Classic Fastmail interface supporter

[hadaso]

Originally Posted by PFSchaffner

Does anyone know a way to tweak the new interface's Compose screen so that addressees entered in the "to" field, if taken from one's address book, display the recipient's full email address instead of simply their names?...

This is the code that shows the name in the "To" field:

<li class="token-box" title="name@example.com">Jane Doe<a href="#" class="token-menu"><span></span></a></li>

So basically what one would want to do is to add the content of the Title attribute to the text content. However one would want to do it dynamically, and perhaps undo it when the mail is submitted, so it may be very tricky. Compose screen tweaks are the most challenging ones, but they are potentially the most useful ones.

[neilj]

.token-box:after {
   content: " <" attr(title) ">";
}

Add to tweaks.css.

Neil.

[the bishop]

Originally Posted by neilj

.token-box:after {
   content: " <" attr(title) ">";
}

Add to tweaks.css.

Neil.

Ok, I always bash Neil, so I have to give him cheese for replying quickly on this one. Can't always kill the chap.

[DrStrabismus]

Originally Posted by Happydays

If I'm in a 3G/HSPDA network area, everything is just fine, no problem - but go into a GPRS only network ...or try using a 56k landline dialup at home (yes, MANY people living in rural areas still can't get any broadband service!)...then it gets complicated.
Very slow if a page is loaded down with javascript and other stuff.

The page isn't actually loaded with javascript as such. The javascript appears to be contained in a few files, mostly in a file called core-1.js. At 131 kB this is a bit hefty for dial-up, but it should be cachable, and the current version is from early December. If you only transfer it a few times a year it's not so much of a problem and it may bring an overall improvement for dial-up if it reduces the number of round-trips or the size of html pages.

The important thing is that the browser should be caching the javascript files long-term , which means writing them out to disk cache and having a large enough cache to keep them there. The first thing to try if you are having problem is to increase the cache size.

There may also be some browsers that don't cache these files effectively because they don't write any https content to disk on security grounds. This was the position in Mozilla and Firefox until Firefox 3 when the behaviour was relaxed to allow writing content labelled as "Cache-Control: public". I don't know, but It wouldn't surprise me if some minor browsers and mobile browsers don't handle this well.

[PFSchaffner]

Originally Posted by neilj

.token-box:after {
   content: " <" attr(title) ">";
}

....

Thank you. I have not yet begun playing with the CSS: this seems like a good place to start building my very own tweaks.css and see how it works. --pfs

[Quilleron]

Having been mightily disappointed with what FastMail did with the new interface - ugly and a lot of wasted space - I have spent some time cleaning it up based on work already done by others. The results are available here:

Clean and Compact

and I'd be interested to learn of any improvements.

A number of things that used to exist are no longer as simple - sort by attachment and View Selected for example and Print View has gone missing completely. I have also asked for a single click link from wherever you are in the inbox back to the Inbox home page (the Inbox title or having Mailbox as an active link are prime candidates) as the Inbox of the folder list is now some way down the page.

Please add your voice to mine if you'd like to see some of these reinstated/introduced.

[Bamb0]

Originally Posted by fwalther

I refuse to bow to their term "old" as that is how they are trying to shame us away from the "classic" interface.

Couldnt agree more!!

Its like Day and Night going to the NEW interface.... Complete garbage compared to what they had.. (It is really confusing why they accept this when what they were using WAS MUCH BETTER IN EVERYWAY)

Why would they not accept something like the NEW interface when they made the OLD one?? (They knew it was beautiful thats why (The CLASSIC one) and wanted it to look as best as they could)

Thats the trend im seeing around the net .. Quality doesnt matter anymore and its sad..

I guess we can be VERY GLAD they have semi listenend and not gotton rid of the other interface completly right?

[EdinwolfPA]

Originally Posted by Quilleron

NewInterfaceCSS/Stylesheet Gallery/Clean and Compact

.

Hello,

Unless I am missing something, the above link no longer works (the page has been deleted and was clasified as SPAM (as of Wednesday, February 9th at 9:22pm EST).

However, the link was working earlier in the day.

David

[sflorack]

Originally Posted by Shelded

Physci said "overall performance." Not "didn't like the eye candy." CSS does not noticably affect the speed of performance of the new product, that is what its greatest fault is.

He said "And for me, it's not just a font issue" meaning that it at least some of his complaints are regarding things that can be modified with CSS (i.e. fonts).

[robert@fm]

Originally Posted by Quilleron

NewInterfaceCSS/Stylesheet Gallery/Clean and Compact

Originally Posted by EdinwolfPA

Hello,

Unless I am missing something, the above link no longer works (the page has been deleted and was clasified as SPAM (as of Wednesday, February 9th at 9:22pm EST).

However, the link was working earlier in the day.

I suspect that this may be a rare mistake on the part of whoever is currently wearing the Wiki Sysop hat. I had a look at it (since, because of the masses of spam over the past year, I automatically suspect any edits made by a user I don't recognise) and it didn't seem spammy to me; however, I didn't follow the image link that was pasted in at least one revision. Did anyone?

[Shelded]

Originally Posted by sflorack

He said "And for me, it's not just a font issue" meaning that it at least some of his complaints are regarding things that can be modified with CSS (i.e. fonts).

That's just willful misinterpretation. You know what's bugging these people, and it's deeper than colors.

[the bishop]

Originally Posted by Shelded

That's just willful misinterpretation. You know what's bugging these people, and it's deeper than colors.

What he said. It's like when we're told that going to a bandwidth quota is 'good' for us -- if it looks like (beep) and smells like (beep) it's (beep).

[sflorack]

Originally Posted by Shelded

That's just willful misinterpretation. You know what's bugging these people, and it's deeper than colors.

Apparently you and I interpret English differently.

it's not a font issue - "the font changes don't bother me"
it's just a font issue - "only the font changes bother me"
it's not just a font issue - "the font changes and other things bother me"

Since he wrote the third statement, I was only asking if he had considered creating a custom stylesheet to address the fonts he didn't care for.

And I have no idea what's bugging people, which is why I've asked for clarity (multiple times). The very nature of these forums is for users to seek out help from other users; is it not? If people aren't clear about what they dislike, how is anyone here able to do that?

[Pfolson]

Originally Posted by sflorack

And I have no idea what's bugging people, which is why I've asked for clarity (multiple times). The very nature of these forums is for users to seek out help from other users; is it not? If people aren't clear about what they dislike, how is anyone here able to do that?

Unfortunately, I've learned that you can't really do much to help these people, including reason with them, because their major complaint seems to be that they can no longer have exactly what they had in 1999 or 2001 or 2003. There's not much any other forum users can do about that. The only way to help them is just let them vent their frustrations.

[Shelded]

Originally Posted by sflorack

Apparently you and I interpret English differently.

it's not a font issue - "the font changes don't bother me"
it's just a font issue - "only the font changes bother me"
it's not just a font issue - "the font changes and other things bother me"

Since he wrote the third statement, I was only asking if he had considered creating a custom stylesheet to address the fonts he didn't care for.

And I have no idea what's bugging people, which is why I've asked for clarity (multiple times). The very nature of these forums is for users to seek out help from other users; is it not? If people aren't clear about what they dislike, how is anyone here able to do that?

You left out what I understand to be the best interpretation: "It's not mere fonts, but rather overall performance which bothers me." [emphasis mine.] This is why I said it was willful misinterpretation. I can't put words in his mouth. Even if you interpreted Physci's statement literally correct, you ignore the main point that he and other people have functionality issues with the interface.

We have tried to use it, to explain our issues, or change things. All that is left, it seems, is to occasionally mention it is still broken, in the hope it will be fixed sometime. In the forum where all some perceive is that we are stubborn and want old things, there is no sense explaining yet again what is broken with the new interface. Insulting us and baiting us is the activity of trolls.