Though it's hard to take too seriously an article that includes the words, ' For Plus, cards are effective in the same way that Brutalist architecture is; there is an ordered beauty to the cardified Plus. But there is no love.'
Reshared post from +The Bruce, Mile High
Design principles and the evolution of Plus
Really interesting article on how the new look of Plus+ came about. I'm not sure I'm recognizing all the elements described in the article as being successfully implemented in this go round, but some interesting theories at play. Cards, play, get it? 😉
I was wondering why some pictures blew out across multiple columns — I'll have to play with this a bit to see if it is really context sensitive to whom or what subject matter it thinks is important to me.
And lastly, I've noticed most people only mentioning two columns, which was what my "new" look had initially. I tried this after seeing a reference in the article — if you have a big monitor and spread your browser out, you get yet more columns of stream.
Still, as +Dave Hill, observed, it would have been nice to have provided users with more design/format control as well. I'd really like to be able to insert bulleted or numbered lists and perhaps some control of indent to indicate quotation.
(h/t +Robert Pollard )
#googleplusupdate
Google Maps, Google Plus, Cards, and the Evolution of the Company’s Design.
+Dave Hill : Though it's hard to take too seriously an article that includes the words, ' For Plus, cards are effective in the same way that Brutalist architecture is; there is an ordered beauty to the cardified Plus. But there is no love.'
Its The New Yorker. I think they are contractually obligated to be ridiculously pompous a minimum of twice an article.
(When I worked at RH/BB, The New Yorker was a sister publication.)
If I said that I actually kinda like Brutalist architecture, would that make me the perfect target audience for Google+? 😉