5 ms·

I like that Thunderbird exactly looks like what it looked like when I started using it in 2005, 18 years ago (save for the OS theme in use). Though I would not

by jraph 4y ago

I like that Thunderbird exactly looks like what it looked like when I started using it in 2005, 18 years ago (save for the OS theme in use). Though I would not mind some refresh. Many (younger? and as young as me, actually) people who are used to webmails and mobile apps find it ugly, and I can see that. The world is missing a fast and efficient desktop mail client that looks good and I'd be glad if Thunderbird were it. There's a world in which the Thunderbird team understands they have a huge number of long time users and they should be careful to keep it usable for them, where they will take feedback and in which they build something that doesn't suck for people who don't now it yet, and this world could be ours. Wait and see? I understand the concern and that many people are worried, I also don't quite like the trend of UIs with a lot of space lacking contrast everywhere, but I think a good outcome is actually likely.

mulmen 4y ago
No. If you want a “pretty” email client go make one and see how it does. Stability is the number one feature I want in a UI. The only other concern is responsiveness. Literally nothing else matters.
- jraph 4y ago
  > go make one It's not like it's easy. It crossed my mind a few years ago, actually. But why should I when the email client I actually happen to use decided to actually rebuild its interface? I'm not the one who is unhappy, I'm happy either way actually, I could answer "go fork Thunderbird if you are not happy". There was an interesting talk at FOSDEM by OpenProject on how to handle UI revamps [1], there are ways to do it without breaking current users. I recommend it, I'm quite picky on presentations but this one was really good and I enjoyed it. I agree that UI stability is important. UI stability is not the only important thing. Responsiveness indeed too. I hate slow UIs. Consistency with what users are used to (from the rest of the world) is very important too. What's more, I read in the blog post that they are rebuilding the UI from scratch, but what I don't read is that they decided to change everything. They can do it right. I can't say they will, but… again, let's see? I'm sure they'd be glad to receive feedback, questions and concerns. Am I the only one enthusiastic about some potential Thunderbird UI revamp here? I don't like many UI/UX choices on the current web, but I also like what KDE has been doing, and maybe Gnome too, there are places where UIs get better! Why not Thunderbird? [1] https://fosdem.org/2023/schedule/event/practical_ux_at_openproject/ https://fosdem.org/2023/schedule/event/practical_ux_at_openp...
  - mulmen 4y ago
    What if I decide to remap your keyboard every 12 months because I think I have a better layout? If you practice for an hour a day you'll adjust in a month! Of course that will go out the window 11 months later, but I will have my promo in by then. Apple literally does this with keyboard shortcuts and UI elements in MacOS. This is what I imagine when I hear someone wants to "revamp" a UI. In modern software "UI revamp" means turning muscle memory into papercuts. Mozilla can rebuild the UI without redesigning it. If they need to throw out underlying code to improve performance or maintainability that's fine. But changing UI elements is like renaming a boat. You just don't do it.
    - jraph 4y ago
      If you decide to turn my functional if bulky 70s office building into something a bit fresher I won't mind. Of course don't do it every month but Thunderbird hasn't changed for twenty years. Apart from the attach button that was put at the other side of the compose window. That was annoying. I fully expect the new UI to have a mode resembling the current one and the current keyboard shortcuts to still work. Now, if it's not the case I'll agree with you. I too am pretty pissed off by many UI revamps and modern web UIs in general, but I'm quite confident because Thunderbird is not your regular shitty web app powered by a horde of investors. We will see.
      - mulmen 4y ago
        > if you decide to turn my functional if bulky 70s office building into something a bit fresher I won't mind. I worked in one of these and it was the best office space ever. Built into a nature preserve. There were paths along the water between the buildings. Everyone had an office with a window and view of trees and water. It was dated but I had zero complaints. We got bought by a company in Silicon Valley and they moved us to an "open office" in what was essentially a warehouse. Fancy new furniture and desks, none of it better than what we already had. Attractive but uncomfortable. The development team was placed next to sales, which is about as loud as an elementary school at recess. It was horrible. The only view was of a retaining wall in the parking lot. Nothing about it was better. Even the HVAC was worse.
alerighi 4y ago
There are a ton of desktop email clients that have that design: Apple Mail, Windows 10/11 Mail application, Outlook, Mailspring, whatever. Of client that have the UI/UX of Thunderbird... well only Thunderbird remained. I get that if you use the email sporadically with only one account, you are better with a client like you described, but at that point you can as well use a webmail. Otherwise if you work with emails, and you manage tens or hundreds of email each day, Thunderbird interface is great, is compact, is essential, is functional. Not pretty, but works well, it's stable, it's reliable. Thunderbird is a work tool, and a work tool to me doesn't have to be pretty, it has to work.
- jraph 4y ago
  You know what? Nothing needs to be pretty. Why stop at work tools? A home is there to let you cook, sleep and live efficiently. No need to be pretty. A city is there to allow you to go from A to B without any fuzz and to provide the essential services. Pretty cities are annoying. I have several accounts and thousands of mails. But I can't see how an efficient tool can't be pretty and how a pretty tool can't be efficient. I agree with the pros you find to the UI of Thunderbird and that's why I use it. But non-prettiness is not a feature. Prettiness is. For most people, it will be more enjoyable, more so if they spend hours each day using the tool, which is more likely in a work environment. If it's more enjoyable, more people will use it instead of all these non-free pieces of software you listed (and which I will not use as a consequence), which in turn might bring more funding, which might allow the Thunderbird team to make it even more reliable. Life is there to be enjoyed and this includes work. I also use thunderbird for my personal email account so it's not just work for me, like many people out there. Why are we even arguing for non-prettiness? This is madness. Again, the revamping we are talking about is being done for maintainability reasons, which is what you want for your tool to remain efficient, stable and reliable. I understand the concerns, UI rewrites are often upsetting, but the amount of resistance to change here is quite impressive. I don't see the point of not wanting improvements. Of course I won't be happy if Thunderbird becomes less reliable or less efficient but we are not there yet. I trust the Thunderbird team to do the right things. They have not failed me for almost 20 years. I can't use anything else because I'm too used to its UI, the keyboard shortcuts, everything. The first versions after the rewrite might not work very well and have bugs but we can always wait a bit before upgrading.

by jraph 4y ago

mulmen 4y ago

No. If you want a “pretty” email client go make one and see how it does. Stability is the number one feature I want in a UI. The only other concern is responsiveness. Literally nothing else matters.

jraph 4y ago
> go make one It's not like it's easy. It crossed my mind a few years ago, actually. But why should I when the email client I actually happen to use decided to actually rebuild its interface? I'm not the one who is unhappy, I'm happy either way actually, I could answer "go fork Thunderbird if you are not happy". There was an interesting talk at FOSDEM by OpenProject on how to handle UI revamps [1], there are ways to do it without breaking current users. I recommend it, I'm quite picky on presentations but this one was really good and I enjoyed it. I agree that UI stability is important. UI stability is not the only important thing. Responsiveness indeed too. I hate slow UIs. Consistency with what users are used to (from the rest of the world) is very important too. What's more, I read in the blog post that they are rebuilding the UI from scratch, but what I don't read is that they decided to change everything. They can do it right. I can't say they will, but… again, let's see? I'm sure they'd be glad to receive feedback, questions and concerns. Am I the only one enthusiastic about some potential Thunderbird UI revamp here? I don't like many UI/UX choices on the current web, but I also like what KDE has been doing, and maybe Gnome too, there are places where UIs get better! Why not Thunderbird? [1] https://fosdem.org/2023/schedule/event/practical_ux_at_openproject/ https://fosdem.org/2023/schedule/event/practical_ux_at_openp...
- mulmen 4y ago
  What if I decide to remap your keyboard every 12 months because I think I have a better layout? If you practice for an hour a day you'll adjust in a month! Of course that will go out the window 11 months later, but I will have my promo in by then. Apple literally does this with keyboard shortcuts and UI elements in MacOS. This is what I imagine when I hear someone wants to "revamp" a UI. In modern software "UI revamp" means turning muscle memory into papercuts. Mozilla can rebuild the UI without redesigning it. If they need to throw out underlying code to improve performance or maintainability that's fine. But changing UI elements is like renaming a boat. You just don't do it.
  - jraph 4y ago
    If you decide to turn my functional if bulky 70s office building into something a bit fresher I won't mind. Of course don't do it every month but Thunderbird hasn't changed for twenty years. Apart from the attach button that was put at the other side of the compose window. That was annoying. I fully expect the new UI to have a mode resembling the current one and the current keyboard shortcuts to still work. Now, if it's not the case I'll agree with you. I too am pretty pissed off by many UI revamps and modern web UIs in general, but I'm quite confident because Thunderbird is not your regular shitty web app powered by a horde of investors. We will see.
    - mulmen 4y ago
      > if you decide to turn my functional if bulky 70s office building into something a bit fresher I won't mind. I worked in one of these and it was the best office space ever. Built into a nature preserve. There were paths along the water between the buildings. Everyone had an office with a window and view of trees and water. It was dated but I had zero complaints. We got bought by a company in Silicon Valley and they moved us to an "open office" in what was essentially a warehouse. Fancy new furniture and desks, none of it better than what we already had. Attractive but uncomfortable. The development team was placed next to sales, which is about as loud as an elementary school at recess. It was horrible. The only view was of a retaining wall in the parking lot. Nothing about it was better. Even the HVAC was worse.

alerighi 4y ago

There are a ton of desktop email clients that have that design: Apple Mail, Windows 10/11 Mail application, Outlook, Mailspring, whatever. Of client that have the UI/UX of Thunderbird... well only Thunderbird remained. I get that if you use the email sporadically with only one account, you are better with a client like you described, but at that point you can as well use a webmail. Otherwise if you work with emails, and you manage tens or hundreds of email each day, Thunderbird interface is great, is compact, is essential, is functional. Not pretty, but works well, it's stable, it's reliable. Thunderbird is a work tool, and a work tool to me doesn't have to be pretty, it has to work.

jraph 4y ago
You know what? Nothing needs to be pretty. Why stop at work tools? A home is there to let you cook, sleep and live efficiently. No need to be pretty. A city is there to allow you to go from A to B without any fuzz and to provide the essential services. Pretty cities are annoying. I have several accounts and thousands of mails. But I can't see how an efficient tool can't be pretty and how a pretty tool can't be efficient. I agree with the pros you find to the UI of Thunderbird and that's why I use it. But non-prettiness is not a feature. Prettiness is. For most people, it will be more enjoyable, more so if they spend hours each day using the tool, which is more likely in a work environment. If it's more enjoyable, more people will use it instead of all these non-free pieces of software you listed (and which I will not use as a consequence), which in turn might bring more funding, which might allow the Thunderbird team to make it even more reliable. Life is there to be enjoyed and this includes work. I also use thunderbird for my personal email account so it's not just work for me, like many people out there. Why are we even arguing for non-prettiness? This is madness. Again, the revamping we are talking about is being done for maintainability reasons, which is what you want for your tool to remain efficient, stable and reliable. I understand the concerns, UI rewrites are often upsetting, but the amount of resistance to change here is quite impressive. I don't see the point of not wanting improvements. Of course I won't be happy if Thunderbird becomes less reliable or less efficient but we are not there yet. I trust the Thunderbird team to do the right things. They have not failed me for almost 20 years. I can't use anything else because I'm too used to its UI, the keyboard shortcuts, everything. The first versions after the rewrite might not work very well and have bugs but we can always wait a bit before upgrading.