> Google is constantly breaking one of the most basic rules about UI design: "Good Design" is not about making it pretty. "Good Design" is about making it easy to use;
I suspect that the problem is that for established products, like gmail, "easy to use" just means "the exact way it is now": user familiarity trumping every other metric.
And I suspect there is only so many times a HCI design team can say "we ran a study and we should do nothing" before they are deemed useless. Eventually things have to be changed to preserve jobs and since the only metrics of "good design" in HCI, currently, are "ease of use" and "looks good" it usually results in something that "looks" easier than the old one through hiding (or removing) features and padding the shit out of everything.
>> Eventually things have to be changed to preserve jobs
This is a shortsighted answer. The acceptance of this as a truism is the kind of office culture that is toxic to a company's long term health. If you're user tests say, "we shouldn't change anything" then the people making the new designs are the ones who should be fired because they can't improve the interface.
As for familiarity, you wouldn't test current Gmail users against a new interface. Of course they would perform better against the old one. You'd get a group who'd never used either one and run your tests (unless you're incompetent).
you wouldn't test current Gmail users against a new interface
Why not? If you're trying to assess the impact of a new interface, surely the fact that it's going to confuse existing users is important?
You'd get a group who'd never used either one
So if this group likes the new one better, that outweighs any amount of confusion caused with existing users? That's basically what you're saying here.
If you're trying to determine which interface is "better", you'd want to rule out familiarity with one over the other. You could test familiar users as well, which might let you know things like how much hand holding will be needed to transition to a new interface, but it certainly wouldn't be useful in telling you which one was easier to use. The familiar one will almost universally be easier to use.
On your second point: I'm not saying the control group picking the new interface "outweighs any amount of confusion caused with existing users", but it certainly outweighs some.
If you're trying to determine which interface is "better", you'd want to rule out familiarity with one over the other.
You're assuming that "better" is some objective quality that is independent of the history of your product and who uses it. It's not. Part of what makes a UI "good" is that it's similar to other UIs that users already know, so it takes them less time to learn it. By this criterion, the UI you have right now is "better" than any other one, because your existing users already know it. Any metric of "better" that doesn't take that into account is, IMO, wrong.
it certainly outweighs some.
How much? Your prescription gives no way of judging that that I can see, since you explicitly ruled out considering input from existing users.
> As for familiarity, you wouldn't test current Gmail users against a new interface. Of course they would perform better against the old one. You'd get a group who'd never used either one and run your tests (unless you're incompetent).
Everyone has used email at this point except babies and tech averse grandpas, and all clients look more or less the same, i.e. like old gmail.
My primary frustrations are with things that I didn't use in their earlier incarnation. The fixed position headers in Google+ take up screen space, giving almost a sense of claustrophobia for negligible benefit. Google Groups is painfully slow, and performing an advanced search (e.g., if you wish to search a certain date range) is currently not possible. Blogspot has a loading page.
For things that I have used, there are real, identifiable problems: the instant search results break the back button. Link tracking on search results means you cannot copy an URL.
I feel that there is a definite trend towards poor UI, irrespective of the user's prior history with the products.
I suspect that the problem is that for established products, like gmail, "easy to use" just means "the exact way it is now": user familiarity trumping every other metric.
And I suspect there is only so many times a HCI design team can say "we ran a study and we should do nothing" before they are deemed useless. Eventually things have to be changed to preserve jobs and since the only metrics of "good design" in HCI, currently, are "ease of use" and "looks good" it usually results in something that "looks" easier than the old one through hiding (or removing) features and padding the shit out of everything.