Personalities?

[ao1]

In the classic UI there's a page that allows me to manage my personalities.
Where is it in the new UI?

Thanks.

[BritTim]

In the "new" UI, the personalities are called "Accounts" in the Settings screens.

[ao1]

Originally Posted by BritTim

In the "new" UI, the personalities are called "Accounts" in the Settings screens.

Yes, I saw those and thought, "This can't be it, where are all the options?"

Finally figured that out. The "show advanced options" idea is the worst UI they could come up with.

[BritTim]

Originally Posted by ao1

Yes, I saw those and thought, "This can't be it, where are all the options?"

Finally figured that out. The "show advanced options" idea is the worst UI they could come up with.

I believe this is clever psychology, a continuation of a strategy they have been following in recent years. If you hide capabilities so most people do not see them, their use will be greatly reduced over time. When usage drops low enough, this can then be used as an excuse to remove support altogether.

The hiding of the classic interface at https://classic.fastmail.com can be seen as a warning that they intend scrapping the entire classic interface, probably sooner rather than later.

[robn]

Actually it's the other way. The idea is to put the few options that most people look for front-and-centre, and put the more niche features out of the way. If you present every option to everyone all the time, then it takes a lot of mental effort for the uninitiated to understand them - they all appear to be equal.

Moving Classic out of the main login page is the same. A great many people (more than anyone expected) would accidentally click the "use Classic" checkbox (or worse; password managers were caching the field even when it was behind the "more" link) and then open a support ticket when they got stuck in an interface they didn't understand. Moving the classic login to the side has drastically reduced this, while the people that want Classic already know how to find it.

The "clever psychology" is pretty much just making the options people want easier to get to.

[ao1]

Originally Posted by robn

Actually it's the other way. The idea is to put the few options that most people look for front-and-centre, and put the more niche features out of the way. If you present every option to everyone all the time, then it takes a lot of mental effort for the uninitiated to understand them - they all appear to be equal.

Not everyone has the same needs. One side does not fit all. And you, my friend, should look up "false dichotomy".

The only reason for me to go into the "accounts" page is to tweak the advanced settings.

Is it so hard to give the users a choice whether to expand or collapse the advanced settings by default?

[robn]

Originally Posted by ao1

Not everyone has the same needs. One side does not fit all.

Of course not. But most people have a fairly similar set of needs. It makes sense to optimise for that case.

[ao1]

Originally Posted by robn

Of course not. But most people have a fairly similar set of needs. It makes sense to optimise for that case.

I would argue that it would make better sense to give us an option. Options are good.

[ChinaLamb]

Originally Posted by BritTim

I believe this is clever psychology, a continuation of a strategy they have been following in recent years. If you hide capabilities so most people do not see them, their use will be greatly reduced over time. When usage drops low enough, this can then be used as an excuse to remove support altogether.

The hiding of the classic interface at https://classic.fastmail.com can be seen as a warning that they intend scrapping the entire classic interface, probably sooner rather than later.

Honestly, I don't see anything malicious here. Change happens, and Fastmail needs to move forward with change. They are now supporting multiple interfaces, web, mobile and classic. They need to make changes on the back end, and those changes may not be compatible with the classic. I get it. I know fastmail wants to change with the times, and I view that as a very good thing. They continue to roll out things that I like and I want: calendars, syncable contacts, etc. They need to change, and I try my best to change with them. There isn't a software package that I've used for more than 5 years that hasn't had features I like added, and some removed. The great thing I like about fastmail is that - for the most part - they've been good at accommodating the needs of their users. As I've found things that are not in the new interface, I've dialogued with the staff of fastmail and we have found workable solutions. This doesn't mean they always implement everything I want - that's not dialogue - but we've been able to find a way to make things work. That's a healthy dynamic. Demanding things never change is not a good dynamic.

It's not like the fastmail guys are becoming millionaires off this. Do the math on the supposed subscriber base... Out of that they have rent, employees, etc. No one is becoming rich.

Engage the staff, and try to find a solution that works for everyone..

[Random832]

I think having the classic interface at all may have been a mistake.

It's partitioned the userbase to have a group people who stick with the classic interface for their own reasons (i.e. whatever particular feature is missing or hard to discover in the new interface), and therefore don't provide feedback on those features being desired. And when their pet feature stops working, they lash out with non-specific complaints about the broken promise of the classic interface, rather than a specific feature request for what they actually want to do.

Originally Posted by ChinaLamb

Engage the staff, and try to find a solution that works for everyone..

See, this is the core problem. By having a classic interface, they in effect gave the people who want features the new interface doesn't have an island where they don't have to engage the staff.

[Pfolson]

Originally Posted by Random832

I think having the classic interface at all may have been a mistake

I think this is exactly right. I've always believed that FastMail should have eliminated the classic UI when the new UI was ready to move from beta to production. Of course there would have been complaints and some lost customers. But they're still getting those now -- only drawn out over years instead of a few weeks. They were trying to appease a group of long-time, loyal users, but in return those users have spent the past few years complaining and feeling abandoned anyway, every time something changes or breaks in the classic UI. And that's just one aspect of the problem. Grumbling users are no fun, but I suspect that from FastMail's perspective, the headaches of maintaining and supporting the classic UI are a much bigger issue.

FastMail would have done well to consider the metaphor of ripping a bandage off. If you have something difficult to do, get it over with as quickly as possible and then move on. You can't eliminate pain and suffering. The only thing you can control is how long it lasts.

[ChinaLamb]

Originally Posted by Pfolson

I think this is exactly right. I've always believed that FastMail should have eliminated the classic UI when the new UI was ready to move from beta to production. Of course there would have been complaints and some lost customers. But they're still getting those now -- only drawn out over years instead of a few weeks. They were trying to appease a group of long-time, loyal users, but in return those users have spent the past few years complaining and feeling abandoned anyway, every time something changes or breaks in the classic UI. And that's just one aspect of the problem. Grumbling users are no fun, but I suspect that from FastMail's perspective, the headaches of maintaining and supporting the classic UI are a much bigger issue.

FastMail would have done well to consider the metaphor of ripping a bandage off. If you have something difficult to do, get it over with as quickly as possible and then move on. You can't eliminate pain and suffering. The only thing you can control is how long it lasts.

I would have welcomed the new interface much earlier, if the core functionality was there to support the ways Fastmail let us customize the service to our specific needs. I've been using the new interface for several months, but there have still been a few administrative issues for my email service which required me to go back into the Classic interface. Working with Fastmail Staff, they've finally added a few of those essentials into the new redesign.

The thing is, many users that have been with fastmail since 2001 or so, are deeply connected to some of the custom functionality which drew us to fastmail in the first place.

If Fastmail ripped off the bandaid too quickly, we would have lost essential functionality, and causing us to have lost email, and yes, we would have left.

/cl

[Pfolson]

Originally Posted by ChinaLamb

If Fastmail ripped off the bandaid too quickly, we would have lost essential functionality, and causing us to have lost email, and yes, we would have left.

Perhaps, then, they should have set a definite time period for shutting down the classic UI -- three months, six months, a year, whatever -- something to let people know they would have to switch, while also allowing adequate time to do it. FastMail's mistake was promising to support the classic UI "indefinitely." That word can mean a lot of things. To me, it means something vague and unspecified -- could be a month, a year, or ten years. But a lot of users seem to have interpreted to mean "until the end of time," as in: "Everything about my e-mail will stay exactly the same, forever." Using the dictionary definition, both meanings are valid -- unspecified and unlimited. That's why using that word was a really bad idea on FastMail's part.

[NumberSix]

Originally Posted by ChinaLamb

Honestly, I don't see anything malicious here. Change happens, and Fastmail needs to move forward with change. They are now supporting multiple interfaces, web, mobile and classic. They need to make changes on the back end, and those changes may not be compatible with the classic. I get it. I know fastmail wants to change with the times, and I view that as a very good thing.

I feel the same way that is expressed here.
(originally I just wanted to post "+1", but was told the message was not long enough )

[ao1]

Originally Posted by ChinaLamb

I would have welcomed the new interface much earlier, if the core functionality was there to support the ways Fastmail let us customize the service to our specific needs

This!

The only reason I am using fastmail's paid service instead of GMail's free one is the advanced functionality it offers. The new interface, I can adapt to but the loss of functionality is disturbing.

See here for examples.