4 ms·

I often hear rationalizations about how x couldn't be built with graceful degradation in mind. There certainly are _some_ examples (games, for example). But GMa

I often hear rationalizations about how x couldn't be built with graceful degradation in mind. There certainly are _some_ examples (games, for example). But GMail doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling example. GMail is also _just content_. The fancy ajax interactions, though nice, are hardly required for an email client.

afarrell 10y ago
I think doing what they do, having a less-fancy separate client, is less complex.
sanderjd 10y ago
This is a-historical by my memory - the entire reason Gmail became so successful was that its use of "fancy ajax interactions" made it shockingly nicer to use than any of its competitors at the time. I think if one of your main selling points is interactivity afforded by javascript, then it is unlikely to have much return on investment to accommodate users who don't want that. But for sure people should be thinking harder about what their selling points really are - the market for "it's better because of ajax!" is probably tapped out.
- FroshKiller 10y ago
  AJAX isn't why Gmail became successful. What set Gmail apart from its competitors was the huge amount of initial storage you got (1 GB for free at a time when Hotmail offered less than 10 MB for free), a higher maximum attachment size (25 MB compared to the webmail standard 10 MB), Google search, and conversation view. All of which, by the way, worked with the AJAX-free basic HTML view.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Also the spam filtering was years ahead of it's time
  - qu4z-2 10y ago
    I had forgotten how big a change conversation view was compared to other webmail. Also for what it's worth, I still use the Basic HTML view because I find it a better experience, so AJAX was definitely not the selling point for me. The 1GB thing was a huge factor though.
    - cptskippy 10y ago
      For me, the basic view has always felt neglected and kind of halfassed. The full experience has fully styled UI elements where as the basic view just defaults to the browser defaults. Outlook does this too. To me it just feels like basic view is just v1.0 from 2004.
      - qu4z-2 10y ago
        It's definitely the uglier of the two views, no question. I prefer it functionality-wise though. It does less of its own window management, etc.
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    Well, I doubt either of us have statistics for what really drove its success (and if you do, I'll gladly cede the point), but anecdotally, I and a lot of my friends at the time switched to Gmail not because we needed more storage (I don't remember even thinking about that as a problem with Hotmail at all) but because the interface was way better. If anything, I think it had more to do with the "cool" factor of getting an invite and the cachet of Google at the time than with the storage. But I freely admit this just personal experience talking.

afarrell 10y ago

I think doing what they do, having a less-fancy separate client, is less complex.

sanderjd 10y ago

This is a-historical by my memory - the entire reason Gmail became so successful was that its use of "fancy ajax interactions" made it shockingly nicer to use than any of its competitors at the time. I think if one of your main selling points is interactivity afforded by javascript, then it is unlikely to have much return on investment to accommodate users who don't want that. But for sure people should be thinking harder about what their selling points really are - the market for "it's better because of ajax!" is probably tapped out.

FroshKiller 10y ago
AJAX isn't why Gmail became successful. What set Gmail apart from its competitors was the huge amount of initial storage you got (1 GB for free at a time when Hotmail offered less than 10 MB for free), a higher maximum attachment size (25 MB compared to the webmail standard 10 MB), Google search, and conversation view. All of which, by the way, worked with the AJAX-free basic HTML view.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Also the spam filtering was years ahead of it's time
- qu4z-2 10y ago
  I had forgotten how big a change conversation view was compared to other webmail. Also for what it's worth, I still use the Basic HTML view because I find it a better experience, so AJAX was definitely not the selling point for me. The 1GB thing was a huge factor though.
  - cptskippy 10y ago
    For me, the basic view has always felt neglected and kind of halfassed. The full experience has fully styled UI elements where as the basic view just defaults to the browser defaults. Outlook does this too. To me it just feels like basic view is just v1.0 from 2004.
    - qu4z-2 10y ago
      It's definitely the uglier of the two views, no question. I prefer it functionality-wise though. It does less of its own window management, etc.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  Well, I doubt either of us have statistics for what really drove its success (and if you do, I'll gladly cede the point), but anecdotally, I and a lot of my friends at the time switched to Gmail not because we needed more storage (I don't remember even thinking about that as a problem with Hotmail at all) but because the interface was way better. If anything, I think it had more to do with the "cool" factor of getting an invite and the cachet of Google at the time than with the storage. But I freely admit this just personal experience talking.