They're pretty easy to spot if you've actually set the background image. If not, you get a default image and there's no way to go back to the white background other than uploading a white graphic.
The text only came up when I started using my mouse - if I just started typing, I would never have seen it. Also, the text was white, and happened to be positioned over a very light / white part of the picture, so I can understand how it could be missed.
Only after reading your post, I found a link labelled "Change Background Image" effectively camouflaged on the bottom left of the page, but this only allows me to select an alternative but equally obtrusive image.
There does not appear to be any immediate way to eliminate the background image entirely and revert to the clean, usable design that I expect from Google.
After you change the background image, the words change to 'Remove background image' which seems unintuitive since it puts the first background image back up.
I don't understand why Google is so into background image? Having feature is a good thing but imposing it on people is going to make them angry. I generally keep my browser homepage as Google, but this morning because of this background I had to change my homepage for today.
I'm pretty sure it's one of these one-day pranks google loves to do, like the pacman "logo", just a bit more intrusive and annoying then usual. Well, I hope so at least...
It can't possibly not be, if you'll pardon the double negative. There's no way they'd switch to white "Google" text after so many years' investment in the bright colours.
(Yes, I know Apple removed its colours, but that's different.)
I had no idea it even changed until I saw the stories in Google reader. I'm surprised by how many people are complaining and thus still use the Google homepage instead of the search bar in their browser. With all the major browsers having one (Safari, IE, Chrome, FF), what is the benefit of going to google.com directly? Legitimate question.
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted, but in any case, I didn't mean any disrespect to what the quote is about or to the parent poster. His comment just reminded me of this (from a purely stylistic point of view -- the subject matters are in completely separate universes when it comes to gravity), that's all.
I didn't downvote you, but I suspect that you were downvoted because regardless of whether or not you intended to be disrespectful to the quote, people feel that it's disrespectful anyway.
I would be hard-pressed to disagree with them - making any allusions to the WWII holocaust when we're talking about stylistic preferences for a search page is in pretty bad taste from where I'm sitting.
You're right. Sorry if I offended. The parent comment only triggered the style of the quote in my memory, and in that context I didn't really think about the content. But looking back, it's probably in bad taste, especially among strangers. If we knew each other, I'm sure it would be clear I meant no disrespect. Point taken.
frankly, its worse than bing. the page readability is miserable. Still moving the mouse to see the page load is my biggest gripe yet. That combined with the fact that it loses the search keyboards sometimes when I hit the back button (on firefox).
I tried the background image, but never see it since I use firefox search bar. I would guess that most advanced google users use an interface akin to the search bar wherein you don't see the google front page.
I've noticed a pattern every time any website launches a redesign: users immediately and vehemently dislike it; a couple of months pass; everyone looks back and wonders what the fuss was and would hate to go back to the old design.
I seem to be missing the part of DNA or conditioning that causes most humans to react negatively when anything familiar changes. I'm one of a rare breed who sees changes as intriguing or exciting (to a fault, I almost always like redesigns at first).
Crappy rotating background images are not a feature. I always remove them from every product, desktop, tool I have. I will NOT be "wondering what the fuss was" in a month.
So you have a preference for removing distracting cosmetic (non-functional) features. So do I. I probably will turn the background image off, but I could comfortably live with it.
Maybe I'm inferring too much, but your use of "crappy" and capitalising "NOT" suggests to me that this feature makes you angry. I think it's worth considering whether your reaction is a purely logical one, or partly an emotional one.
Pretty easily. If it's distracting or somehow bad for me, because of the aesthetics, I could dislike it for logical reasons.
If I open up a law firm and then the decorator puts a gigantic mural of H.R. Giger's work on the walls, I'd probably be less than happy, and not because of emotional reasons (although it would be pretty creepy). It'd be bad for business.
Similarly, if Google's new change increases load time or distracts me...
It changes my perception of the browser state, learned through years of familiarization. That I could get used to. But its a bad idea on so many other levels. Its an order of magnitude harder to compress, bogging down remote-terminal operation. It scrambles the desktop metaphor - I have multiple monitors, the browser is just one tool that is open, and now this circus-themed "background" stands out like a beacon but with no functional value whatsoever. It obscures controls (as widely discussed elsewhere) which is plain bad app design. It increases (marginally) load time. It "fades in" creating a distraction for the power user - my desktop doesn't dance around otherwise unless something significant is happening. Honestly, I have to wonder if you aren't emotionally defending Google, because these are mostly obvious reasons to detest this "feature".
But there is an argument to be made that this makes google look less clean. Even if the background is removed, there is an option in the lower-left corner, begging me to click it and look what is there. I don't really like it but it doesn't mark very high on my care-o-meter
>I've noticed a pattern every time any website launches a redesign: users immediately and vehemently dislike it; a couple of months pass; everyone looks back and wonders what the fuss was and would hate to go back to the old design. -spatulon
I've noticed a bias against change too, but sometimes the redesign is just worse. For example, the wait for mouse and then fade-in change to Google is just as obnoxious today as when it went live.
Free linkbait idea: somebody should make a few mockups of Google taking "design inspiration" from iconic elements of other famous brands. Google redone in wall-to-wall Coke Red with a cursive logo. Google with the O's replaced by the Obama logo and a stylized flag background. Google over a silohuette of a twenty-something typical along on a keyboard with stylish headphones on.
You could title this All Of These Are Better Ideas Than Taking Design Direction From Microsoft. (I say this purely for branding -- I kind of like the Bing look myself.)
Followed by "We're sorry - Our sponsor no longer wishes BitTorrent results to appear in this listing." (Or insert latest large ISP whipping target here).
Nah, this is pretty clearly a response to Bing. In fact, I've always suspected that the pretty images on Bing's homepage are a significant part of it's growing success. Most people just don't associate with Google's clean, academic approach to design.
I think it's moreso that some users haven't signed up for a google account (there must(!) be some) because they only use the search function and that's it. Well the background will jar them out of their complacency. When they go to change it, they'll need to sign in...serving up thousands of new google account users.
This doesn't make any sense. If all these users do is search, there's no benefit in them having a Google account. Sure there's saved search functionality, the data from which can be sold to advertisers, but Google already tracks searches in cookies anyway.
If this were the goal, it would just alienate users with the background, and inconveniencing them with a forced signup for next-to-no return.
Google should have learnt from Buzz. People do not like to opted in without their consent. If they had made changing background exclusive, a lot of people (even those complaining now) would want to try it out.
Whoever is in charge for this decision at Google, this shows very poor branding, customer and marketing skills. This looks like improvisation motivated by despair and panic. A junior's move...
I am switching to the www.google.com/firefox home page, it still has the lean dan mean looks.
As they say in French 'On ne fait pas le bonheur des gens contre leur gré', which translates to: you can't shove happiness in people against their will...
"Remove google background" button doesn't actually remove the background. It defaults to a background with a landscape and a metal slide? So, how do you remove the background?!
EDIT: even if it is forced for 24 hours, at least put a message up on the site or remove the non-working buttons!
No surprise. It is sad to see how going public is now making them force people to sign up for a google account. I'm switching to http://duckduckgo.com/
144 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 188 ms ] threadOnly after reading your post, I found a link labelled "Change Background Image" effectively camouflaged on the bottom left of the page, but this only allows me to select an alternative but equally obtrusive image.
There does not appear to be any immediate way to eliminate the background image entirely and revert to the clean, usable design that I expect from Google.
"You can remove your background image at any time by clicking Remove background image in the bottom left corner of the homepage."
But that just reverts it the default image, not the old white.
Edit: Actually it looks like the forced background is just temporary, for 24 hours, according to the Google Blog post: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/art-of-homepage.html
Guess someone was listening!
http://www.google.com/pacman/
One of the things I always appreciated about Google was its minimalism. Sigh.
http://timmy_c.posterous.com/google-ab-testing-feels-too-min...
(Yes, I know Apple removed its colours, but that's different.)
It's sure to be back to normal tomorrow.
http://www.google.com/search?q=remove+google+background
When they made the links at the top invisible until your mouse moved, I sighed and moved my mouse.
But now that Google looks like Bing, I just sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
In any case, well put.
I would be hard-pressed to disagree with them - making any allusions to the WWII holocaust when we're talking about stylistic preferences for a search page is in pretty bad taste from where I'm sitting.
I seem to be missing the part of DNA or conditioning that causes most humans to react negatively when anything familiar changes. I'm one of a rare breed who sees changes as intriguing or exciting (to a fault, I almost always like redesigns at first).
Maybe I'm inferring too much, but your use of "crappy" and capitalising "NOT" suggests to me that this feature makes you angry. I think it's worth considering whether your reaction is a purely logical one, or partly an emotional one.
If I open up a law firm and then the decorator puts a gigantic mural of H.R. Giger's work on the walls, I'd probably be less than happy, and not because of emotional reasons (although it would be pretty creepy). It'd be bad for business.
Similarly, if Google's new change increases load time or distracts me...
But there is an argument to be made that this makes google look less clean. Even if the background is removed, there is an option in the lower-left corner, begging me to click it and look what is there. I don't really like it but it doesn't mark very high on my care-o-meter
I've noticed a bias against change too, but sometimes the redesign is just worse. For example, the wait for mouse and then fade-in change to Google is just as obnoxious today as when it went live.
You could title this All Of These Are Better Ideas Than Taking Design Direction From Microsoft. (I say this purely for branding -- I kind of like the Bing look myself.)
-Sent from my fold-able 24" touchscreen running Android with 4G and an always-on 3-year battery.
Time travel? I'll buy that. A 3-year battery? Hahahahaha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery
Problem solved.
I personally like it. Nothing wrong with big beautiful images that do not slow page load times.
https://www.google.com/
I don't think their backgrounds are a response to Bing at all.
Somebody high up at Google (won't name any names) is a sincere, enthusiastic patron of the arts, and wants to share the gift of art with the world.
(I love art, but I think this mission is misguided, and wrong place, wrong time.)
Google has had TONS of novelty background/skin campaigns for iGoogle, Chrome, and other properties. (Often including prominent artists and designers.)
The home page is just the most recent victim.
The problem is not about quality of the art, which is usually great. It's just about it serving the user/tool, which it doesn't.
I do like the holiday/themed Google logos (pacman anybody?). But I consider those a completely different initiative.
Anyway... I repeat: It's not a Bing thing. It's a bring-art-to-the-masses thing. :/
If this were the goal, it would just alienate users with the background, and inconveniencing them with a forced signup for next-to-no return.
The phrase 'opt in' is getting mangled way beyond its original meaning of "don't share my data unless I say so."
I am switching to the www.google.com/firefox home page, it still has the lean dan mean looks.
As they say in French 'On ne fait pas le bonheur des gens contre leur gré', which translates to: you can't shove happiness in people against their will...
EDIT: even if it is forced for 24 hours, at least put a message up on the site or remove the non-working buttons!
Occasionally to look up a technical error/issue I have to go back to google; but you can search google directly from duckduckgo with "g! [your-query]"