Context
While interviewing for a Google internship, I received the task to redesign the Google service of my choice. I decided on Google Scholar, Google's search for academic literature, because I love learning and believe that Scholar is a valuable resource that people should take advantage of.
I first redesigned Google Scholar in January 2006, conducting basic user research and creating a front-end prototype. As Scholar has evolved, I recently re-evaluated it and updated my redesign.
For the finishing touch, I designed a new Scholar logo that matches Google's cartoony style, using a diploma in place of the "l" and topping the "G" off with a graduation cap. Since brand plays a large role in first impressions, it is a key element in creating a successful service. As Google is known for having fun and user-friendly services, Scholar should demonstrate that with an academic twist.
The following screenshots (minus the last set) compare the existing Scholar (first image in every set) with my redesign (second image in every set).
Process: Evaluation of the Status Quo
I evaluated the purpose of Google Scholar: to promote learning and the sharing of knowledge. Understanding that, I looked for ways to improve Scholar as a user-friendly, academic resource. I asked students what types of resources they would look for if they were working on a project and I recorded their responses, which often included: "up-to-date sources," "a mix of physical and online sources," "credible sources."
As one who already uses Scholar, I had to look at the service from the perspective of a first-time user as well. I did a Scholar search and viewed the results in this mindset, taking note of any elements that seemed confusing or in need of improvement.
Process: Changes to the Forest
When I first viewed the page, multiple colors (two blues, bright green, black) competed for my attention, causing my eyes to jump around. They distracted me from viewing the results right away as I had wondered what significance the colors had and whether one color was more relevant for me.
I fixed this problem by creating color consistency in the elements on the page, using a scholarly sage green (green is associated with learning and growth). I designed Scholar to look as identical as possible in multiple browsers so that all users would receive the same experience regardless of their technology.
To make searching easier and more efficient for users, I added a subtle sage-colored line at the end of every result. The line is light enough to not distract, but it works as a visual cue for separating results while scrolling.
Process: Changes to the Trees
The results' headlines were hard to read in some browsers. So I made them bold but used sage (for links) and dark gray (for non-web sources) to prevent them from drawing too much attention. These colors have like saturations so that users move naturally from one result to the next (black would have stood out too much).
The second line of the result (green in Google's version) includes names (and sometimes a year) that are not clear. After some clicks, I learned that this line is the author and publisher. So I clarified this, placing "by" before the author and encasing the publishing information in parentheses.
When I saw the "Cited by" link, I thought of legal documents and became confused. I clicked and discovered that "cited by 95" means "cited by 95 sources." I then followed my science teacher's mantra ("Measurements must have units!") and added the unit "sources" after the number.
I used Google's notation to show that a result is a "book," but I made it larger, easier to read, and I incorporated that idea into PDF results. From experience, I've learned that users become frustrated if they've clicked a link only to find that it's a PDF which they must download to view.
I reordered the links in a result to be more relevant: a user would want to compare versions before looking at citations. I kept the feature of showing college resources that have the work (like the "find it @ Stanford" link) since they are highly valuable, particularly to a student.
Process: Sorting
The current Scholar allows users to skip to recent results or to sort the results by author, but a user may have the need to view older sources (such as the first publishings on a topic) as well as find a good mix of online and physical sources (often necessary for class papers). Scholar's current sorting uses two navigation bars: one horizontal bar in the sage green header and one vertical bar to the left of the results. These two forms of navigation compete for the user's attention and should be incorporated into one system.
I combined the sorting into one system using the bar at the left of the results and extended the ways in which a user could sort through results based on user need. Since users often look for up-to-date sources first, sorting by date was the most important method and, therefore, sits at the top of the navigation. As users usually need diversity in their sources, users would want sources from more than one author. With author being the next factor, sorting by author is second in the navigation (from top to bottom). The last sorting is by type (like "web" or "book"), which is included because users have need for a variety of source types, particularly when they are students working on a research project that requires this variety.
Process: Integration of Google Account
The star icon (modified from Gmail) next to a result allows users to "star" that source, saving it to their Google account. The account toolbar sits in the top right corner of the page (consistent with Google services) and includes a link to "My Sources," where users can access their starred sources regardless of whether they saved them yesterday or a month ago. This feature comes in handy if a user is working on a paper and needs to continually reference a source or if a user wants to incorporate a source into another project.