|
FastMail Forum All posts relating to FastMail.FM should go here: suggestions, comments, requests for help, complaints, technical issues etc. |
|
Thread Tools |
7 Jan 2017, 05:14 PM | #16 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 36
|
List of differences
Quote:
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. |
|
8 Jan 2017, 12:38 AM | #17 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 81
|
Quilleron, you are so right. I wish I could have said it as well as you.
|
8 Jan 2017, 01:13 AM | #18 |
Ultimate Contributor
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada.
Posts: 10,355
|
They did this once before when they discontinued the original interface.
|
8 Jan 2017, 01:15 AM | #19 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 81
|
I believe it's a fait accompli. Sadly, our pleas, no matter how strong, will fall on deaf ears.
|
8 Jan 2017, 01:35 AM | #20 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: May 2003
Location: mostly in Thailand
Posts: 3,095
|
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. |
8 Jan 2017, 02:09 AM | #21 | |
Master of the @
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,876
|
Quote:
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...... Last edited by Bamb0 : 8 Jan 2017 at 01:12 PM. |
|
8 Jan 2017, 02:27 AM | #22 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Posts: 346
|
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.
|
8 Jan 2017, 02:34 AM | #23 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
|
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. Last edited by waiting : 8 Jan 2017 at 02:59 AM. |
8 Jan 2017, 02:59 AM | #24 | |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: May 2003
Location: mostly in Thailand
Posts: 3,095
|
Quote:
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. |
|
8 Jan 2017, 05:00 AM | #25 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wicklow, Ireland
Posts: 449
|
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. |
8 Jan 2017, 06:43 AM | #26 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 34
|
Quote:
|
|
8 Jan 2017, 09:48 AM | #27 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: VK4
Posts: 3,029
|
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. |
8 Jan 2017, 01:14 PM | #28 | |
Master of the @
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,876
|
Quote:
None as far as Im concerned..... (No GOOD ones) |
|
8 Jan 2017, 02:03 PM | #29 | |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: May 2003
Location: mostly in Thailand
Posts: 3,095
|
Quote:
|
|
8 Jan 2017, 10:14 PM | #30 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 270
|
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! |