21–30 of 220 posts
Those that don’t use inbox, why? I’m sure there are features of gmail that are missing from inbox but what are they? Why do Google keep these two “forks” of the same product?
I dont need anything Inbox provides. I just want a list of all my emails, untouched.
Those that don’t use inbox, why? I’m sure there are features of gmail that are missing from inbox but what are they? Why do Google keep these two “forks” of the same product?
Those that don’t use inbox, why? I’m sure there are features of gmail that are missing from inbox but what are they? Why do Google keep these two “forks” of the same product?
Inbox looks like a jumbled mess to me, with randomly sized images and pre-rendered images, and it makes me scroll a lot more.
Annoyingly, the new UI is slightly less dense than before, but it's still much better than Inbox.
@google, check this: https://dribbble.com/shots/4020485-Inbox-Client/attachments/... . It's better than yours. Never a fan of material design.. seriously, Google is NOT good at design. Period. I hoped, in this Gmail iteration, Google would finally take the plunge and kill the flat icons and minimalist design and once for all. It's quite the opposite unfortunately. It got flatter and uglier. All so plain and washed ou…
Those that don’t use inbox, why? I’m sure there are features of gmail that are missing from inbox but what are they? Why do Google keep these two “forks” of the same product?
Among "needed innovations", the post lists: "A good method for telling users what’s important to read and what can wait for later." To me, it's downright scary that someone would want Google telling them what is important in their own mailbox. Personal responsibility bad, Hand-holding good, apparently.
An important feature of Gmail from the get go was how well it separated Spam from relevant email. I don't think you'll find too many users who prefer to do that manually. It's a matter of degree of course, but scary seems too strong a word.
Also, the wording was "... and what can wait for later", which doesn't sound like spam was meant - I don't think people keep their spam messages and read through them later, e.g. over the weekend. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An important feature of Gmail from the get go was how well it separated Spam from relevant email. I don't think you'll find too many users who prefer to do that manually. It's a matter of degree of course, but scary seems too strong a word.
As I mentioned elsewhere: spam can be filtered objectively, but importance would have to be identified subjectively.
Conversely, if someone I've never exchanged emails with before, but who got my details through a third party wants to discuss a business opportunity, is that spam?
If you define spam narrowly as "unsolicited", then sure, it's somewhat objective (although even then, you have to work what was solicited in ways other than an initial email). But there's quite a bit of subjectivity involved in the more useful and generally accepted definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as scary as having Google filter out mail that is totally not important, i.e. spam? In Gmail you can (un)label email as being important, which will then train an algorithm just like a spam filter. Besides that, it will learn to recognise email you reply to often as being important. I very much like this feature; I set up the Gmail app on iOS to only send me push notifications for important mail. For me that stri…
Spam can be removed by objective filters, that simply classify the email against known patterns/rules. Who you are or what you like is irrelevant to them. This is not that: it's you, giving a giant personal information sponge, a bigger tap.
Those "objective filters" prevent me from sending email from home (I have to relay through a non-residential IP).
I receive about a dozen spam email per day (with occasional surges and lapses). My server accepts everything, and a simple local filter from my mail user agent (Evolution or Thunderbird, mainly) let few through, and false positives are very rare.
I'm not sure why the giant providers need to work any differently.
@google, check this: https://dribbble.com/shots/4020485-Inbox-Client/attachments/... . It's better than yours. Never a fan of material design.. seriously, Google is NOT good at design. Period. I hoped, in this Gmail iteration, Google would finally take the plunge and kill the flat icons and minimalist design and once for all. It's quite the opposite unfortunately. It got flatter and uglier. All so plain and washed ou…