Since this is the thread for "piling on", here's another.
The sickly blue text.
The same color text that has driven me away from Google news.
For news, I have now switched to Huff Post exclusively, because it is EASY TO READ.
I understand that Google studied 40 different shades of blue for usability. They picked a loser. Causes one to wonder just who did the picking. A biased product manager? I just can't imagine a "peer review" coming up with this.
That pastel blue on a white background ACTUALLY, TRULY, PHYSICALLY hurts my eyeballs. Why so skimpy on the contrast?
Have they not heard of Jakob Nielsen, usability expert?
There MUST be adequate CONTRAST between the text and the background.
In art, this is referred to as "figure and ground". If the "figure" is too similar to the background, it does not "stand out" in a manner that produces easy readability.
The best readability occurs with black text on a white background, just like you are reading right now. Dark blue on white is also a good choice. Pastel blue on white is a poor choice. Skimpy, wimpy blue which blends in with the white. HOW CAN GOOGLE POSSIBLY NOT REALIZE THIS?
I would much rather read a list of high-contrast-text channels, than a list of low-contrast-text channels. A list exacerbates the problem - like looking at a wall painted dull gray. The eyeball and brain must work harder and longer to separate the data from the noise.