y-combinator and hacker news are taking because their names can be abbreviated. /s
- Cookingboy 14y agoBut Microsoft by itself is not a "consumer" brand. Bing is, XBox is, Windows is, Live is, Office is, Microsoft is only the name of the corporation behind those products and people don't use it in daily conversations. "Hey Dad, I want a Microsoft XBox so I can play games with my friends on Microsoft Online Services" -- said no kids ever Y-Combinator/HackerNews is even less a consumer brand. Of course, that's only a problem if you are trying to appeal to the mass market, YC/HackerNews isn't, but DuckDuckGo is.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y agoI'm confused about your "design is very complex" bit. I just used their search engine and their design couldn't be more straight forward. In fact I prefer it to Bing's look in particular. Less clutter.
- neya 14y agoI'm sorry, I should have been more clear, I was referring to the search results page, (that's why I mentioned the red bar) Thanks.
- polymatter 14y agoin case you didn't know, you can get to DDG at (http://ddg.gg http://ddg.gg). Thats how I get it DDG when I'm away from my desk.