fastmail's big mistake
 

i think fastmail is making a big mistake by not overhauling their interface.

Care to elaborate? What don't you like about the current interface?

are we not all very different?
 

some care about such thigns and others only about functionality and features and reliability.

It sure look different but I am more concerned about reliability and my total lack of IMAP familiarity. To me the learning curve is too steep. I seem too dummies to get it.

Trew

I like Fastmail's interface, but there's one thing that should be changed in order to make it more accessible:

Non-modal error display is not visible enough to some users

Prog.

Knowing F/m it won't be for a long time yet.....and yes it does need updating especially the address book its like running windows 95 on your computer.....good at the time but we have all upgraded....:D

If you're looking for the Bling Bling interface of Google, you won't get it. Fastmail works with old browsers, text browser, browsers in high security, palm browsers, dial up modems running at 100%, and is very fast. Google's email is so fancy that it doesn't work properly with IE5. 'Tis fine if you have cable/DSL and the latest browser.

At least they were able to implement a decent addressbook whilst still in beta!!!

:(

there is a draft interface designed by a poster here, can not that be implemented?

the address book is pathetic -frankly! why should i have to copy and paste into excel etc just to export it?

etc etc

these are minors gripes, i have been with fm for a very long time, but now i am hosting my domain with zoneedit and forwarding it to yahoo mail. i can't justify paying $40 when i can pay $20 for something similar (altho there are fewer features) i.e. yahoo

jeremy et al have done a fantastic job with fastmail, but more needs to be done!!

are you talking about cosmetics or the functionality of the interface? You can change the cosmetics to a limited extent using style sheets.

I love the fast, function-laiden simple Fastmail interface. It doesn't need revamping in my opinion.

So make it OPTIONAL :)

stylesheets could evolve into much more than color/font/wallpaper tweaks if FM's server generated tidy HTML without hardcoded formatting (font sizes, widths, cellspacings, etc) and with all screen elements (command buttons, table columns, navigation links) individually ID'd. the interface could become much more compact with fewer pixels wasted. the beauty of it is that stylesheet authors would do most of the hard work, and users would have less to gripe about since they can tweak more themselves.

Isn't it already optional?

If you want bling, you can use Google, yahoo, etc
If you want blindingly fast & beautifully simple then stay with FM.

There are a thousand companies offering email in many different shades of 'pretty'. Fastmail has found it's niche.. It's VERY 'fast' on every computer!

Saying that tho, I wouldn't mind one tiny concession to graphics.. A small 'FM' logo on the login page couldn't really hurt could it?
:)

This is something in my long term aim todo. When we started using CSS, it wasn't very well or widely supported, so we only used some basics and lots of old overriding junk. Now that almost all browsers support it fairly well, I'd prefer to lean the other way, use more of it's capabilities, and just turn it off for older browsers so that you see a useable screen, but just no colouring at all.

Rob

I want the web interface to be as fast as possible and as simple as it is now.

If I want another interface I will use another EMail client.

Personally I feel the webinterface can be made a lot lighter in some areas by sacrificing minor functionality for older browsers. Ok, it won't look as 'bling bling' on old browsers, but I'd guess you can scrape off at least 20% of all the code sent to the browser while making it look better than it does at the moment.

Rob, since you indicate you want this done (eventually), can I ask what the community can do to aid you guys in performing such a massive overhaul? (I am thinking along the lines of getting rid of all the table-within-table-within-table stuff and use XHTML+CSS with a bargeload of positioning code, and having each message individually ID'able)

(Oh, if you do this, could you indicate which versions of which browsers are most commonly used to access Fastmail as well? That might be a good indicator of up to how far back 'everything should work perfectly' support is needed, and where we can cut some slack on the 'It works, but it ain't pretty' level)
--K