Hacker News Reader

> 1) Their design is very complex and un-appealing with no simplicity that a SE should posses

Enough people have already said it. I feel like a broken record but what's very complex about a text box and a logo?

> because they have invested a huge amount of money in researching about which colors and patterns work best.

Interesting. Do you have any citations to back it up? I haven't heard of Google researching what colors work best for a search interface. Or bing for that matter.

> DO NOT over-use red.

The thing about design advice is everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs. Even if I started listening, I would never have a definitive, agreed-on opinion.

> Red is used to denote only important elements on a website (like a sign-up button), a call-to-action element (For example, compose button on Gmail)

Where is this definitive design rule book of yours? As long as you have sufficient contrast, that is enough to attract attention to important elements. Are you saying if I have a red background and a white compose button with black text, user will somehow see the background as call-to-action and not the button? Now don't go on how red background will not look very good. That's not the point. The point is color alone doesn't decide which section of the page is important.

> Look at DDG, they have a whole top-bar in full red.

Since they merge in serach box with the bar, that section is important.

> Now, I already know Google has a superior Search algorithm, period (from what I perceive).

This has been done n times. There is no clear pattern when it comes to choosing google vs bing results in a blind search result. As far as the end user is concerned, it's not possible to tell which one is algorithmically superior.

> Look at the irony, even you reference them by DDG and not DuckDuckGo,

What's the irony here?

> whereas you reference Google by just Google and not by any other short form. This is exactly what I meant. Brand Naming is something that we don't even pay attention to, but plays a much much important role.

Oh my. How much it has hurt Microsoft. They should have just called themselves MS and be done with it. I can't fathom how much of a hit y-combinator and hacker news are taking because their names can be abbreviated.

/s

But Microsoft by itself is not a "consumer" brand. Bing is, XBox is, Windows is, Live is, Office is, Microsoft is only the name of the corporation behind those products and people don't use it in daily conversations. "Hey Dad, I want a Microsoft XBox so I can play games with my friends on Microsoft Online Services" -- said no kids ever

Y-Combinator/HackerNews is even less a consumer brand. Of course, that's only a problem if you are trying to appeal to the mass market, YC/HackerNews isn't, but DuckDuckGo is.

So are you seriously saying brands which can be abbreviated aren't adapted as well by consumers as brands which can't be? And do you have anything other than "I said so" to back it up?

It's not whether the brand can be abbreviated or not, it's what you choose to build your brand around. A short, easy to remember name is crucial [1].

You don't hear much about International Business Machines, but you do hear a bit about IBM, because IBM built it's brand around the abbreviated form which is easier to remember. Likewise, HP is now the word du jour to refer to Hewlett-Packard.

Abbreviated forms are fine, and have actually been used to bolster (or change) a company's image. Outside of tech circles if I say MS I'll most likely get awkward glances, but the moment I switch to saying Microsoft I'll get immediate brand name recognition. Likewise, you don't hear many people talking about P or C&C, but drop the name Pepsi or Coca-Cola and you'll also get instant brand name recognition.

So the question becomes is DuckDuckGo really an easily recognizable, easy to memorize, that generates imagery associated with the given product/service? Is it really that appealing?

Surely, it's memorable due to it being so weird, but is it memorable in a way that I'll link up with search? I dunno, but there's some validity to what's been said so far about the name being a bit too long or awkward for the company's sake.

1. http://isbm.smeal.psu.edu/library/working-paper-articles/199... p.11 "Accordingly, the criteria rated most important were relevance to product category (5.99), connotations and images generated (5 X3), and overall appeal (5.79). They did not lose sight of the fact that names should be memorable. Ease of recognition (5.77) and ease of recall (5.42) also were rated highly."

I am not questioning building a brand. As I said elsewhere, in blind tests, people have a hard time distinguishing google search results from bing. Brand name is one of the major factors when it comes to consumers.

People preferred pepsi to thumsup in blind tests. Thumsup sweetened its drink and faced a major backlash. Thumsup drinkers associated themselves with Thumsup brand and took pride in "not sweet as pepsi".

I do understand that brand plays a major part for the consumer.

What I was questioning was the ridiculous assumption that somehow calling DuckDuckGo as DDG is diluting its brand, and always calling Google as Google is indicative of its strong brand.

As I see it, using DDG instead of DuckDuckGo is not the core problem. It's not that doing so dilutes the brand (it does in way, but that's really irrelevant) I think the main point is that if the users feel compelled to rename then there is something in the original brand name which is inefficient or cumbersome which thus detracts from the brand's overall value.

And I do not think it's ridiculous to assume that repetition builds brand awareness. The study I linked to said as much, indicating that repetition was one of the best ways to establish brand identity in the minds of consumers. That's why as a company you're best served by aligning your brand name with whatever moniker people are more likely to use and hence why a short, memorable brand name is more powerful than a unique but long-winded archaic name (at least in this day and age).

>What's very complex about a text box and a logo?

What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details. I presume you are not a designer, nor do you have a knack for details (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!) but for the sake of others, I've compiled a list of comparisons:

1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex. Gradients in general are used to add complexity. However, not in every case - For example, Apple's website uses a lot of Gradients too, but it is one of the most clearest and simplest sites you will ever find. Google also uses gradients, but it is very subtle and you don't even notice it most of the times.

DDG also uses a lot of prominent borders on the gradients, Google and Apple uses them to, but it's very very subtle. This is another factor that makes their design look 'complex'.

2) Padding is another element - DDG uses too much padding for most of its elements, whereas Bing/Google uses a lot less padding.

3) If you notice, Google uses red only for certain important elements like the Plus one button, Compose button in Gmail and so on. DDG uses a whole menu-bar as a red block. This is a general rule of thumb that I didn't come up with certainly, but is what most top-notch companies follow. It make sense because the signal lights are in Red for the same reason, because they denote something important. Contrast this with the entire signal metal frame painted in red, that would be a bad idea. Not that you can't live with it, just that it's a bad UX.

>I haven't heard of Google researching what colors work best for a search interface

You haven't heard of a lot of things, that doesn't mean those things aren't valid.

> As long as you have sufficient contrast, that is enough to attract attention to important elements.

I for one aren't listening to your advice on design after you described DDG's design as just a text-box and a logo.

>As far as the end user is concerned, it's not possible to tell which one is algorithmically superior.

Did you read the entire entire comment? I've noticed your previous comments as well, you just like to half-ass read stuff and jump in straight away. Read what's written in the braces, I clearly say that's how I perceive about the algorithm as an end-user.

>The thing about design advice is everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs

Like you half-ass read the other things, you half-ass know about me too. Please read my other comments, I am not a follower nor a fan of Steve Jobs. Nor am I trying to be like him. I'm just a designer with experience and I'm critiquing a design that has a certain level of flaws. You are free to critique my criticism, provided:

1) You have enough knowledge about the subject - (N/A) 2) You don't attack on me personally - (Which you do)

You know what's so ironic here? I am not the one with an 'i' in front of my name. Now..please don't ask me what's ironic here again...

>What's the irony here?

You're proving it time and again. Please don't comment next time without reading what the other person has said fully.

References: http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html

> What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details.

And since it appears as a text box and a logo, doesn't it make the point about having a lot of details moot? It's slightly different than google or bing, but vastly similar. Let's not make shit up here.

> (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!)

Take a breath. Web development isn't the same as web design. It's kinda sad that I have to point it out.

> 1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex

Instead of making shit up, you could have just said it's using a lot more gradients.

> This is another factor that makes their design look 'complex'.

To you. I missed the meeting where you were appointed the authority on design. Since you are all pumped up about how you get design, I will be interested to know what have you built.

> It make sense because the signal lights are in Red for the same reason, because they denote something important.

For the nth time, stop making shit up. Red is used because it scatters less(higher wavelength) and can be seen more clearly from a distance.

> You haven't heard of a lot of things, that doesn't mean those things aren't valid.

I checked that before commenting. Your user survey about usability doesn't say google researches whether padding is beneficial for search.

> I for one aren't listening to your advice on design after you described DDG's design as just a text-box and a logo.

So what exactly are you not listening to? That contrast attracts attraction? Wow.

> Did you read the entire entire comment? Read what's written in the braces, I clearly say that's how I perceive about the algorithm as an end-user.

May be I should have been clear. I am saying your perceptions are made-up.

> I've noticed your previous comments as well, you just like to half-ass read stuff and jump in straight away.

What comments would that be? I can't say the same about reading yours. The cover is enough to drive me away from the book.

> Like you half-ass read the other things, you half-ass know about me too.

I don't know about you and I am not commenting about you. I am commenting about the behavior where everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs. That's what you are demonstrating by assuming you know everything about design and other people don't. Since you are so cocksure, I am asking again. Have you ever built something, or do you just comment on internet forums?

> You know what's so ironic here? I am not the one with an 'i' in front of my name.

Please tell me this is a fucking joke. Do I have to discuss my handle now?

> Now..please don't ask me what's ironic here again..

I won't. You clearly don't understand what irony means. BTW, is it too much to ask to actually know what irony means before throwing it around every other sentence?

> References: http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html

Google is doing usability study is not the same as google has researched what padding to use.

>Web development isn't the same as web design.

The one you claim to do on your homepage talks about involving design, which is why I referenced it. And which you absolutely have no idea about.

>Instead of making shit up, you could have just said it's using a lot more gradients.

It's more than just using just gradients (which is just one thing), which was my point. See, you're just proving it time and again.

>I will be interested to know what have you built.

I am not obliged to let you know that. But surely it isn't as shitty as this:

http://i46.tinypic.com/21vfc.jpg

For the rest of the world to see, that's what iRahul has built so far and he's here to critique a designer. And now you know why the search boxes appear the same to him, and probably everything else will, too.

>May be I should have been clear.

Yep, you never are. You like to make vague statements to attract controversy.

>Since you are so cocksure

Please keep your profanity to yourself. You just proved you are worth no one's time. Bye.

> The one you claim to do on your homepage talks about involving design, which is why I referenced it.

My homepage talks about design doesn't mean I have to design.

> I am not obliged to let you know that. But surely it isn't as shitty as this:

http://i46.tinypic.com/21vfc.jpg

That thing is called a prototype. And you are not obliged to tell what you have built, but when you are throwing shit all around, at least have some credentials. Either don't be an asshole, or at least be correct. When it comes to opinions(and not absolute facts), who has it is an important factor in evaluating it.

> For the rest of the world to see, that's what iRahul has built so far and he's here to critique a designer. And now you know why the search boxes appear the same to him, and probably everything else will, too.

In case it didn't occur to you, rest of the world doesn't give a shit about a petty internet argument. When I did the prototype, it was open for everyone to see. I don't see the point in your declaration about the whole world seeing what I built. Different strokes for different people. Some people build things and move on if it doesn't work; some people post comments on news forums with nothing to back them up and then go digging something to feed their vanity. Vain people are a big pain in the ass, not because they are vain(that too) but because they sustain themselves on putting others down, rather than getting themselves ahead.

> Please keep your profanity to yourself. You just proved you are worth no one's time. Bye.

It isn't like I am being benefited from getting in argument with some random designer on some internet forum. And do you always lobby others to cry for you?(rest of the world to see, "no one's time" rather than "my time")

I think you need to calm down.

You're making a total fool of yourself with these aggressive and rude replies.

What's complex about the design? The main page seems brutally simple compared to Google or Bing. And the search results pages do not seem to have more interactable elements than Google/Bing. What is your metric of simplicity here?

Your one example is use of the color red, which may be an issue of taste or branding but not really simplicity. (And there are reasonably popular sites with very prominent red elements, like cnn.com)

I'm confused about your "design is very complex" bit. I just used their search engine and their design couldn't be more straight forward.

In fact I prefer it to Bing's look in particular. Less clutter.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear, I was referring to the search results page, (that's why I mentioned the red bar)

Thanks.

I dont see your first point. The home page is as simple as the rest, just a logo and search box. http://cl.ly/image/2E1A3Z2i0h1e

in case you didn't know, you can get to DDG at (http://ddg.gg). Thats how I get it DDG when I'm away from my desk.