8 ms·
Aren't we allowed to redesign things just for the joy of showing people what we think things should look like? I mean, Jesus Christ, when people post Google or
by unalone 17y ago
Aren't we allowed to redesign things just for the joy of showing people what we think things should look like? I mean, Jesus Christ, when people post Google or Craigslist redesigns here we get so bitchy about it. I've always seen these redesigns as sorts of "covers" of the original site. It's like Hendrix playing All Along The Watchtower. It's a riff on an idea for the sake of being creative.
You know what? I liked this redesign a lot. I like how white it is. I like the smaller logo. I like the effort the author put into making each logo look really crisp, the Wikipedia one in particular. I like that there are only four words on the entire page. I like the blue bar around the search box. So seeing this page made my day a little more enjoyable, and I'm glad it was posted here. No, I don't think it would be a good idea to implement this, but maybe that wasn't the point.
- tptacek 17y agoYou're allowed to do whatever you want. The redesign here is pretty. But the cart is probably dragging the horse, and it's always worth contrasting "what works" with "what designers think is best". Compare what a competant designer comes up with to Google's home page and start asking "why did Google do it this way", and you might learn something new.
- unalone 17y agoBut of course. Google's raised controversy among its designers for focusing on hits over aesthetic. We've had that talk before. I've actually always been against that mindset myself, and I've argued against it before here. I don't necessarily think it's a good thing to sacrifice everything just to boost numbers. If we had an Internet where there were half a dozen really good search engines where each one handled search a little bit differently, I'd much prefer that to the current situation. But I'm in the minority there.