As stated in our previous post, 97% of people we have tested use Google. It is the first and only search engine most all surfers employ. Google’s simple yet efficient display has moulded user’s subconscious search habits and preferences so strongly that new interfaces departing from its model are almost destined to fail even if they do have a compelling offering.

The two/three column approach taken by Cuil challenges the habitualised search behaviour people have developed using Google; it is not intuitive to a world of searchers with an unconscious preference for Google’s linear format.

In addition to this, people are happy with Google, a sample of 90 people recently tested by Think, 86% said they wouldn’t use anything else.

Cuil was created by two former Google employees and it boasts to have the largest search capacity to date, but is that what users are really interested in? People have learned how to search efficiently in order to minimize the time spent searching so how does a 3 column layout with paragraphs of text going to align itself with the learned behaviour?

We tested a sample of 30 people using the new search engine to better understand this.

As shown in the heatmap above, Cuil’s 3 column layout promotes localized areas of attention. Fixations are concentrated upon the headers – this is also where participants clicked to access their desired internet pages. The top results acquired the largest amount of fixations, receding gradually from left to right and top to bottom. Results appearing below the category search box suffered from a low fixation count as they were the last in the viewing order. Although limited attention was paid to the category search box, people did verbalise a sense that this would be helpful.

Breaking from the familiar linear format of Google has lead to an inconsistency in people’s visual behaviour. The gaze plots below illustrate some of the representative paths taken. The many long saccades indicate that users were confused. The page layout is different to the familiar flow of Google and so breaks with the users’ subconscious models of how to search. We believe this is a fundamental problem that will prevent users adopting Cuil.

Users also verbalised their confusion and dissatisfaction:

“When you first see it, it looks too busy. I have to choose what I want to look at.”

“I don’t like the layout – it’s too long-winded; too wordy, and I tend to look at things in a list rather than a box layout.”

“I just looked at the headings instead of the black writing. You wouldn’t need to have so much text if you knew what you were looking for. I think there’s more info than you need on it. It’s just supposed to give you a link. There’s lots of things you don’t see because you don’t bother to scroll down for it.”

Cuil’s layout challenges, rather than takes advantage of, the habitualised search behaviour people have developed through years of using Google.

For this reason we think Cuil is currently destined to fail.