Why is Google so ugly?

I think you present an interesting point, but I disagree. I think the simplistic design not only makes things less confusing to navigate, but for every development that is made, it seems more impressive that such a "simple" site has such impressive features. I think a more complex design would be a huge mistake for google.

I can think of one site off the top of my head that (in my opinion) suffered greatly from a design overhall, that being allmusic.com. They opted for a more complex design and I think the site lost a lot of its personality.

I disagree. I believe the simplicity works for itself. Look at Yahoo, look at Lycos... they've filled the front page of their sites with stuff most people don't use. Google don't do that. They give you only what you need to get the job done. Everythings clear, everythings simple yet very powerful.

Just because it doesn't look like the current band-wagon (Web 2.0), doesn't mean it's ugly.

That, and I seldom take advice from someone on design who uses a slightly modified template for their own blog ;)

I fail to see how the front page of Google.com isn't clean, low clutter, or useful.

Couldn't the reason be that Google tries to minimize the load on the webservers? Just imagine what the cost of 10kb of extra pictures on the Google.com frontpage would increase the traffic cost - we are probably talking about billions of hits per day.

Google's logo, while simple to recreate, is their brand identity. Everyone who's used a computer in the last 3 years knows who or what Google is. To change an already successful brand, and to do so to keep the identity to keep up with the times is ludicrous, costly and moreover, pointless.

Microsoft's logo is easy to recreate. Pick the font Helvetica, set it to italic & bold... simple. But you don't see them changing their logo because it's too 80's, do you?

But maybe you should e-mail Google and let them know. I'm sure they'd care.

Google's services are used by the whole world. Google has to say attractive without adding or changing elements, because practically these elements could be accounted as risks. I know, for example, website design differ from country to country (let alone age groups et cetera). Google has to be attractive to everyone.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
Think about that for a second.

Mikey,

I have to strongly disagree as well. Coming from a graphic design standpoint, I like that they are simple, elegant and unique. There is no clutter or over-design in the logo at all. It says a lot about who they are, as any good logo would.

And the moment Google does redesign their logo, they'll be called out for jumping the shark.

I think Google should learn a lesson from newsvine who is clean, simple, and easy to use.

I can't even agree with the Newsvine point anymore as—though I hate to say it—more features are popping up in the same space, giving it a cluttered feel. Even Google's personalized homepage presents a lot of information to me in a concise, clean manner.

I think most WYSIWYG designer sites are going to have a handful of bad templates, but if you're going to pick those out alone and decry the entire organization's design... well, I guess I'd heed your point more if you were talking about the Video interface.

Two phrases come to mind:

Keep it simple, stupid.
If it works, dont fix it.

Hmm, preview is broken. Must remember to use
next time.

I always thought that the reason for google's simplistic design was to reduce the bandwidth load on the servers. Looking back at it though it may just be easier for most users to navigate if they're not bombarded with design elements. I get lost when too many elements are showing up at one time, or I just tune them out all together.

I have no problem with the home page but I agree with the author on all of Google's other projects. Simple and functional does not have to be ugly (ie. Apple). Everything they do has this 90's web-design feel to it. I am surprised they are not using image maps to build their sites. The few slick looking UIs that Google has have come from products that they have purchased. Google with all their money should buy a design firm and this would all be over.

I think Google proves the point that beautiful graphic design though not without its merits is not necessary to make a winning product or page. The design of Google pages, though sparse, do their job well and load quickly. Who would want anything else?

They're logo looks better than it used to.

http://www.google.com/">Circa 1998

And here's a collection of them dating all the way back to the time Google was Backrub. The second-to-last one may well be the most hideous thing ever, besides goatse.

And keep in mind Google values engineers, not so much designers. As Doug Edwards wrote on the Xooglers blog,

Google tended to hire smart Stanford grads and set them loose in the halls. If they didn't secure a role elsewhere, they ended up in marketing, where the assumption seemed to be that no special skills were required, as long as you could think quickly and were willing to work hard.

He also says that in the beginning Lary and Sergey handled everything, including UI design.

Andy Rutledge: Google Redux. It's worth a read. Google has serious design flaws. Anybody who denies that is just so use to it that they can no longer see this. Please read Andy's article as it is a far more in-depth review of Google's approach than just a few sentences of opinion.

I don't necessarily agree with the large blue bits, but the design, not the style, is the important bit of that articlw.

The tictac template though (3rd image in the column) is awesome and was designed by Dan the Man Cederholm who is not a designer to be sneezed at. You call that bad design? Phht. The blogger templates are phenomenal.

Its important to understand the people that work at google, a few that I have met. Basically they are all PHD or on their way, very smart and bright individuals. BUT, they are all engineers, computer scientists, and/or math people. Fitting that category myself and using the system and web-applications that I design and work on, I see many similarities. People like us just make it work, and try to make it clean and simple. We do not concern ourselves with sprinkles. I agree, they can polish it up and make it a little more "pretty" but at the same time I have to appreciate the simplicity and simple look.

Edward,

I've read Andy Rutledge's article before, and I honestly disagree with almost every point he makes. But the biggest mistake he makes is not addressing intuitiveness and familiarity. Quite simply, Google's interface has been used by billions over the past 8 years. Changing it so radically as he suggests should be a crime.

Intuitive interfaces aren't some a priori concept. What we call "intuitive" is a result of past experiences. If we've used an interface for 8 years, that interface becomes integrated into our concept of intuitiveness.

Look at how Google's interface has changed over the past 8 years. Much of what he circled and asked "why is this here" is what was added - account login, user preferences, business information, advanced search features. I think those things are separated 100% intentionally. If they were integrated more tightly with the other information on the page, it would dilute that intuitive experience we've all become used to. Things are compartmentalized and separated intentionally - to build upon the base interface which has become intuitive to all of Google's users.

And I know you said you agree with the design and not the style, but his entire point in the design was to be purposeful with his text placement. But look at the seemingly arbitrarily placed blue bar at the top of the page and the attention-grabbing blue gradient at the bottom. It's graphics for the sake of graphics and it undermines his entire argument.

Now, for all the people wanting Google to change it's logo, I also couldn't disagree more. Firstoff, as others have mentioned, the multi-colored Google type is Google's brand. People associate and connect with the brand, and changing it disrupts that. As far as claiming the brand looks unprofessional - grow up. Google's always said through their actions (employee dress code, company structure, innovations) that professionalism isn't measured by the dress code of employees or how ordinary and boring a logo is. The logo conveys an attitude that Google is creative, fun, and unique. I don't care if it looks similar to what you can whip up with your pirated copy of Photoshop and neither does Google.

I don't have a problem with the Google logo -- in fact I kind of like it. Everything else they do is atrocious though. Google Video is an absolute embarassment. It feels like walking into a really slummy adult video store.