Google, Form, and Function
Google’s meteoric rise to Web domination, near universal recognition, and canonization in the dictionary has been driven by their unparalleled execution of a simple function: returning the most relevant search results to Web users who are looking for love, car parts, or Jeopardy answers (I mean questions). It hasn’t hurt that they have buttressed their core competency with a host of useful applications, mostly provided for free, that each reinforce and drive users back to that search function, their primary source of revenue. All the while, Google has resisted the siren call of a design makeover, apparently content with their “progammer aesthetic”. Now, don’t get me wrong. Programmers rock! And programming is very much a creative endeavor. As the WordPress slogan nicely puts it: “Code is Poetry”. Nonetheless, you can tell when a company unwilling to spring for a designer has dubbed their programmer for the task. The result is rarely pretty. But in view of their success, one could conclude that Google represents a decisive victory of function over form, or perhaps even the irrelevance of good design. But that might be a bit hasty. Their triumph is something less than a repudiation of the importance of design. I would contend that Google has succeeded in spite of its lack of content hierarchy, structure, and visual appeal, not because of it.
One could conclude that Google represents a decisive victory of function over form, or perhaps even the irrelevance of good design.
A Case In Point
Though I’m no fan of the Google aesthetic, or lack thereof, it turns out that I find myself there more often than not when I’m digging for something on the Web. I’m Exhibit A, an example of how Google manages to keep us in its Web in spite of itself. Indeed, in recent years, Google’s competitors have tried to differentiate themselves and woo Web users with strong design. Ask.com has long boasted a perfectly elegant and attractive landing page as well as superior results pages in terms of organization. Now Bing.com has replicated their basic concept, if less successfully, and also added a number of innovations to their results. By contrast, Yahoo’s approach has been to mimic Google on its cover, but utilize more structure in the results. Pleased as I am with what greets me when I land at Ask.com, I’ve made several efforts to make it my habitual launchpad for searching… without success.
“Why?”, you ask. The answer is staring you in the face. Turn your gaze to the upper reaches of this browser window. Chances are, there’s a search engine built right into your browser. That simplicity and accessibility trumps almost any inspired visual aesthetic and smart information architecture. That built-in search field, for which Google pays handsomely, is a testament to the power of being close at hand. If you can save a user even just a few seconds, you have them.
Postlude: It should be added that somewhere around 2010, Google welcomed a corps of designers with open arms. The overhaul of every Google property into a unified aesthetic and the development of a design philosophy — Material Design — has been a pleasure to watch. I reacted to the “programmer aesthetic” noted above circa 2009. See for yourself.