>What's very complex about a text box and a logo? What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details. I presume you are not a designer, nor do

>What's very complex about a text box and a logo? What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details. I presume you are not a designer, nor do you have a knack for details (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!) but for the sake of others, I've compiled a list of comparisons: 1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex. Gradients in general are used to add complexity. However, not in every case - For example, Apple's website uses a lot of Gradients too, but it is one of the most clearest and simplest sites you will ever find. Google also uses gradients, but it is very subtle and you don't even notice it most of the times. DDG also uses a lot of prominent borders on the gradients, Google and Apple uses them to, but it's very very subtle. This is another factor that makes their design look 'complex'. 2) Padding is another element - DDG uses too much padding for most of its elements, whereas Bing/Google uses a lot less padding. 3) If you notice, Google uses red only for certain important elements like the Plus one button, Compose button in Gmail and so on. DDG uses a whole menu-bar as a red block. This is a general rule of thumb that I didn't come up with certainly, but is what most top-notch companies follow. It make sense because the signal lights are in Red for the same reason, because they denote something important. Contrast this with the entire signal metal frame painted in red, that would be a bad idea. Not that you can't live with it, just that it's a bad UX. >I haven't heard of Google researching what colors work best for a search interface You haven't heard of a lot of things, that doesn't mean those things aren't valid. > As long as you have sufficient contrast, that is enough to attract attention to important elements. I for one aren't listening to your advice on design after you described DDG's design as just a text-box and a logo. >As far as the end user is concerned, it's not possible to tell which one is algorithmically superior. Did you read the entire entire comment? I've noticed your previous comments as well, you just like to half-ass read stuff and jump in straight away. Read what's written in the braces, I clearly say that's how I perceive about the algorithm as an end-user. >The thing about design advice is everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs Like you half-ass read the other things, you half-ass know about me too. Please read my other comments, I am not a follower nor a fan of Steve Jobs. Nor am I trying to be like him. I'm just a designer with experience and I'm critiquing a design that has a certain level of flaws. You are free to critique my criticism, provided: 1) You have enough knowledge about the subject - (N/A) 2) You don't attack on me personally - (Which you do) You know what's so ironic here? I am not the one with an 'i' in front of my name. Now..please don't ask me what's ironic here again... >What's the irony here? You're proving it time and again. Please don't comment next time without reading what the other person has said fully. References: http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html