There are many things I would like to change about Google

There are many things I would like to change about Google, but mostly the “feedback” process does not listen or remember. I do not like to shout to be heard. I have used Google since it was born. It is too scattered and never finishes things. I think it is that all the departments are isolated from each other and the whole is not a single living organism with coherent goals and memory.

I have written many comments and suggestions, intended to help the world through Google. I do not think my words are difficult to understand, but they won’t be understandable by one-shot methods.

Calculations, deep answers, global issues, sharing archives.

Random sample search results.

Statistical analysis and reporting of what Google has learned from the Internet on behalf of the human species.  Global open resources.  AIs with permanent memory, serving all 8.1 Billion humans.

You sent a survey and I said I did not get the transcript.  It was sent to my gmail that I seldom use because it is hard to read and use. I asked about Gemini and that led me to look closely at how that Gemini page was constructed. I am reviewing Chrome browser source code and looking at why it takes so many people to maintain. When web page construction and maintenance and site operations are so difficult, much does not get done. Or attempted.

Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation

Yes, I recognized you were from the Google Disability Support Group.  For the Internet Foundation I deal with accessibility for the whole Internet. So when there is a question about accessibility and use of any Google product. particularly where it affects readability and and finding answers, I expect a group like yours might understand. The Gemini group itself if pretty closed.  The most obvious lack is that “AI” is not provided with any information about itself. So it will tell you what was stored in its database about the birth of the universe or odd facts from old movies, but not answer “What does Gemini Advanced do and what does it cost?”

Much of the Internet groups say the are “sharing” these days, then neglect to explain basics when people are new to a topic, regardless of their age or experience or background. That is a fundamental “accessibility” issue.  On the Internet there is much knowledge that is not accessible, simply because the groups do not give critical information, or withhold explanations. That is true for billions of humans in the world trying to learn. But I watched a video about a young woman from a poor state in the US where she did not get basic information about going to college. So she was discriminated against and many opportunities let go by, because she did not know things only learned in rich schools.

Many sites on the internet will offer to share things and neglect to give the tools required, in a form they can be used by people without tons of equipment and insider setups.

Sorry, I know.  Not your problem.  But I think of those things constantly.

I did find something that might be of interest to you.  I review a lot of software where it runs on operating systems, and online too. So I reviewed Maple and Wolfram (mathematics tool kits, rather expensive ones). They use the popular pastels everywhere and think “that is the trendy thing to do”. but it does not meet ADA or Internet contrast recommendations. To cut to the chase, in the source are the icons, images and fonts. In principle, one could simply replace those with more accessible forms and make the buttons visible.  I did that on where the icons now are too low contrast.

I am too tired just now to write more. In fact, I am really sick today and should not be spending so much time trying to map things and improve them.  I spent tens of hours this last week reviewing the Chromium source code because it too is nearly impossible to make accessible in many ways.  The reason ultimately is that Google and others are not approaching it as an integrated tool for all Internet users (about 5 Billion now) but as a vast and sprawling “open source”  problem they inherited.  It should have gone to Google.Org or an organization that would care about the world. It is probably a loss as a commercial effort.

The “localisation” is an accommodation for users with different languages.  But is is implemented by clumsy tables and source code where people from those languages are not allowed to make changes. Its source is not open by caveat, but not open by bad design.

Sorry, pretty much no one cares about these things. And after 26 years of the Internet Foundation, I care, and often know what to do, but am just getting too worn out. I spent more than a year working with the leading AIs, but those groups are only making things to sell to justify the huge investments, not for the good of people who might need help. Or who need tools and knowledge. But AI corporations have no patience to do things properly. And are too busy posturing to be of assistance to others.

The “helps” in all of Google are really bad. They are bad on most all the larger sites. The AIs could help, but they do not listen and remember, and particularly do not explore why people use their sites in the first place.  “We do our jobs and users have to live with it, no matter what”.

Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation

9 Apr 2024 – Broadening the review of Google Chromium to all public Google projects. Fragmented methods in their public projects stem from similar methods in all Google internal systems, procedures and policies. Node methods affect all related entities. Global nodes affect the human species.

Richard K Collins

About: Richard K Collins

Director, The Internet Foundation Studying formation and optimized collaboration of global communities. Applying the Internet to solve global problems and build sustainable communities. Internet policies, standards and best practices.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *