List of differences
 

I created this list and started the thread when the new interface was first introduced and as far as I can see much of what can be done in the classic interface still cannot be done with the new interface:

http://www.emaildiscussions.com/showthread.php?t=65512

It astounds me that fastmail are planning to throw away thousands of hours of development work and force their loyal users to use something that's nothing like as powerful and sophisticated as the classic interface.

The lack of that functionality will mean there's very little differentiating them from gmail or outlook.com

The new interface is also clunkier, demanding two clicks rather than one, for example to log out or get to the address book!

In my view we should campaign for them to continue to offer it, for our benefit and theirs.

Quilleron, you are so right. I wish I could have said it as well as you.

They did this once before when they discontinued the original interface.

I believe it's a fait accompli. Sadly, our pleas, no matter how strong, will fall on deaf ears.

I agree that the classical interface still supports some capabilities absent from the current interface. It also, in some instances, allows common requirements to be accomplished more comfortably than the current interface.

That said, the current interface has some very positive aspects of its own. It is much cleaner and more modern looking. From a marketing perspective, that is critically important. I can tell you, from experience talking to my customers, that it is also important to many of the long time users. The fact that the message list updates automatically as new messages arrive in the mailbox (without the need to constantly refresh the folder(s)) is a huge benefit. I have customers who receive important email into several different folders(for different business units) and being able to see at a glance when there are new messages in a folder is almost an essential requirement. While compose has very rich functionality in classic, the simpler system in the current interface is more predictable in its behavior, and better at quickly producing good looking results.

The simple fact is that the classic interface is great (in general) for power users who are more concerned with functionality than aesthetics. That is not the key demographic Fastmail now wants to market to. While we might wish otherwise, Fastmail is not going to change its mind on this. I will be sorry to see the classic interface go, but fighting for its retention is certain to be a losing battle. I think it makes more sense to decide which functions in the classic interface are really important from a practical perspective, and using the next few months to lobby for their inclusion in the current interface.

Thats the "norm" today sadly...... Take something GOOD and make it worse/intrusive.......


Its really very sad..... Some of us CANNOT USE THE NEW INTERFACE! (And dont want to as its not as good .. Its slower and a huge step backwards)

I really hope they will reconsider this.... If more ppl started using the classic interface JUST FOR NOW it might help keep it going......

I have been a FM user since 2001. In my experience the current or new interface has always been faster than the old or the classic interface, in multiple browsers and in both Windows and Mac operating systems. I can't explain how my experience differs so much from yours. And it has the great advantage of automatically updating itself as new emails arrive.

I really like and use "own" classical interface. What I mostly don't like in new interface is that I need dom storage to be activated to use it. And secondary there no possibility to use custom css, and thats classical interface killer feature. Beside, if you restricted fonts in browser, you will see utf code symbols in new interface. And thats ****ed up.
And yes , beside all effort fm try to put in new interface, it couldn't be more secure then classic, since you don't need js at all.
More above they should consider to use Subresource integrity with js/css and Subresource integrity, even when they host things on same domain.

I liked and used the custom CSS feature. I can live without it, as most of the better browsers can operate with the stylish extension that allows much the same capabilities to be supported without Fastmail's help.

I appreciate that there can be font issues with some languages but, in all honesty, I have not seen this cause a practical problem for Fastmail in manstream browsers using the current interface. Thai, Chinese and Japanese on MS Windows (Chrome and Firefox) OSX (Safari) and Linux (Firefox) have all seemed fine. Do you have an example of failure to display foreign characters correctly with the current interface?

In the past, avoiding DOM storage and Javascript was important to me. In recent years, tremendous effort has gone into improving the security of these. I am now comfortable enabling them for selected trusted sites (Fastmail being one).

I would prefer it if classic was going to remain, but Fastmail has some legitimate reasons for retiring it.

Thanks, I thought there was a list but couldn't remember for sure.

What about conducting a poll on what we value most?

For me one of the most important features is the ability to sort by nickname in the old addressbook (it's used to hold a number, not a nickname).

However there are quite a few differences. Old UI allows import of addresses into distribution lists. Last time I tried the new didn't.

Tagging contacts to add them to a list was handy in the old UI. In the new one, it's adding lists to a contact. Both are valid. Shame to have one without the other.

But some of the differences should be fixable quickly: e.g., the lack of a count for records in distribution lists in the new UI.

Caveat: I have never used the classic interface since the current one was the default when I joined FastMail.

• I would think that sorting by nickname should be easy.
• The ability to tag contacts and add to a list does exist. Check each one and then select the group.
• Import into a group does not exist. This will require 2 steps: import followed by group assignment.
• The group member counts are in the group list in settings. Probably makes sense to add them to the sidebar or at the bottom of the contacts for that group like the folder counts in email.

DS

In the old UI the compose screen is different and it shows your address book on the left hand side which I think is a lot nicer, the current one shows your folders.
I prefer the old UI style, but sadly we don't get a choice.

What reasons??????

None as far as Im concerned..... (No GOOD ones)

I am not saying I agree with the decision, but these are decent arguments:

• Devoting resources to keeping the classic interface compatible with the backend, as it changes, siphons off developer time that could be better spent (in Fastmail's view) in other areas.
• The classic interface provides an additional attack vector for crackers. Removing the interface improves security.

Fastmail claims (and I have no doubt they are right) that only a small minority of the base still uses the classic interface.

If having a second, parallel web interface is a security risk and a drain on resources, why on Earth did Fastmail set up the new interface in the first place?
If they have to drop one of the interfaces then they should drop the new one.
It doesn't work at all on my device, and in my experience of it on library computers it is inferior to Classic in almost every way.
It is a failed experiment.
They have had several years working on it and it still falls well short of the standard of functionality, speed, ergonomics and accessibility of the 'classic' interface... which itself is inferior to the original 'old' interface it replaced.
To say it has 'a modern look and feel' is vacuous.
If Ford brought out a new car that was slower, harder to drive and less comfortable than the model it replaced, they would be laughed out of town for drawing attention to its 'modern look and feel'.
Computer technology seems to be the only area of life in which people meekly accept that 'modern' inevitably means worse.
It doesn't have to be this way!