tristanperry - 11:48 am on Sep 29, 2010 (gmt 0)
I can't remember the stats for people who look beyond page 1, but it's low. From a user POV, this is not very disruptive, and will encourage use of refinement in the "cool, new Instant feature". Why click through endless pages of unrefined links, when you can type another word and get exactly what you want?
I agree that the basic idea of having another search box instead of pagination might be good for a typical user.
Although I personally think that Google Instant is AWFUL for a typical user. It's got really poor usability. A typical user types fairly slowly (y'know the kind - looks down, types a letter, looks back up at the screen, types another letter, looks back up at the screen etc)
For them, Google Instant will be confusing as heck. I'm fairly experienced and I still find Instant annoying since the page transforms and shifts around you as you type (and usually it guesses what you'll be typing wrongly, thus showing irrelevant results)
So yeah, I personally don't think that Instant is a good idea for a typical user.
And whilst I agree that from a usability perspective, having dozens of pages of results can be daunting. But I feel that relying on Google Instant to implement this will be even more daunting for a typical user.
Just my $0.02.