3 ms·

How did Google not realise when they launched Google+ that URLs that end in ridiculously long strings of numbers (107350252619396782277) was a poor idea? Now it

How did Google not realise when they launched Google+ that URLs that end in ridiculously long strings of numbers (107350252619396782277) was a poor idea? Now it feels like they're adding a sticking plaster to fix their initial design decision. Google+ on the whole seems quite poorly designed from a UX perspective. Most people seem to use Google+ like a blog, but the two column card layout on the desktop (three columns on some Google+ sites) makes it impossible to read posts in chronological order. This is so blazingly obvious, one can only wonder why Google went ahead with this pattern. If the site is optimised for mobile (which seems to be the case), why do they push the same design to desktop? The way comments open up in a small scrollable panel also makes for a pretty miserable experience on the desktop. As does clicking a tag and having to explore everying from within the constricted space of a card (again why do they push this pattern to desktop users if it's intended for mobile users?) Can you actually add titles for Google+ posts? It doesn't seem so. This means you redundantly repeat the name of the blog author as the title of every single card/post. And what's with the bizarre gigantic image at the top of the page that only reveals itself when you scroll to the top? Was this meant to be a delightful surprise feature? It just feels odd. Finally, there is a button on the left-hand side of the page in the header. It looks like a button, it's shaped like a button. But when you move your mouse pointer over the button, a menu appears automatically (on rollover). If it's meant to be a rollover drop-down menu, then don't make it look like a clickable button. As always with Google and their UX, it's one step forward, two steps back (IMO).

jamesbritt 13y ago
Most people seem to use Google+ like a blog, but the two column card layout on the desktop (three columns on some Google+ sites) makes it impossible to read posts in chronological order. This is configurable. I set it back to the single column precisely because the crowded page of mostly images didn't suit me. Can you actually add titles for Google+ posts? It doesn't seem so. This means you redundantly repeat the name of the blog author as the title of every single card/post. People seem to have adopted the practice of bolding the first line of there post content (using asterisks) to have it stand out as a title. Seems to work pretty well, at least when scanning down a page of posts. As for your other observations: Yeah, there's a bunch of odd clunky shit going on. Greasemonkey has been a big help for me. :) There are also some Chrome extensions that mitigate some of the g+ UX pain.
rallison 13y ago
I actually like a lot of the UX, at least for the content that I consume. I enjoy viewing content in some of the photography and photo sphere groups, and for this a one column layout would be too wide without scrolling quite a bit more. Now, that said, this is more casual consumption. I don't care if I miss a post or two due to your chronological post issue. I also imagine there are a number of people like me when it comes to this. Clicking the tag and having it inline is a nice way to see if you actually want to lose your current context and go to the full tag browsing mode. I also like this. The image at the top? Nice way to not lose screen real estate on first load. I find it fun. So, obviously we have some differences of opinion, and some of it may just come down to the sort of content we consume/create, but count me in the group that actually largely likes the interface.
- scholia 13y ago
  Hidden menus that pointlessly jump out into the oceans of unused space. Half-hidden photo and a hidden search box that bobs pointlessly up and down. Clunkily-unusable Circles. Endless pages that make it impossible to access old content (Facebook does this much better). Porthole icons. Pointlessly disappearing notification system. Mouseover popups that sometimes pop up (but don't contain any useful information) and sometimes don't pop up (compare "Community invitations" with "You may know"). The whole thing is full of utterly useless bits of "design". Some of these may contribute to making it horribly slow, though I'm sure there are other reasons why it's so bloated....
ivanbrussik 13y ago
FWIW you can choose a one column layout. looks great on tablet/mobile but not so much on a 27" LCD.
rejoinder 13y ago
I agree with most of your moans here, apart from your first. I haven't any issue with the random (probably uuids) strings and url length. I do find G+ difficult to scan though. To the point that it's pointless for me to even bother with. I haven't loaded my circles up either, but I find the streams can get easily saturated by one individual, pretty quickly. Another issue I have is the crappy comments - especially on public posts from popular accounts as opposed to friends' content. You open them up, start scrolling realise there is nothing of value, then wonder how you can shut them back up without scrolling back up etc. In fact the whole thing would be far more useful if it was just one big atom-feed. I'm following a friend's wordpress blog (an online hosted account on wordpress.com), and that's a hideous up front. I discovered RSS feeds of posts and comments hidden in the source code - and that makes for a far easier interface! Less is more and all that...

jamesbritt 13y ago

Most people seem to use Google+ like a blog, but the two column card layout on the desktop (three columns on some Google+ sites) makes it impossible to read posts in chronological order. This is configurable. I set it back to the single column precisely because the crowded page of mostly images didn't suit me. Can you actually add titles for Google+ posts? It doesn't seem so. This means you redundantly repeat the name of the blog author as the title of every single card/post. People seem to have adopted the practice of bolding the first line of there post content (using asterisks) to have it stand out as a title. Seems to work pretty well, at least when scanning down a page of posts. As for your other observations: Yeah, there's a bunch of odd clunky shit going on. Greasemonkey has been a big help for me. :) There are also some Chrome extensions that mitigate some of the g+ UX pain.

rallison 13y ago

I actually like a lot of the UX, at least for the content that I consume. I enjoy viewing content in some of the photography and photo sphere groups, and for this a one column layout would be too wide without scrolling quite a bit more. Now, that said, this is more casual consumption. I don't care if I miss a post or two due to your chronological post issue. I also imagine there are a number of people like me when it comes to this. Clicking the tag and having it inline is a nice way to see if you actually want to lose your current context and go to the full tag browsing mode. I also like this. The image at the top? Nice way to not lose screen real estate on first load. I find it fun. So, obviously we have some differences of opinion, and some of it may just come down to the sort of content we consume/create, but count me in the group that actually largely likes the interface.

scholia 13y ago
Hidden menus that pointlessly jump out into the oceans of unused space. Half-hidden photo and a hidden search box that bobs pointlessly up and down. Clunkily-unusable Circles. Endless pages that make it impossible to access old content (Facebook does this much better). Porthole icons. Pointlessly disappearing notification system. Mouseover popups that sometimes pop up (but don't contain any useful information) and sometimes don't pop up (compare "Community invitations" with "You may know"). The whole thing is full of utterly useless bits of "design". Some of these may contribute to making it horribly slow, though I'm sure there are other reasons why it's so bloated....

ivanbrussik 13y ago

FWIW you can choose a one column layout. looks great on tablet/mobile but not so much on a 27" LCD.

rejoinder 13y ago

I agree with most of your moans here, apart from your first. I haven't any issue with the random (probably uuids) strings and url length. I do find G+ difficult to scan though. To the point that it's pointless for me to even bother with. I haven't loaded my circles up either, but I find the streams can get easily saturated by one individual, pretty quickly. Another issue I have is the crappy comments - especially on public posts from popular accounts as opposed to friends' content. You open them up, start scrolling realise there is nothing of value, then wonder how you can shut them back up without scrolling back up etc. In fact the whole thing would be far more useful if it was just one big atom-feed. I'm following a friend's wordpress blog (an online hosted account on wordpress.com), and that's a hideous up front. I discovered RSS feeds of posts and comments hidden in the source code - and that makes for a far easier interface! Less is more and all that...