AbsoluteB.com

If you ask me, Google.com is one of the best and ugliest looking sites on the web at the same time. It’s bare and raw simplicity and functionality make it so pleasant to look at and use, while at the same time, I can’t help but think, WTF? I could do a better job… couldn’t I? Google just works and does what it does best very, very well, and yet, by design standards, or at least by my own, it’s far from bring the most awe inspiring design I’ve ever seen. And yet, even though there are so many ways I could imagine improving the overall look of the site (all IMO of course), it’s a design which cannot be improved. Even the bezel and shadow on the logo on the home screen could almost be considered too tacky!

I bring this up because these past few days I have been exploring designing a search site in a lot of depth. It’s not something I’ve done before and it’s a very interesting and tricky situation I find myself in, it’s certainly one that intrigues and motivates me. Google, as cliche as it may sound, has been the standard to go by of course, but purely from a functional stand point. I’ve been giving a lot of thought as to whether it would be possible or not to design a search site in my own way… in a different way.

I recall the time when I was working on the D!mpact project during my initial days at Atos Origin where my task was to design a new interface and work flow for the software system that was being built. The new web app was to replace the current system being used which, after mere observation alone, was deemed as inefficient and ineffective as a system could get. I observed a co-worker click the mouse button 12 times before she could get to the document she required and a few more after that before she was done with it. No doubt I was completely confident that I could design a much better system which would be more efficient and above all more pleasant to use, and I did. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others, the new application was great. It only required one or two clicks at most to retrieve the needed documents and to edit and send off. All it required were a few mouse clicks on easy to find, clear links and buttons all laid out in a logical manner which would improve work flow 12 fold… at which point the system failed and never caught on. Why? Because co-workers of the old system were far too used to the, shall we just call it, crap system. To put it plainly, users of the old system preferred it because it’s what they had been using for so many years.

I’m sure there’s an official name for this, but I’ve come to call it the Windows Syndrome; people are so used to their Windows PC’s freezing, slowing down, displaying the blue screen of death because that it’s just how it is and anything else, regardless of how much better it might be, just doesn’t feel right because the comfort isn’t instantly there. It’s like being in a bad relationship but being too afraid to be alone to get out of it. Anyway, long story short, the D!mpact project ended up being redesigned 3 times (while I was on the project anyway) because my second attempt at pretty much copying the old system design (which was per instruction) was so good that it was in violation of copyright infringement.

In case you still don’t get the connection between designing a better search site and the D!mpact story; the point I’m trying to make is that people like and love Google because it’s what they know. Redesigning it might look better and it might even work better, but people love Google and want Google. It’s why Microsoft’s BING, near as can be, looks exactly like it, because people want the crappy, simple and beautiful looking Google site… all of which makes my attempts at designing a better looking search site even more impossible!