Thirteen years ago today, Google killed Google Reader. In 2023, The Verge wrote a great piece about the shutdown:

Google’s feed-reading tool offered a powerful way to curate and read the internet and was beloved by its users. Reader launched in 2005, right as the blogging era went mainstream; it made a suddenly huge and sprawling web feel small and accessible and helped a generation of news obsessives and super-commenters feel like they weren’t missing anything. It wasn’t Google’s most popular app, not by a long shot, but it was one of its most beloved.

In the essay, Google Reader is presented as a victim of Google+. I was at Google when Google+ was announced and can corroborate the feeling of an end of an era at the company. The first large internal presentation was a shell shock: the arrival of secrecy, bureaucracy, corporate delusion, inevitable sycophants following not-so-inevitable bozos. But perhaps it was the opposite – Google as a company would have changed anyway, and Reader just randomly ended up being among the early beloved things that stood in the way. (I mean, arguably, Google changing for the worse destroyed even Google Search since.)

I am worried about the open web, but excited seeing some resurgence in RSS usage, and more and more people wanting to come back to the feeling of control, care, and intentionality that using Reader represented. Just a few months ago, Roger Wong found himself reflecting on Reader, too:

What gets me is that the vision Wetherell drew on that whiteboard—a single place to follow everything you care about, organized by your taste, shared with people you trust, and non-algorithmic—still doesn’t fully exist. RSS readers are the closest thing we have, and they’re good enough that I’ve built my entire reading and writing practice around one. But the curation layer Wetherell imagined is still unfinished.

I’m introducing a new tag to Unsung, software eulogies, which right now encompasses Aperture and Reader.

One has to be careful about nostalgia since it has its own gravity and can corrupt as much as a runaway World of WarCraft virus. “They don’t make them like they used to” is a potent drug that can make us disinvested in shaping the future, but it is also true that, well, we don’t make software like we used to. Part of Unsung is about finding inspiration in history, and while each one of us can miss a certain era of computing, certain machines, and certain software for whatever reasons we choose to – healthy or not – I do believe we collectively miss Aperture and Reader for the right reasons that are worth listening to.

A nice moment in Google Maps – if you are travelling by public transit, an indicator shows not just the current stop on the list in real time, but also exactly where you are in between stops:

It’s not just something traditionally delightful, a cute big icon moving smoothly. I also think it’s very helpful. Travelling in a new place can be stressful and station names look similar; it’s nice to orient yourself without having to go back to the map, and if the indicator only always pointed to a station, it would introduce off-by-one errors (“was it the last station, or is it the next one”)?

Plus, I think any design features that help your brain transition between abstract (list) and physical (map) views are very welcome.

My suggestion would be to consider making it pulsating and/or blue to tie it better together with the current GPS position, which has had the same visual signature since 2007.

I know I just mentioned the Google Search app, but I’m also in the process of disentangling myself from Google and Gmail after last week’s Google I/O revelations.

On that note, this is an interesting, meandering essay by Ernie Smith at Tedium, reflecting on the enshittification of Google and the two-year anniversary of &udm=14, a simple site that removes AI from Google’s search results:

I spent two hours of my life building a thing. Google has probably spent thousands, if not millions, of collective employee hours building all their AI innovations. And for a surprisingly large number of people, the two-hour workaround I built wins out. There’s a lesson in that.

Somewhere in the middle, the essay transitions into talking about the value of good tools and single-serving websites:

Our world needs more, smaller tools that speak the same language, where everyone makes a little money, but nobody dominates the industry. In the 1980s, the software industry was kind of like this. Oh, sure, Microsoft and Apple were still out front, sucking up all the oxygen. But there were lots of little companies, selling software on disks. The bigger ones put them in boxes in stores. The smaller ones realized that they could just ship software through the mail and let the software spread naturally among user communities.

Shareware didn’t really survive the internet era—but, at least for a while, its spirit did. More recently, that spirit has taken a backseat to the larger companies that realize, if they’re big enough, they can shape how we interact with our world.

In 1991, if you wanted to start a software company, you had to hope that your product was good enough that word of mouth and a P.O. Box could push it around. That’s exactly what happened when Tim Sweeney released ZZT. It became the starting point for Epic Games, the kind of company that today is big enough that, thanks to its Unreal Engine and the success of Fortnite, it can dictate terms to much of the gaming industry.

If you ask me, I want a world where more software is like ZZT than it is like Fortnite, because more people have a chance to succeed in the former environment.

Previously in this general category, we covered Keyhole and (Gmail) Simplify. If you have a favourite small tool or a simple tool-like website, I’d love to hear from you!

Do you know those “Are you still here” screens? In some cases – like banking – they are ostensibly there to improve security. In public transit ticket or similar machines, on the other hand, they exist just so the machine can easily reset itself ahead of a future customer.

Resetting to default state happens on your phone, too. I’ve been thinking about it this past week and found a few examples.

The Google Search app comes back how you left it, except if you abandon it for longer than 45 minutes. If that‘s the case, it returns to a pristine, deterministic homepage. (You can always come back to the previous session, though.)

When you pause a podcast or music, at least in my setup, it will be on the home screen for 5 subsequent minutes – you can then resume it by simply tapping on your AirPods. But leave it dormant for longer than that, and the home screen forgets about it and resuming is impossible:

My favourite: if you swipe through the apps back and forth on the iPhone in a touch UI equivalent of command-tabbing, there needs to be a specific moment where the app you switch to becomes the “current” app. On desktop, it’s easy – you can reset the state at the next invocation of ⌘⇥. But there is no such obvious moment on mobile.

When there is no obvious moment, timeout can be a great answer. And so it is here, and it seems to be set at about 5–6 seconds:

I understand the Google Search and the app switching examples. But I am not sure I know why a podcast resets so soon. A challenge when talking about this without seeing the code – as it is with many things on Unsung – is that I don’t know if this is carelessness, a technical limitation, a design consideration I’m unaware of, or just something that’s intentional, but I happen to disagree with. Even testing this has been hard if the delays are longer than seconds.

The extra challenge for Google Search, as it is for many other apps, is that they also reset when iOS itself purges it to make room for other apps. This isn’t great, and can be avoided if you care; we talked before about Bear and how it remembers its precise state even after the system evicts it from its memory.

Whether you want your app to remember you forever, or whether you want some deliberate forgetfulness, it could be important to take ownership of that. My go-to example of a miss in this category is Google Maps, which completely throws away its current trip-in-progress status whenever the iOS kicks it to the metaphorical curb – and returning to that status later again as a user is a really complicated sequence of steps including rewinding back the time, on top of travel already being stressful.

By the way, I can think of fewer examples on the desktop, but that makes sense given desktop apps are less tactical, and given that ⌘Q exists.

But Spotlight does freshen itself up after about 7 or 8 minutes…

…and Raycast actually offers an option to set its short-term memory from between 0 seconds and three minutes, with the default being 90 seconds:

The biggest smallest GUI design schism between Apple’s platforms and Windows isn’t the black vs. white cursor or where to put the menu bar. It’s the presentation of keyboard shortcuts.

On a Mac, the shortcuts are iconographic. Command is ⌘. Option is ⌥. Shift is ⇧. Control is ⌃. Fn is 🌐. There are also icons for all the other non-printing keys, from the relatively well-known Tab (⇥), through the perennially confusable End and PgDn (⤓ and ⇟), to the absolutely cryptic Esc (⎋).

On Windows, the keyboard legends are mostly text. PC lost the icon battle in the early 1980s – IBM had them on their 1970s computers, worldwide, but apparently American users of the early IBM PC hated them – and the names are spelled out (Shift and Enter and Home), or close to it (Ctrl, Esc, PgDn, Prt Sc).

Why did Apple go this way? My speculation is the revered Braun and generally hi-fi hardware: a lot of stuff sold in Europe defaults to iconography in part because that makes exporting easier. Icons are also more compact – putting ⇧⌘C in a menu or a tooltip takes up a lot less space than Shift+Ctrl+C – and more beautiful when done well. Here’s Figma’s right click menu on Mac and Windows:

But there are also challenges, as icons are more cryptic and confusing. “Command” tells you something about itself out of the box, but “⌘” is completely abstract. (Arguably, only arrow keys and symbols like ⇥ and ↵ explain themselves visually.) The attendant issue is that icons are hard to talk about if you don’t know their names, hence tons of jargon like “propeller,” “splat,” or “beanie” for ⌘, for example.

It’s a hard situation. Here is one of Mac’s own menus being thoroughly inconsistent, and an example of CleanShot using both the icon and the label to be sure:

“Why not both” seems to be the best way in places you can afford it. Apple started doing that on the keyboards too, but it took them decades to get there for modifier keys alone. Even on the 2026 computers, many other keys like Esc and Tab are still single-legended:

With all that in mind, I want to show you what I saw the other day in Google Docs, on my Mac:

This is one of those cryptic things that I would love to understand the thinking behind. Because, on the surface, this breaks so many rules:

• A strange hybrid of Mac and Windows styling: some modifier keys are spelled out, and the others are iconographic. (It’s very strange to see ⌘ conjoined with others using a plus!)
• Complex and generally uncommon dual key shortcuts – to collapse the sidebar, you really need to press ⌃⌘A and then press ⌃⌘H, in sequence.
• Three-modifier-shortcuts are in general really unpleasant and Google Docs does not seem complicated enough to warrant them.
• (You can’t see that, but they’re also unreliable! ⌃⌘A ⌃⌘H doesn’t always work and seems to depend on where the focus is.)

There is also a visual argument that cannot be ignored. We’ve been there once before; if in your menu keyboard shortcuts start overwhelming the commands themselves, you are probably doing something wrong.

The only explanation for this I can think of off the top of my head is this: these were invented somewhere else (Word?) and inherited by Docs to respect motor memory of the users transition from the older app. That still doesn’t cover the presentation, plus there is a way for Docs to redesign the shortcuts to be better for people who are starting anew.

Ultimately, I think all of this also breaks a cardinal rule: it makes keyboard operation feel more scary and intimidating than it needs to be. Shortcuts are scary enough on their own, and they don’t need any help in this area.

A nice, but unpolished onboarding callout directing people towards a more useful shortcut, in Google Docs. I’m holding arrow keys without ⇧ here first, then with ⇧:

To improve it, I would add some sort of small celebratory “completed!” state, and auto-hide it afterwards; right now, it seems that it hides on a delay, likely regardless of what happens.

(Testing onboarding is hard because once it’s invoked it disappears forever. If you are worried about onboarding experiences in a place you work, please insist on easy toggles to bring it back for testing. And no, one-size-fits-all “reset onboarding” is too crude; ideally you can reset each specific one easily through a simple UI.)

Thank you to Ezra Spier for the tip.

If there was one go-to example of an impenetrable error message in the 1980s, it must have been this – popping up, for example, if your disk drive was dirty:

On some technical level, the options made sense: “Abort” would stop whatever you were doing, “Retry” would try to repeat the action, and “Ignore” would proceed as if there was no error. But in the heat of a moment, or seeing it for the first time, this was a puzzling choice to be asked to make. Not only were the words weighted improperly (the seemingly most innocuous action here, “Ignore,” was actually the only one that could do actual lasting damage), but it also wasn’t entirely clear what’s the safe thing to do to get out of the situation.

(The redesign of “Abort, Retry, Ignore” was “Abort, Retry, Fail,” and it wasn’t really a huge improvement.)

Last night, I installed Google Photos on my iPhone, and the first message that greeted me was this:

This is really a matryoshka doll of bad dialog presentation.

First: any buttons in a dialog should be labeled with enough information to keep me going. Here, both have generic labels, so now I need to pay attention.

Second: Even after reading, I have no idea what is the choice I’m making. I see the pathway marked “yes, keep it the way I had it” and, sure – this would be generally what I want from any given computer on any given Sunday. But what’s the actual alternative?

But the third, and most important one, is this: this dialog has no safe escape hatch. By now, in UX design, we established quite a few canonical escape hatches:

• a Cancel button,
• a × close box,
• a “No, thanks” link,
• a press of an Escape key.

But you can’t × this dialog out. The main button seems positive, but it also feels like I’m taking an action with consequences, and I don’t want to deal with that. There is a “No, thanks,” but it doesn’t feel like the other “No, thankses” I have seen – it’s juxtaposed with copy that makes it seem… a dangerous thing to choose.

And this last bit makes it a pretty serious design offense, because you are now messing with foundational stuff. You need to protect those escape hatches for the future; the moment you introduce hesitation into the mix and taint “No, thanks” as a concept, really bad things will start happening all across your product.

In real life, fire doors have to open outwards when pushed with body weight, aircraft stick shakers are impossible to ignore, and anti-lock braking systems do smart things even after your brain turns off its smart parts.

I know seeing a dialog like this would never happen in a moment of true panic, but sometimes I think of the user in their most absent-minded moment: trying to get their kids to hurry up for school, on hold with an annoying cable provider, with a cat looking like it’s about to jump up directly into a running toaster. A dialog on their phone pops up. If that dialog absolutely has to happen, what is the escape hatch it can offer so they can dismiss it safely if they cannot think about it at all?

This Google Photos screen needs a lot more rethinking and rewriting, but in its current incarnation, it desperately needs a clear and trustworthy escape hatch I can tap absentmindedly, just so I can get to my photos.

Column view cut its teeth on NeXT computers…

…and blossomed on early versions of Mac OS X…

…but where I thought it really shone was the first iPods:

This was perhaps the most fun you could ever have navigating a hierarchy of things; it made sense what left/​right/up/down meant in this universe, to a point you could easily build a mental model of what goes where, even if your viewport was smaller than ever.

It was also a close-to-ideal union of software and hardware, admirable in its simplicity and attention to detail. This is where Apple practiced momentum curves, haptics (via a tiny speaker, doing haptic-like clicks), and handling touch programmatically (only the first iPod had a physically rotating wheel, later replaced by stationary touch-sensitive surfaces) – all necessary to make iPhone’s eventual multi-touch so successful. And, iPhone embraced column views wholesale, for everything from the Music app (obvi), through Notes, to Settings.

Well, sometimes you don’t appreciate something until it’s taken away. Here are settings in the iOS version of Google Maps:

I am not sure why the designers chose to deviate from the standard, replacing a clear Y/X relationship with a more confusing Y/Z-that-looks-very-much-like-Y. They kept the chevrons hinting at the original orientation – and they probably had to, as vertical chevrons have a different connotation, but perhaps this was the warning sign right here not to change things.

I think the principle is, in general: if you’re reinventing something well-established, both of your reasoning and your execution have to be really, really solid. I don’t think this has happened here. (Other Google apps seem to use standard column view model.)

This is a typical iOS Gmail dialog that allows you to snooze an email so it resurfaces later:

If you invoke that function on an email that’s an order receipt, a new option appears:

It’s great to see this clever and thoughtful button which is likely the best option here. But:

• It reshuffles everything else, preventing motor memory from building. At this point, you can no longer rely on “bottom left” to always be “custom date,” and so on with other buttons. (One idea would be to put it at the back but draw attention to it visually, or at least make it span the entire row.)
• It doesn’t show you the inferred date, even though there already is a precedent for doing that – especially important here as the feature seems to be powered by AI, which can get things wrong.
• The icon heavily promotes the AI association, which is not that useful. It would probably be better to show a truck or some other visual signifier of “delivery.”

I have been enthralled with this tiny feature in Google Sheets called “Show edit history,” which premiered in 2019:

Mind you, it’s not unconditional love. The execution feels a bit clunky, showing the edit values in a pop-up rather than in situ, with formatting that feels too heavy, and an awkward “No more edit history” state rather than just disabling the button.

But! Just its very presence here is delightful. Version history is often this huge, comprehensive, perhaps disorienting mode you enter that by design deals with the entire file. It always feels like a longer trip:

But edit history reimagines the feature from the perspective of the cell. You can just peek inside, quickly and effortlessly. Right click menu, a few arrows, I learned what I needed, and I barely even moved my hand. It’s a perfect example of the rule “to make something feel faster, make it smaller.” It’s like picking your newspaper at your doorstep in your pajamas rather than having to dress up to go to the newspaper store.

(…he said, dating himself and perhaps also thinking of The Sopranos for some reason.)

This kind of reimagining of something that already exists (see: undo send in Gmail) can be really hard, and I don’t even imagine Google Sheets was the first with this idea – but for me seeing this remix was eye-opening, and it inspires me to this day.

In 2009, there was a strange one-off build of Chromium with a guy’s face in place of the close box:

If I remember the story correctly, this was neither a bug, nor an Easter egg, but instead a joke’y punishment for not delivering the correct asset on time.

This menu in Chrome feels like a surface running away from its creators:

I think cerebrally I understand the subtle difference between Show and Always Show, but is that difference worth it? Because at some point the repetitiveness and heaviness of that top section is casting a huge shadow over the rest of the menu.

I have an internal rule for adding a new menu item that happens to result in the longest string yet: think about the volume – the literal amount of pixels – you’re adding to the whole surface. Big menus are scarier, wide menus separate items from their shortcuts, submenus become harder to jump into, and so on. The economy of words can benefit in more ways than just the obvious ones.

But what made me a little nervous were the two grayed out options. What does it mean for something starting with Always Show to be grayed out here? What does it mean for something to be grayed out and enabled? My guess is that someone wired these without thinking too much about all the states, but it results in a stressful tension. Software should be making it very clear about what is under my control, and what is not.

Lastly, and this is almost funny: Full Screen is either 🌐F or ⌃⌘F, in all standard Mac apps. This alone is already confusing, as is Apple’s entire horrible Globe/Fn strategy (this is a story for another time), and I verified they both work independently in Chrome. How did they get conflated into one shortcut from hell is probably a really interesting bug somewhere – but also a sign no one is seemingly paying attention.

I recently learned of the OG App from 2022, which offered an ad-free, simpler experience to users frustrated with Instagram changes.

The app didn’t last – it couldn’t last – but it was a fascinating statement.

In a different corner of the internet, Michael Leggett, one of the former Gmail designers, created Simplify – an alternative “shell” to Gmail:

Hundreds of improvements (small and large) to streamline, simplify, and enhance Gmail’s design and functionality. Hide the features you don’t use, customize the ones you do including setting the list and message width and fonts.

It seems this attempt is not running afoul of any Google rules. I enjoyed reading about the project more on its website, especially this bit:

Bad design can occur for a number of reasons including but not limited to:

• Our needs as users are not well understood, prioritized, or aligned with the company’s goals.
• Entropy: The natural decline of products over time as the vision decays or blurs and new features are conceived without consideration of the whole and added faster than the system’s overall design and architecture can evolve to support them.
• Good design is hard. Good design is more than making a product pretty. It is about having the right capabilities in an intuitive, respectful, and well-crafted offering. I hope to expand on this topic in future posts.

I know ad blockers and “reader modes” exist, but these alternative shells go much further and change the original app’s design. I wonder what other examples of that are out there.

The state of menus on Google’s search result page: all inconsistent, most ugly, ignoring UI mechanics learned decades ago (for example understanding the importance of diagonal movement or supporting mousedown-drag-mouseup in addition to just clicking), with easily triggered buggy states, bad animations, and even clicks falling through.

I wouldn’t be so angry, but I use – or at least see – these all the time. I wouldn’t be so angry if we hadn’t learned how to make GUI menus well 30 or so years ago.

I don’t want to pin it all on browser makers; if the designers and engineers cared above, there are ways to make great menus in custom JavaScript. But I wonder why the web tech didn’t evolve quicker to provide well-built and stylable and accessible primitives for this kind of stuff. I would love to understand more why that didn’t happen. Even scrollbars and sliders still feel unfinished on the web, and those are much easier than multi-level menus.

Also, Gemini:

Are the mechanics of menus on google search page working well?

In terms of technical execution, the mechanics of Google’s menus are a masterclass in Interaction Design (IxD). They are designed to feel “snappy” even on low-powered devices, using a blend of instant feedback and carefully timed animations.

Skynet would probably love Papyrus, too.

A wildly fascinating 12-minute video from the always-hilarious YouTube channel Map Men about the reason for a surprising black spot that could be seen on Google Earth until 2012.

Reading the Wikipedia entry after watching the video adds extra color to the mystery, turning it more squarely into a “software quality” story:

Some scientists were initially skeptical that such an error could exist, since a signature was present in various global terrain data sets, such as the bathymetric data from the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans, which reported an elevation of 1 metre (3 feet) over the location of Sandy Island. Some data sets derived from satellite imagery indicated that sea surface temperatures were absent in the location, suggesting the presence of land.

I was surprised at this little thing that appeared in my Chrome Canary this morning.

It is rare to see an interface clean up after itself this way. This flew by quickly and wasn’t communicated very well, but I believe this changed my new tab page from this…

…to this:

Now, I said “surprised” and not “delighted” not just because the implementation felt a bit rough. I am also suspicious of the motivations, as Google’s sister iOS app played very fast and loose with this surface, literally moving the search bar from under my thumb in order to create room for features I would never use and could never remove. I suspect this is a preparation for something else that would take the place.

But until that day comes, this was an interesting gesture, and it’s really welcome to see a new tab harking back to the simplicity of Google from days past.