this is 100 times better than the digg story's redesign.

sure its better than the redesign, but it still has issues.

1. "sign in" looks as though it is part of the image. it shouldn't be grouped like that, is very unintuitive, and will change location whenever the google image changes.

2. you are missing the "I am feeling lucky" button. Believe it or not _people_actually_use_it. I know I do.

3. again with the point above, you are missing things. personalized home, google business links, advanced search, etc..

4. your page requires more code that runs on the server. on every page request i have to figure out what menu option was selected in the drop down, and then write javascript code to go select that item in the drop down automatically. for text browsers, mobile devices, javascript disabled, this won't work. the current method is simply a different page with the text not linked.

> 1. "sign in" looks as though it is part of the image.
> it shouldn't be grouped like that, is very unintuitive, and
> will change location whenever the google image changes.

It will always be in that positon along with the Google logo :)

> 2. you are missing the "I am feeling lucky"
> button. Believe it or not _people_actually_use_it.
> I know I do.

Absolutely – "feeling lucky" will be part of the select box.

> 3. again with the point above, you
> are missing things. personalized home,
> google business links, advanced
> search, etc..

All directly available after the "more >>" link.

> 4. your page requires more code
> that runs on the server. on every page
> request i have to figure out what menu
> option was selected in the drop down, and
> then write javascript code to go
> select that item in the drop down automatically.

No, you don't need JavaScript to do that (and I could make the code leaner than what Google has now).
Turn off JavaScript in your browser and go to my http://findforward.com – enter something in the search box, and check "old pages". Then click "Find". As you can see, it works without JavaScript.

I must admit I think yours is simplicity just for the sake of simplicity, which I find wrong...

While digg actually did some analysis of the current design and improved it both by making the site more stylish and in the same time seperating things, you simple seem to cut things away...

Personally I think the google website is old fashion, but it does the trick (And I use it, don't take me wrong). But many people on the net are claiming it is because of the simple design, that Google has gotten so popular... I don't think this is correct.

Google has a great algoritm (correct spelling?), but I don't find it so much better than e.g. Yahoo... I think the primary reason Google got so popular is because people got tired of the interfaces of Yahoo and other search engines being so filled with all sorts of unrelated crap...

So practically I say Google is the lesser of two evils... design wise anyways...

i'll have to agree with everything Phillip just said.

i'll also add that simplicity isn't the only thing that made Google so popular but it's one of the things. simple, neat... like my apartment... just the way i like it.... hehe

I have to agree...it's a pretty ugly design.

Remember Philipp that Google knows all ... so the "sign in" is redundant – either remove it or replace with "signed in" ;-)

NICE!

The other redesign was total ass. This is beautiful minimalism. Me likey.

I think that the digg post and link had some good ideas (such as design philosophy), but the resulting page was very un-Google-like. It just looked so very....Web 2.0, with gradients and rounded corners.

Your's is simple, and functional, though I'm still wondering if a drop-down would increase the time spent entering the search.

Maybe one day, Google will let us all design our own page....

oh wait, we can sort of do that now with personalized home...

never mind...

Very nice! I love this design Philipp.

Google should NOT put the commonly used search types (web, images, groups, news, froogle and local search) inside a dropdown box. Much less functional than the links. With the links you're faster and you see the options.

Ok, let's start again
http://pure-google.blogspot.com

andy rulez. maybe just there definitely need to be some more..., so i would put it absolutely right bottom.

I don't like the idea of having to click twice to change what type of search I'm doing. But your dropdown menu does allow users to enter a search, Tab to the dropdown and hit I for images, L for local, etc. Then users could Tab to the search button. Your design, unlike Google's current one and the one found in the digg article, allows you to change categories and search without the mouse. So it doesn't matter if you need to click twice if using the mouse. Overall, I like! :-)

That's actually not half bad.

Mm, I actually hate drop down menus. Dunno if this can be the best solution, or the worst... In my opinion it feels definitely better to have a 4-5 elements' menu with the basic function AND a drop down menu.
But maybe I'm just wrong... nice try ;)

"I don't like the idea of having to click twice to change what type of search I'm doing"

It is the same amount of clicks as Google (except for I'm feeling lucky)

However, I do agree with you, I hate drop down searches, I'm not sure why but drop down boxes in general always annoy me. Personally I'd be happiest with lots and lots of type="submit" buttons with the different options below the search bar (I go for functionality over aesthetics).

U guys suggestions are great!!!

How nice if google comes out something like voice recognition search engine, so we dont need to click here and click there.

What do you think?

> How nice if google comes out
> something like voice recognition search
> engine, so we dont need to click here
> and click there.

Good at home, not so good in the office.
"Bitney Spears."
"What did you say?"
"No no, I was talking to Google..."

You might not know, but they had it in the Labs. http://labs1.google.com/gvs.html
(Of course, it doesn't work anymore. Google is now too serious for these things.)

Here, in Brasil, the 'popular knowledgement' say: "Em time que está ganhando, não se mexe" (falantes de português de plantão, me ajudem a encontrar algo semelhante a isso em inglês), something like "If the team is winning, if the things are going ok, you should not change it."
Well, nobody know certain if Google has gotten so popular: *because* its simple design; *despite* its simple design; or *indifferently of* its simple design. Does Google know?
Why change the design, so? If the things are going ok (i.e, the most popular search engine), why change it?

PS: Sorry my (poor) English.
PS2: Thanks Google translation tools.

Didn't that phone voice thing only allow one person at a time? They might need to accomodate a little more capacity now :)

Veky,

Thanks for the tips.

How about this redesign:
http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/http://www.google.com/

By the way, the logo in that design still lives on in the Google 404 page:
http://www.google.com/i.html

i want 2 interviweesnyfhg

I think Google should replace the links "Images", "Groups", .. etc, with the links that just add additional search commands, like "filetype:", "related:", "site:", there could be "images:", "groups:", "froogle:"... maybe.

Two good pages of re-design concepts:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004394.htm

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004385.htm

Google actually implemented your idea. Today, when checking their page it gave a selection box next to their search box.

Tamer, they are still experimenting with this. Probably when you check again, the select box is gone...