6 ms·

You could argue that Gmail’s new UI is slow. That’s fine and correct. Arguing that they should maintain an outdated view forever seems to forget that that’s not

You could argue that Gmail’s new UI is slow. That’s fine and correct. Arguing that they should maintain an outdated view forever seems to forget that that’s not how any of the web works. It’s already weird that the view survived past 2009

SanderNL 3y ago
Google maintaining or not maintaining something is completely orthogonal to “how any of the web works”. I see no point here.
- corbezzoli 3y ago
  Absolutely not. Why would they support this view? It makes no financial sense. Google kills whole successful products, what made you think that they would support alternative UIs used by dozens of us?
  - troupo 3y ago
    It's only an alternative view because Google made it alternative. And made the main view a bloated slow abomination.
    - corbezzoli 3y ago
      That’s irrelevant. I already mentioned that the new view is slow and that’s a fine argument to make. Arguing that they should maintain multiple views is just ignorant of the world we live in. You will be disappointed further.
      - troupo 3y ago
        No. I'm arguing that it's Google's deliberate choice, and we should be angry about that. Whether or not a trillion-dollar company with 170 000 employees can afford to maintain two views for a product with 2 billion MAU or make it not suck, now that is really irrelevant.
  - sambazi 3y ago
    > Why would they support this view? It makes no financial sense. that remains to be seen
  - SanderNL 3y ago
    I agree on the business case, but it’s still orthogonal to “how any of the web works”. It’s how Google’s business works, maybe, but that wasn’t the argument.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
crabbone 3y ago
This is a bad way to count. Imagine an organization which wants to buy Google's package for organization. Perhaps some government body. And that body has a regulation that requires certain accessibility features from services provided by contractors. So, even if very few, or even if nobody in that government body needs good accessibility, the IT will not buy a service from Google because one day someone will come and sue them for buying stuff they shouldn't have. So, it doesn't matter what fraction of users actually needs the "basic HTML" view. The new one sucks from usability perspective, and especially from accessibility perspective. If they cancel the better version they have... well, I'd be all for suing the government agency that decided to use GMail.
- corbezzoli 3y ago
  Is the new version actually inaccessible or it’s just that you don’t like its bloat? It would sound strange to me that one of the most used apps in the world is completely inaccessible, especially considering that the non-basic-html Gmail has global shortcuts, which are surely faster than tabbing around a page.
  - crabbone 3y ago
    It's inaccessible because the accessibility is broken. Bloat or not, it's just broken.
- NavinF 3y ago
  That's quite the imaginary scenario. I don't see the relevance

SanderNL 3y ago

Google maintaining or not maintaining something is completely orthogonal to “how any of the web works”. I see no point here.

corbezzoli 3y ago
Absolutely not. Why would they support this view? It makes no financial sense. Google kills whole successful products, what made you think that they would support alternative UIs used by dozens of us?
- troupo 3y ago
  It's only an alternative view because Google made it alternative. And made the main view a bloated slow abomination.
  - corbezzoli 3y ago
    That’s irrelevant. I already mentioned that the new view is slow and that’s a fine argument to make. Arguing that they should maintain multiple views is just ignorant of the world we live in. You will be disappointed further.
    - troupo 3y ago
      No. I'm arguing that it's Google's deliberate choice, and we should be angry about that. Whether or not a trillion-dollar company with 170 000 employees can afford to maintain two views for a product with 2 billion MAU or make it not suck, now that is really irrelevant.
- sambazi 3y ago
  > Why would they support this view? It makes no financial sense. that remains to be seen
- SanderNL 3y ago
  I agree on the business case, but it’s still orthogonal to “how any of the web works”. It’s how Google’s business works, maybe, but that wasn’t the argument.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

crabbone 3y ago

This is a bad way to count. Imagine an organization which wants to buy Google's package for organization. Perhaps some government body. And that body has a regulation that requires certain accessibility features from services provided by contractors. So, even if very few, or even if nobody in that government body needs good accessibility, the IT will not buy a service from Google because one day someone will come and sue them for buying stuff they shouldn't have. So, it doesn't matter what fraction of users actually needs the "basic HTML" view. The new one sucks from usability perspective, and especially from accessibility perspective. If they cancel the better version they have... well, I'd be all for suing the government agency that decided to use GMail.

corbezzoli 3y ago
Is the new version actually inaccessible or it’s just that you don’t like its bloat? It would sound strange to me that one of the most used apps in the world is completely inaccessible, especially considering that the non-basic-html Gmail has global shortcuts, which are surely faster than tabbing around a page.
- crabbone 3y ago
  It's inaccessible because the accessibility is broken. Bloat or not, it's just broken.
NavinF 3y ago
That's quite the imaginary scenario. I don't see the relevance