08 Feb 2010
As always, the Super Bowl is host to many great and memorable commercials. This year was the first to feature a Google commercial (not that Google really needs a commercial) and I was pleased to see how simply perfect it was. It got me to thinking about the philosophies between the two companies who are battling for the ‘best search engine’ – Google and Microsoft.
Microsoft has always been – at least to me – a company who forcefully crams its way into lives. Whether it’s preinstalling Internet Explorer during Windows installations or shoving numerous bing commercials down our throats, Microsoft is just over the top with everything. Bloated operating systems and bloated commercials.
You ever heard the saying, “Jack of all trades, Master of none”? Well, this is Microsoft. They try to be everything to everyone – operating systems, gaming consoles, mp3 players, computer hardware, search engines, and who knows what else. How many of these flop? Nearly all of them. I think maybe the Xbox was their biggest success (at least in my book). And I’ll admit, Windows 7 ain’t bad. It sure took them long enough though.
Google is the best search engine because it’s simply that – a search engine. Now, granted Google does other projects too, but at least they all rally among a common theme – search. Google doesn’t need a “pretty” homepage to extend quality to the user. Google does just fine using the bare minimum (which I admire). Microsoft is the opposite… gradients, shininess, superfluous crap… I don’t need my OS to look pretty, nor do I need my search engine to look pretty. What I do need is for my OS and my search engine to work well and work efficiently.
Take a look at these commercials:
Microsoft Bing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSkaTcjDIMk
Google
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH5RRLgqzmI
Google and Bing are both search engines, yet it feels to me that Bing tries too hard. Google’s search engine is to the point. It’s simple. You can only do one thing and that one thing is search. And, you can search for the same stuff that you could search for on Bing (Google is even a calculator) – all from a well-dressed, simple, usable homepage. And how is Bing gonna go on about “search overload” when the entire point of search engines is to search? Lame.
Contrary to popular belief, people don’t really “surf” the web anymore. The web is a tool. We use it to accomplish tasks and goals. If we go to Google (or Bing if you prefer) we’re there to search for something, not sit and stare at (and get distracted by) pretty background images.
And as The Washington Post mentions, “Amid dozens of ads focused on cars, beer, and busty women, the Google spot definitely took a different approach: it tells a love story through a series of search queries.” Beautiful. Perfect. Simple.
Whatever search engine you choose I hope you find what you’re searching for efficiently and quickly. In the end that’s what it’s all about. I, however, will be searching with Google. Because it looks pretty.
Search on.
18 Dec 2009
There’s a reason Google is the top search engine of choice. Better yet, there’s a reason Google is the top ____ of choice: it’s because they know how to cater towards the user. I was doing some work for a client who said they specifically wanted to use a MapQuest map for their contact page. Myself, being as stubborn as it is at times, thought, “Psh, yeah right. Why? I recommend Google.” It’s like I go towards Google without even thinking about it at all. Default. Swallowing my pride I went to the MapQuest website to grab a screen of their office location and upon loading the homepage I remembered exactly why I love Google Maps so much. I took screenshots of both so I can illustrate why Google has become the company of choice for most people.
The MapQuest homepage
The Google Maps homepage
Just to give you a little information on the setup here: These screenshots were taken on a 24″ monitor. I use Firefox with the bookmarks toolbar turned off and only the main navigation bar and my tabs showing. I use the ’small icon’ settings for the buttons, not the larger, default ones. And as you can see, there are no other toolbars or clutter to deal with.
Both MapQuest and Google Maps have one goal and that is to provide people with maps and driving directions. These are task-oriented applications meaning people come here to perform a very small set of tasks.
The MapQuest homepage has the map shoved down so far that you have to scroll to see it. And by scrolling you can’t see the directions panel up top or the navigation. In MapQuest’s defense it places extreme priority on driving directions/location search, so much so that it takes up almost 100% of the “expensive” screen real estate. And look at all that wasted space to the top right… what’s up with that?
In contrast, Google Maps places the map front-center filling the majority of the screen. The directions panel is there, very unobtrusive and can even be tucked away if desired. It provides the exact same functionality as MapQuest, but does it in a more elegant and appealing approach. Both company’s make it extremely easy to find locations and directions, but overall Google is more effective. Also, please note that with Google Maps the need to scroll is completely eliminated as the map resizes to fit your screen. Everything can be done at the start, no scrolling and no messing around.
(Once again) props to Google for their user-friendly, task-oriented approach to design.
17 Dec 2009
I’ve been reading Don Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things and I must say I am thoroughly enjoying it. It was written a few decades ago so some of the stuff to the reader might seem funny. For example, Norman makes a big deal about computers – because they were relatively new at the time of the book – and VCRs, which were also fairly new. The underlying principles of usability and the cognitive approaches to memory and mappings are still very valid today.
My favorite example thus far has been the example of door handles. When it comes to doors, you can push them open, pull them open, or slide them open, but take away the handle and you have no idea how to open the door. Handles are very indicative of function and as a result should be designed to clearly describe how the door opens, otherwise you slam your face into it, or, in the case of Mr. Norman’s friend, get stuck between two sets of glass doors.
Good design doesn’t need instruction. A door should be easy to use without having to use the words “PUSH”, “PULL”, or “SLIDE”, and handles should be designed obviously. Consider the following examples:
These doors are clearly made to be pushed open.
Without the words PUSH, you'd probably pull these doors.
These handles signify pulling. The PUSH label only makes it confusing. This company chose asthetics over functionality. These labels were probably added after the doors were installed because people were having trouble opening the doors.
This could be the Nielsen/Norman coming out in me, but notice the first set of doors is the least attractive but the most usable? It’s nice to make something look attractive, but if you take away the usability in the process, you’ve only made the product worse. Part of usability is reducing or eliminating the requirement for users to think. Essentially it’s dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator of users. Good designers can create things that are not only very attractive, but also very usable.
22 Jul 2009
When my decision to run in the Blue Ridge Relay race this year became final, I knew there would be a lot of training involved, especially if I don’t want to let the team down. For those of you who think I run too much now, you just wait. But first, let’s go back in time to only two years ago when I first decided to take up this hobby. I was living in Columbia, SC and my boss at the time, Dean, was a big time runner. And I guess you could say that in addition to my need to quit gaming, he inspired me. So I bought my first pair of running shoes, Aisics Evolution IIs.
I was only running a mile or two at best at a time and I thought I was hot shit, haha. No, it’s okay to be proud, especially when I was at least making an effort to get outside and be active. Two miles miles nearly killed me (not literally, of course), but I also had encouragement coming from my – at the time – new friend Melissa, who’d “run with me” sometimes and provide that extra fuel. So I’d run twice a week, a mile or two each time. It was nice to earn the approval of my boss too, and it gave us other things to talk about besides LOST, Apple products, or intuitive and usable web design.
Dean would run every day at lunch in constant training for marathons. He was doing like one a month, something like that, but he’d run for miles and miles like a machine. Part of me felt a little discouraged because, here I was struggling to run a mile when he was cranking out mile after mile and always with a smile. But I knew that if I stayed with it, I too would be running mile after mile.
And looking back two years ago it’s nice to see how far I’ve come. Granted, I’m no marathoner (yet…) but I’m averaging 6 or 7 miles now, and more than twice a week too. I run 4 to 5 days a week with a longer run usually on the weekend. And, don’t get me wrong I still struggle, but looking back it’s such a sense of accomplishment seeing where I was before, and seeing where I am now. And I’ve got a long way to go, but when I start to get frustrated with myself for “only doing six miles,” it’s encouraging to know that six is better than one.
20 Jul 2009
A good friend of mine recently calmed my abhoration for Microsoft and/or bing, the new search engine from Microsoft that is a direct competitor to Google which we all know and love. What was a blatant and probably over-the-top hatred for bing, including but not limited to commercials, advertisements, and other assorted sightings, turned into an opinionated distaste based on personal preferences rather than emotional ones.
(Thank you)
I’m a fan of simplicity – less is more. If it’s not needed, it’s wasteful, so get rid of it. Maybe I’ve learned a tad too much from Jakob Nielsen and have taken a liking to stark, graphic-less layouts that allow nothing to compete with usability? Or maybe I just like to hate “the man”? Ever since I learned about Google I fell in love with the simplicity of it all, which is effectively and efficiently tailored simple, quick searches. After all, the act of searching is to accomplish one thing and one thing only: to search. Why then, must I have to look at all this other mumbo jumbo that does nothing but distracts me from my goal? This is what I thought when I saw bing for the first time.
Sure, the site looks pretty, but am I really going to be spending more than five seconds on the bing homepage? Not likely. If it’s not needed, get rid of it. My initial reaction was, “Search engines make a killing off of advertisements and paid listings… Microsoft just wants more money!” But I guess what matters more than the initial appearance of the search engine is how it lists its search results. I’d say, depending on what you search for, bing and Google are comparable, with bing having better presentation at times and Google having better presentation at other times.
The fact that bing was even created was beyond me. Why try to fix what’s not broken? The same thing goes with the next generation Zunes – Microsoft had an obvious fail with it when Apple controls the MP3 player market, yet they’re trying again. I’d sit and stress over things like the Zune and bing, but for what? I prefer Google and Apple, why do I care what they do?
Then we discussed competition and how it’s good that Microsoft came out with bing because it will keep Google on their toes and if Google is on their toes, it means better functionality, results presentations, and a better overall product for us users. So very true! And for those who wish to use bing, you can be sure Microsoft is trying hard to produce a product that’s better than Google. It’s really a win-win situation for everyone, but I didn’t realize that until this weekend.
But simply out of curiosity, for those of you who’ve used both, which do you prefer and why? And if results are equal, do you prefer the added visuals and graphics of bing, or the simplicity and “to-the-point” of Google?