New UI - thoughts 6 months on

Ubtree · 23 May 2013, 05:59 PM

I would like to share some thoughts.

The unannounced introduction of the new interface last year came as a shock, but I try to move with the times, and I adopted it without complaint. The new interface looked cleaner and appeared to have some advantages, but I regretted the loss of a number of single-click controls. I could see that "Conversations" would be useful for some people (although nor for me). And I found that changing settings (which I do quite often) had become a serious pain. But although it felt uncomfortable, I stuck with the new interface because I was sure that I would get used to it.

For some time I have been having problems composing e-mails using FM with Opera (including: the cursor is not always visible; when I click on the screen the cursor often moves to a different part of the document; the text often does not wrap correctly and text towards the end of the line disappears; spaces between words are often not shown; as I type, the cursor lags behind its correct position and becomes superimposed on letters that have just been typed; when I try to highlight blocks of text, the highlighting does not match up with the text). When, after I extolled FM's virtues, my wife pointed out that the editor was unusable, I decided it was time to do something about it. I reported the problem to FM Support, but they were unable to help, other than to suggest using the classic UI or use a different browser. (Now there’s an irony! FM is owned by Opera, but FM’s new interface is not compatible with the Opera browser.) I have also reported to FM Support that the font specified in Settings is ignored; they said that this is a known issue, and that the fix is non-trivial and may take some time.

So I revisited the classic UI, and it came as a breath of fresh air. I thought that, after using the new UI for 6 months, it would take some time to get used to the old interface again. But, no - it was as if I had never stopped using it. Revisiting it, the classic UI seems more intuitive, and it is now clear to me that many changes that I had simply accepted are retrograde and pointless. To take a single example: why hide the Settings and Help links in a drop down menu under the user name? There is plenty of room for them alongside the user name (as in the classic UI); the only effects of the change are to make the options more difficult to find, and to change single-click operations to a 2-click operations.

The classic interface is a little less sleek, but makes it much easier and quicker to make use of the full power of FM - perhaps the new UI should be rebranded “Not-so-fast-Mail”. But even more worrying is the fact that, 6 months on, there are fundamental bugs in the new UI that are simply not being addressed. Worryingly, this appears to justify fears that long term commitment to FM was lost when Opera acquired it. If this is not the case, Opera/FM needs to make this clear by addressing the issues of the new UI.

I love FM - its speed, and the unique and powerful combination of its facility to use as many e-mail addresses as needed and the power of its mail sorting rules. (I also love Opera. I started with Internet Explorer, then moved to Firefox for many years, but now use Opera all the time. For me, it is the best browser.) For as long is FM’s classic interface is available and supported, I will continue to use FM. But if the classic interface were dropped, I doubt that I would again use the new interface, and I now seriously doubt Opera's commitment to FM in the medium to long term.

janusz · 23 May 2013, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ubtree

The unannounced introduction of the new interface

Unannounced???

Ubtree · 23 May 2013, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janusz

Unannounced???

Yes, unannounced.

The beta had been available for testing for some time, but the new interface became live on 30 October 2012, without any warning of the changeover or any documentation being released. This is well known, and has been dealt with in earlier threads eg. New Fastmail Theme/Interface

Berenburger · 23 May 2013, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janusz

Unannounced???

Short memory, Janusz?

janusz · 23 May 2013, 10:17 PM

Short memory about what?

I carried on using the old interface, and have no intention of moving away from it.

Prognathous · 24 May 2013, 05:13 AM

6 months shows impressive perseverance. I quickly found so many things I disliked that I didn't really try to switch. I'm still with the Classic interface, and it's at least close enough to what the Fastmail interface was before this change. As long as they don't break the Classic interface any further, I'm good.

Prog.

neilj · 24 May 2013, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ubtree

I would like to share some thoughts.
For some time I have been having problems composing e-mails using FM with Opera (including: the cursor is not always visible; when I click on the screen the cursor often moves to a different part of the document; the text often does not wrap correctly and text towards the end of the line disappears; spaces between words are often not shown; as I type, the cursor lags behind its correct position and becomes superimposed on letters that have just been typed; when I try to highlight blocks of text, the highlighting does not match up with the text).

Sorry to hear about your problem; I'm most surprised, as we (obviously) fully support the Opera browser and this is the first time I've heard about any issue like this; such tickets would normally be passed to me. Could you give me the ticket number, so I can see what happened with support? We have many people using Opera with the new interface without issue.

Neil.

labarum · 24 May 2013, 12:07 PM

I'm still with the classic interface,

I looked again at the new interface a few weeks ago. It's not for me.

Terry · 24 May 2013, 12:10 PM

Not for me either....it's like having a Google nightmare.....

odedp · 24 May 2013, 03:06 PM

Once in a while I decide to try the new interface to see if things have improved.
So far I've quickly regreted all my decisions...

petergh · 24 May 2013, 03:38 PM

I for one think the new interface is great, and I also think the resemblance to Gmail (including many keyboard shortcuts) is a good thing, because to my mind the Gmail web application is the best email client around. I don't like Google handling my mail, so that's why I don't use Gmail, but you can't beat the web application they've built (although I do hope FM will catch up eventually!).

I know many of the more advanced features from the classic interface are not available in the new interface, and if your workflow includes using one or more of those features, I understand why you're not using the new interface. My needs are pretty basic in terms of email workflow, so the new interface works great for me.

David · 24 May 2013, 04:35 PM

I was lucky enough to find Fastmail a few days after they went public, long before they located their forums at EMD. Today I am disgusted, at what they are offering. It's very sad really. I am totally disappointed.

It was good while it lasted, I guess.

hobbes · 24 May 2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

....the resemblance to Gmail...

lol

Am I seeing the same interface as you?

labarum · 24 May 2013, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hobbes

Am I seeing the same interface as you?

For my money the Gmail interface is cluttered and the mail service itself complex without necessarily delivering power.

The new compose screen interests me. Is this a foretaste of a simpler looking Gmail?

Microsoft's new Outlook.com beats all for looks, simplicity and usability, but is presently light on features.

Fastmail has the power under the bonnet - with sensible development of both old and new interfaces it could still beat all on every front.

Ubtree · 24 May 2013, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilj

Could you give me the ticket number, so I can see what happened with support?

The ticket number was 327985.

Thank you for the response. It is always good to hear from the FM team, and I would be interested to read your comments on how the fact that so many users strongly prefer the classic interface, and whether FM/Opera will continue to be committed to it.

Consider how the classic interface compares with the new interface for a number of different operations, starting with those many users will carry out when they run through the e-mails that they have received since they last switched on:

Do nothing to e-mail, and go to next one in list
1 click with classic
1 click with new

Delete e-mail, and go to next one in list
1 click with classic
2 clicks with new

File e-mail in folder, and go to next one in list
2 click with classic
3 clicks with new

Move a file to a different folder
1 click with classic
Click-and-drag with new

Go to Define Rules
2 clicks with classic
4 clicks with new

Go to Help
1 click with classic
2 clicks with new

I appreciate that this is not particularly a problem for light users of the product, such as petergh, but for heavy users it is not good if the number of clicks required to perform basic operations is doubled.

The new interface is clearly well-liked by some users, and loathed by many others. But it's impossible to judge the proportion of those who like it and those who loathe it from the postings on this forum, since those posting are more likely to be heavy users (who are more likely to loathe it).

Nevertheless, FM is a premium product, for which users pay money. It simply will not survive in the long term if functionality is stripped back to a level that is available with free products. (And it will lose many customers even if it retains advanced features, but makes them less easy for advanced users to access them.)

I have a very serious suggestion: instead of presenting the new interface as the default interface and the old interface as the "classic" interface (and for "classic", most people will read "legacy - to be discontinued"), why not give each interface equal prominence, clearly offering a choice between:

FM Lite - the interface for everyday use
FM Power - the interface for power users

This would show a commitment to supporting both light users and heavy users, and would make everyone happy.

23 May 2013, 05:59 PM	#1
Ubtree Junior Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 12	New UI - thoughts 6 months on I would like to share some thoughts. The unannounced introduction of the new interface last year came as a shock, but I try to move with the times, and I adopted it without complaint. The new interface looked cleaner and appeared to have some advantages, but I regretted the loss of a number of single-click controls. I could see that "Conversations" would be useful for some people (although nor for me). And I found that changing settings (which I do quite often) had become a serious pain. But although it felt uncomfortable, I stuck with the new interface because I was sure that I would get used to it. For some time I have been having problems composing e-mails using FM with Opera (including: the cursor is not always visible; when I click on the screen the cursor often moves to a different part of the document; the text often does not wrap correctly and text towards the end of the line disappears; spaces between words are often not shown; as I type, the cursor lags behind its correct position and becomes superimposed on letters that have just been typed; when I try to highlight blocks of text, the highlighting does not match up with the text). When, after I extolled FM's virtues, my wife pointed out that the editor was unusable, I decided it was time to do something about it. I reported the problem to FM Support, but they were unable to help, other than to suggest using the classic UI or use a different browser. (Now there’s an irony! FM is owned by Opera, but FM’s new interface is not compatible with the Opera browser.) I have also reported to FM Support that the font specified in Settings is ignored; they said that this is a known issue, and that the fix is non-trivial and may take some time. So I revisited the classic UI, and it came as a breath of fresh air. I thought that, after using the new UI for 6 months, it would take some time to get used to the old interface again. But, no - it was as if I had never stopped using it. Revisiting it, the classic UI seems more intuitive, and it is now clear to me that many changes that I had simply accepted are retrograde and pointless. To take a single example: why hide the Settings and Help links in a drop down menu under the user name? There is plenty of room for them alongside the user name (as in the classic UI); the only effects of the change are to make the options more difficult to find, and to change single-click operations to a 2-click operations. The classic interface is a little less sleek, but makes it much easier and quicker to make use of the full power of FM - perhaps the new UI should be rebranded “Not-so-fast-Mail”. But even more worrying is the fact that, 6 months on, there are fundamental bugs in the new UI that are simply not being addressed. Worryingly, this appears to justify fears that long term commitment to FM was lost when Opera acquired it. If this is not the case, Opera/FM needs to make this clear by addressing the issues of the new UI. I love FM - its speed, and the unique and powerful combination of its facility to use as many e-mail addresses as needed and the power of its mail sorting rules. (I also love Opera. I started with Internet Explorer, then moved to Firefox for many years, but now use Opera all the time. For me, it is the best browser.) For as long is FM’s classic interface is available and supported, I will continue to use FM. But if the classic interface were dropped, I doubt that I would again use the new interface, and I now seriously doubt Opera's commitment to FM in the medium to long term.

23 May 2013, 10:17 PM	#5
janusz The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: EU Posts: 4,945	Short memory about what? I carried on using the old interface, and have no intention of moving away from it.

24 May 2013, 05:13 AM	#6
Prognathous Master of the @ Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Israel Posts: 1,060	6 months shows impressive perseverance. I quickly found so many things I disliked that I didn't really try to switch. I'm still with the Classic interface, and it's at least close enough to what the Fastmail interface was before this change. As long as they don't break the Classic interface any further, I'm good. Prog.

24 May 2013, 12:07 PM	#8
labarum Essential Contributor Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: UK and Cyprus Posts: 399	I'm still with the classic interface, I looked again at the new interface a few weeks ago. It's not for me.

24 May 2013, 12:10 PM	#9
Terry The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: VK4 Posts: 3,029	Not for me either....it's like having a Google nightmare.....

24 May 2013, 03:06 PM	#10
odedp Master of the @ Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL Posts: 1,666	Once in a while I decide to try the new interface to see if things have improved. So far I've quickly regreted all my decisions...

24 May 2013, 03:38 PM	#11
petergh Master of the @ Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 1,302	I for one think the new interface is great, and I also think the resemblance to Gmail (including many keyboard shortcuts) is a good thing, because to my mind the Gmail web application is the best email client around. I don't like Google handling my mail, so that's why I don't use Gmail, but you can't beat the web application they've built (although I do hope FM will catch up eventually!). I know many of the more advanced features from the classic interface are not available in the new interface, and if your workflow includes using one or more of those features, I understand why you're not using the new interface. My needs are pretty basic in terms of email workflow, so the new interface works great for me.

24 May 2013, 04:35 PM	#12
David Ultimate Contributor Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada. Posts: 10,355	I was lucky enough to find Fastmail a few days after they went public, long before they located their forums at EMD. Today I am disgusted, at what they are offering. It's very sad really. I am totally disappointed. It was good while it lasted, I guess.