Bing design = retro Google?
bing.com
bing.com
I’d guess though that this is a first in a series of small, gradual, changes to the site geared toward 'metrofying' it. I bet we’ll soon see Segoe replace Arial as the predominant font next.
Chrome OS styles itself as an old Windows desktop (compared to forthcoming Win8) to capture people who long for the old days.
Business as usual.
here's chrome os: http://cdn.techpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/chrome-os-a...
here's windows 7: http://www.techfuels.com/attachments/windows-7-2000-nt/28356...
Do you mean to say Chrome OS looks like Windows because the toolbar is on the button like Windows and not on the top like *nix?
Either way, IMHO those two desktops look similar.
And there are not thousands of linux interfaces. Having the ability to customize does not mean there's a new interface every time you adjust something. Leave the hyperbole on 4chan.
The first thing I thought of when I looked at the ChromeOS screenshot was it was a cross between Windows and the iPad. The toolbar/taskbar at the bottom is very Windows-y in its appearance, and the grid of icons looks like the iPad launcher (also the Honeycomb launcher too).
Then Google copied the background image idea.
Now Bing has gone minimal, but there's obviously still some residual pull/desire around using imagery.
That little strip is a remnant. Like a human appendix it's a residual organ that wasn't completely eradicated as it evolved into the current design.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/09/google-adds-a-background-im...
If you click on the bing icon, though, you also go back to the landing page.
So this little bit of refinement seems to highlight the ever-changing-landing-image as a part of the bing experience.
I don't think it also serves their interest well, too, when their UI is a reminder of their competitor (the retro look of their competitor, to be precise). Google succeeded with a minimalistic UI because it made them look different from the rest and no one did it before. When Bing does it now, it makes them look like Google.
I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but I'm not sure you understand human psychology in this area. Humans are very consistently swayed by looks over intrinsic value.
People aren't necessarily doing quantitative A/B tests between search engines, they're just plugging the latest search terms they want answers to into the search field and (in many cases) getting a search result that seems to fit the bill.
If the search engine displays results in an visually uncluttered (seemingly authoritative) way then that would seem like a good search engine choice.
There was that blog post the other day where someone updated and improved their site design and was lauded by users for all the new features they had introduced, when all they'd done was refresh the design.
Hey, no problem :), I'm just here for the discussion.
> but I'm not sure you understand human psychology in this area. Humans are very consistently swayed by looks over intrinsic value.
I do understand that looks matter to a degree. Some website redesigns does make them much more appealing. But I feel like at best the effects are only temporary. It doesn't take long before the user gets bored and thinks about how ugly it looks, unless the redesign comes with added functionality/feature (which I fail to find in this case).
Moreover, I mentioned earlier that it doesn't seem beneficial for Bing that its redesign is a reminder of its competitor. So I still find their decision puzzling.
The redesign, in-and-of-itself likely provides added f/f in terms of reduced cognitive load in parsing the search results page. It's simple and easily grokked.
>a reminder of its competitor.
I don't think anyone is definitively and quantifiably testing Google search results in their day to day lives, but I suspect there's a nagging sense that they're not really as 'good' as they used to be.
I speculate that it's because the results have become more cluttered. Very few people would consciously compare Bing 2.today with Google 2.yesterday.
I think it's a clever play. It will probably not pan out as it's difficult to turn a ship as large as "Default Search" in another direction but we live in interesting times.
my hunch is the former is their goal...
But, you and I live in different galaxies if you think DDG is Bing's key to gaining market share. DDGs value of privacy and no filter bubbles, is not a compelling (or even understandable) concept to an overwhelming majority of users. Facebook proves this.
I like feeling that my privacy is preserved on DDG but I'm still debating whether or not it's an acceptable trade-off for search result relevancy for me.
Screenshot: https://twitter.com/#!/gee_totes/status/197695446821519360
At least, I think that's a porn link. Don't dare click on it because I'm on a work computer.
(Having to bulls-eye a dinky little triangle to click 'cached' in a single-item drop-down ... not so much appreciated.)
Also being a copycat doesn't work too well unless you have a completely different strategy than competing head-on, which Bing doesn't.
Finds something posted within the last 24 hours --click-- Find only forum discussions with your search term --click-- (This is especially valuable since I get the most information about damn near everything from reading people's discussions on that thing) Get a map of that restaurant I just searched --click--
The only thing that's bothering me on Google's search is that right column with the social stuff, especially if my search generated a lot of it. But my eye just doesn't tend to go there anyways so it doesn't bother me that much.
The above rant aside, I think it's a good move on their part.