Yeah. That's the problem I have with Google. They have functionality that's second-to-none, but they have no taste for visuals. I'm debating moving entirely over to MobileMe for email, for instance, forsaking lack of tabs for the sake of not hating my screen when Gmail's showing. (I also find it funny that Google-leaving founders have the same taste: FriendFeed's visual update is one of the few updates that was noticeably a step backwards.)

And for the love of God, you're right. That is embarrassing logo if I ever saw one. Writing the message out in plaintext, the logo itself, and the miniature scaling... I was hoping Knol could actually look BETTER than Wikipedia, and this is not looking good.

That begs an important question: What's good design?

Good design in a magazine print ad is different from good design on a fashion blog is different from good design in a web app or a mail client.

So good design should be judged in terms of what it's supposed to do. In that light it seems the best design for Gmail is that which gets in the way least, because it's efficiency that counts when you're using it.

It's a matter of form follows function, always. But form includes the impression the end user gets. That's why big buttons don't always work.

For Knol, that feel ought to include a stately manner. Something large buttons don't convey well.

With Gmail, there's quite a lot of clutter. Google tends to have a lot of clutter. Curves where you don't need curves, visual tics that don't have to be there. the ribbon that highlights the Inbox. The bulkiness of the selector.

I noticed this on Windows, much more now that I'm on a Mac. Google wastes pixels not for functionality but for this idea of a design. They could smooth it out, add much more color contrast, make things more usable while still looking nice, without much of an effort. But they rarely do. Gmail and Google Reader are the two hugest offenders, I find; Maps and their actual Search are good comparisons, because very little space is wasted.