4 ms·

The problem with arguments like these is that there being "no good reason" is highly subjective. Excessive change is generally better than no changes at all. Th

by remon 12y ago

The problem with arguments like these is that there being "no good reason" is highly subjective. Excessive change is generally better than no changes at all. Things have to evolve and even if we miss the mark every now and then it should always improve over time on average when new ideas are tried and tested.

PMan74 12y ago
> The problem with arguments like these is that there being "no good reason" is highly subjective. Not only is it subjective it's almost certainly incorrect. If you read anything about Google it's clear that they don't make UI decisions without looking at a ton of data, making the changes and testing those changes. What does the author of that post think? A Google designer updated a load of designs on a whim?
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  Not a whim, an existential crisis. Justifying their existence, cherry picking suitable answers from a ton of data to back that up. Confirmation bias to appear relevant.
  - obsurveyor 12y ago
    Justifying their job too. How do you get marks on your review if the only concrete things you can point to through the year are the bookkeeping of the design world? Also, employee turnover and position changes means that those new people bring their own, "new" ideas that have to be implemented(how else do you "make your mark"?), at the expense of the user comfort/satisfaciton.
- lukeschlather 12y ago
  What sort of data? I can look at data all day, it doesn't mean that I'm interpreting it right. Furthermore, the biggest issues may not show up in the data. I have a 22-month-old Android phone. Google Maps just keeps getting slower and slower. Now it takes 10-15 seconds to start up. I'd really like to know what percentage of the data Google is using comes from phones released in the past 10 months. (Or phones that haven't even been released yet.)
  - colomon 12y ago
    And the Maps navigate functionality has gone from being so nice it single-handedly justified the cost of a smart phone to just barely working. I tried to use it on a 90 minute trip a few weeks back, and it did brilliant things like try to start me over from my original starting point rather than my last known location when it lost the GPS signal 45 minutes into the trip...
SonicSoul 12y ago
the op didn't just say that. he went on to point out the flaws with the new design. It would be great to hear the reasoning that went on behind those changes, but overall I agree with him. Most times I see a redesign (os or a website), there is net negative change in usability. Part of that is due to having to re-learn the UI. And I wouldn't mind this if there was actually a benefit, but often times I can't find it no matter how long I think about it. If users that are conscious about UX are not seeing the benefits, how is it a positive change?
lukeschlather 12y ago
Evolution needs to be guided by need. Right now, changes happen too fast for a feedback loop to be established that validates good changes. Furthermore, in order for that feedback loop to exist, users need to have a choice. I'm afraid that the new Google Maps is just plain worse, and Google needs to dust off the old code and start iterating on it again. It was a great experiment, but everyone building consumer software seems to be incapable of admitting when their complete rewrite was a step backwards. When a software team does a complete redesign of a feature or app, they almost become institutionally incapable of admitting that the rewrite was the wrong choice.
exodust 12y ago
* 'Excessive change is generally better than no changes at all.' Can't agree with that. If the change isn't needed then change can't be better. The burden of responsibility for justifying the change is on the person wanting the change. To identify why the change is needed and how it's an improvement. It's a weakness of the production team if there's a "must evolve no matter what" mentality on repeat-cycle. You could aim for "stability", for "baseline" for "solid foundations" instead of "excessive change". Then your efforts are about extending, expanding and tweaking rather than changing. There's nothing subjective about evaluating reasons for changing an interface. There's either good reasons for the change, or there isn't. Too many people try to manipulate discussion in this business with "it's subjective". It dilutes the discussion because "subjective" doesn't commit either way, it just kind of shrugs and says "oh well, too hard to conclude anything". When a consequence of change is that you piss off a bunch of users, then you can't say that change is inherently better each iteration. A wrong turn might be made and literally breaks the product or dents the reputation for many iterations. It happens. Nothing is immune from the great unwashed interface testers, and we don't like useless layout changes for things already committed to muscle memory.
- stinky613 12y ago
  > If the change isn't needed then change can't be better I'm curious... when you say 'change' is there a contextual limit to what counts as a change? That is to say, am I taking you too literally if I consider an A/B test a change? Or is there a pervasiveness of rollout that you think is necessary to consider something as a change? In either case, I wouldn't want to underestimate the value of studying reactions to a change--especially the negative reactions. There's a lot to be learned from mistakes.
  - exodust 12y ago
    Valid point, but clearly even the smallest changes upset people. Re-arranging furniture is a change. Changing the colour or number of cushions on the sofa is a change. A-B testing won't reveal how many people reluctantly embrace the change, rolled their eyes and cursed your service as they completed the task. A-B testing is not all-knowing. It's suitable for colder functional changes, not things such as key separators on a virtual keyboard. None of this would be a problem if users are simply given choice and meticulous control over the changes and how or whether they're applied. Choice, control, options and user preferences - those should be the key features. I wish for innovation in changes, such as inviting and allowing users to preview for themselves a particular change. Fortunately we do have lots of options in our settings for a lot of things, but it doesn't go far enough. Their new "material girl in a material world" design philosophy is a distraction... and personally I think is weaker than commentators are declaring. Who wants reliable, familiar interfaces and predictable functionality? Um.... try everyone!

by remon 12y ago

PMan74 12y ago

> The problem with arguments like these is that there being "no good reason" is highly subjective. Not only is it subjective it's almost certainly incorrect. If you read anything about Google it's clear that they don't make UI decisions without looking at a ton of data, making the changes and testing those changes. What does the author of that post think? A Google designer updated a load of designs on a whim?

throwawayaway 12y ago
Not a whim, an existential crisis. Justifying their existence, cherry picking suitable answers from a ton of data to back that up. Confirmation bias to appear relevant.
- obsurveyor 12y ago
  Justifying their job too. How do you get marks on your review if the only concrete things you can point to through the year are the bookkeeping of the design world? Also, employee turnover and position changes means that those new people bring their own, "new" ideas that have to be implemented(how else do you "make your mark"?), at the expense of the user comfort/satisfaciton.
lukeschlather 12y ago
What sort of data? I can look at data all day, it doesn't mean that I'm interpreting it right. Furthermore, the biggest issues may not show up in the data. I have a 22-month-old Android phone. Google Maps just keeps getting slower and slower. Now it takes 10-15 seconds to start up. I'd really like to know what percentage of the data Google is using comes from phones released in the past 10 months. (Or phones that haven't even been released yet.)
- colomon 12y ago
  And the Maps navigate functionality has gone from being so nice it single-handedly justified the cost of a smart phone to just barely working. I tried to use it on a 90 minute trip a few weeks back, and it did brilliant things like try to start me over from my original starting point rather than my last known location when it lost the GPS signal 45 minutes into the trip...

SonicSoul 12y ago

the op didn't just say that. he went on to point out the flaws with the new design. It would be great to hear the reasoning that went on behind those changes, but overall I agree with him. Most times I see a redesign (os or a website), there is net negative change in usability. Part of that is due to having to re-learn the UI. And I wouldn't mind this if there was actually a benefit, but often times I can't find it no matter how long I think about it. If users that are conscious about UX are not seeing the benefits, how is it a positive change?

lukeschlather 12y ago

Evolution needs to be guided by need. Right now, changes happen too fast for a feedback loop to be established that validates good changes. Furthermore, in order for that feedback loop to exist, users need to have a choice. I'm afraid that the new Google Maps is just plain worse, and Google needs to dust off the old code and start iterating on it again. It was a great experiment, but everyone building consumer software seems to be incapable of admitting when their complete rewrite was a step backwards. When a software team does a complete redesign of a feature or app, they almost become institutionally incapable of admitting that the rewrite was the wrong choice.

exodust 12y ago

* 'Excessive change is generally better than no changes at all.' Can't agree with that. If the change isn't needed then change can't be better. The burden of responsibility for justifying the change is on the person wanting the change. To identify why the change is needed and how it's an improvement. It's a weakness of the production team if there's a "must evolve no matter what" mentality on repeat-cycle. You could aim for "stability", for "baseline" for "solid foundations" instead of "excessive change". Then your efforts are about extending, expanding and tweaking rather than changing. There's nothing subjective about evaluating reasons for changing an interface. There's either good reasons for the change, or there isn't. Too many people try to manipulate discussion in this business with "it's subjective". It dilutes the discussion because "subjective" doesn't commit either way, it just kind of shrugs and says "oh well, too hard to conclude anything". When a consequence of change is that you piss off a bunch of users, then you can't say that change is inherently better each iteration. A wrong turn might be made and literally breaks the product or dents the reputation for many iterations. It happens. Nothing is immune from the great unwashed interface testers, and we don't like useless layout changes for things already committed to muscle memory.

stinky613 12y ago
> If the change isn't needed then change can't be better I'm curious... when you say 'change' is there a contextual limit to what counts as a change? That is to say, am I taking you too literally if I consider an A/B test a change? Or is there a pervasiveness of rollout that you think is necessary to consider something as a change? In either case, I wouldn't want to underestimate the value of studying reactions to a change--especially the negative reactions. There's a lot to be learned from mistakes.
- exodust 12y ago
  Valid point, but clearly even the smallest changes upset people. Re-arranging furniture is a change. Changing the colour or number of cushions on the sofa is a change. A-B testing won't reveal how many people reluctantly embrace the change, rolled their eyes and cursed your service as they completed the task. A-B testing is not all-knowing. It's suitable for colder functional changes, not things such as key separators on a virtual keyboard. None of this would be a problem if users are simply given choice and meticulous control over the changes and how or whether they're applied. Choice, control, options and user preferences - those should be the key features. I wish for innovation in changes, such as inviting and allowing users to preview for themselves a particular change. Fortunately we do have lots of options in our settings for a lot of things, but it doesn't go far enough. Their new "material girl in a material world" design philosophy is a distraction... and personally I think is weaker than commentators are declaring. Who wants reliable, familiar interfaces and predictable functionality? Um.... try everyone!