Examples of how hard it is to be deliver quality experiences across different products designed by different teams. Yes, they have a design system but that’s just the UI.
"Learned behaviour" works for Google products for exactly as long as they decide to keep the current version of the interface :) I feel like I usually get a couple years out of it, just enough to build up the muscle memory, then there's some small but significant change that renders it useless.
Most recent example for me: I put my Pixel 3 on Aeroplane Mode when I go to bed. Until the most recent update (10?), I could swipe down from top of screen and I'd get three rows of icons. I'd hit Aeroplane mode, which was in its default position (on my device at least) in the third & bottom row in the centre.
After the update, they reduced the size of the icon grid to only two rows. To get to the Aeroplane Mode icon, I suddenly had to do an additional swipe to the side to get to the next screen.
You can re-arrange the icons on this panel, which I did, but even now a month or two after I still occasionally reflexively reach for the old position. Less and less, of course, but still, the whole thing was annoying.
Not a huge deal, but I feel like this process happens to me in almost every Google application. Not just Google, of course - I see this more and more in a lot of software - the value of learned behaviour is not accorded the priority I think it needs.
I can use GMail, but don't tell me the choices are intuitive or that I don't need to try & fail every operation I rarely do besides opening up the most recent mail. The technical backend makes it managable, but the user interface is clearly in the way.
The funny thing is everyone copying Google's Material Design, and doing it way better in most cases.
Even the list of emails and their preview (master-detail layout) took long time to implement and it was in "Laboratory" settings or something like that
I think the point is that in your periferal vision, they all look alike. Difference in color is a lot easier to spot without having to focus directly on the item in question.
It's hard to tell if Google (and Microsoft, Apple, etc) are deliberately choosing to favor visual appeal or if they are just ignorant to usability fundamentals.
imo the author is playing dumb. He really doesn't know the difference between "starred" and "important"? He really couldn't be arsed to hover the important icon next to a conversation for a clue? Couldn't spend 20 seconds googling it? Does he actually have a suggestion for a better one word summary of the features, or does he think that a feature shouldn't exist if it isn't crystal clear to 100% of users when they encounter it for the first time?
