Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Re-Designing the classic email client

vanschneider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 222 posts

Re: Re-Designing the classic email client

#81

Post by Timothee »

podperson wrote: post #36

Don't fix email. Fix communication. Why, on my iPhone, do I have: 1. An email app (which required a major update to unite mail boxes) 2. A "messages" app (which abstracts out two different message systems) 3. A phone app 4. A contacts app 5. Twitter 6. Facebook 7. Skype What I want to do is (a) send messages to people (I don't care how), (b) check messages I've received (from anyone, using any method), (c) manage my…

"2. A "messages" app (which abstracts out two different message systems)"

Is the abstraction a plus or a minus in your opinion? I'm asking because on one hand you're asking for a unified communication app, but on the other, the way you wrote that part, it sounds like a bad thing.

Taking this specific example, I think it shows that aggregating communication media is difficult and maybe not a good thing. In Messages, SMS and what is pretty much IM is mixed and I don't know which is which anymore.

I do find the idea of a unified inbox interesting and worthy of being explored but the thing is that each of these have different expectations from the users. If I send an SMS, it's typically because I expect a response fairly quickly: pretty similar to IM, except that I want to reach the person right now wherever they are. An email has a longer reply timeframe: if I don't hear back for a few days, it's usually fine. A tweet or Facebook status doesn't have the expectation to be read by everyone. (because it's one-to-many)

And I think the expectations go both ways: when someone receives an SMS vs. an email, they know the time to reply is different.

There are also different expectations in terms of half-life of the content. SMSs are sent and forgotten for the most part, while emails are archived for years. (though it's probably true that these archives are most likely not as useful/consulted as we'd think)

So I do care how I send my messages to people.

Re: Re-Designing the classic email client

#82

Post by huhtenberg »

dpark wrote: post #55
huhtenberg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if the top comment starts with "holy shit", it typically drags all other comments in the same direction. Also, questioning someone's font survey by attacking their use of Comic Sans is, bluntly put, retarded. You still need to account for the quality of the content to make a judgement.

Did you seriously complain about someone else saying "holy shit" and then follow it up by calling my comment "retarded"? And no, it's not "retarded" to question someone's expertise when they're presenting themselves as an expert and making critical errors. Your opinions on fonts are at best suspect if you use Comic Sans for the content of your blog. Likewise, your opinions on interaction design are at best suspect if…

No, not your comment, the ad hominem approach. There's plenty of reasons why Comic Sans could end up on the page talking about fonts. It can be a joke, it can be a fallback font, it can be some hosted template that got messed up.

In this case, pixelated jpgs are probably the fasted way for him to publish the content, fading is likely inherited from the general site template, it is presented unconventionally, but I personally had absolutely no problem reading it. The actual content is thoughtful and it makes sense. So do tell me again why nitpicking on the text fading thing coupled with a holy shit drama is a good way to start the discussion.

Re: Re-Designing the classic email client

#83

Post by [deleted] »

pbreit wrote: post #78
koenigdavidmj wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's late, I might send my friend an email instead of an SMS because I know that the SMS will probably wake her up, and the email won't. That should be up to the other end to determine. I should not need to say `SMS wakes me up, email doesn't' when they are fundamentally the same thing. That's an implementation detail. The right way to do this is for the other person to be able to tell the phone what they want,…

It's much easier and humane to accomplish this with multiple applets with different characteristics.

[deleted]

Re: Re-Designing the classic email client

#84

Post by icebraining »

blhack wrote: post #62
podperson wrote: post #36

Don't fix email. Fix communication. Why, on my iPhone, do I have: 1. An email app (which required a major update to unite mail boxes) 2. A "messages" app (which abstracts out two different message systems) 3. A phone app 4. A contacts app 5. Twitter 6. Facebook 7. Skype What I want to do is (a) send messages to people (I don't care how), (b) check messages I've received (from anyone, using any method), (c) manage my…

In my kitchen I have: 1. A fridge 2. A coffee machine 3. A stove 4. A microwave 5. A blender 6. Mixing bowls 7. Measuring cups All I want to do is feed myself. Why on earth do I need to have so many different things to do it? To...most people, having a separate "app" for things that do wildly different things is a good . Skype and email fill completely different roles to me, and I suspect they fill completely differe…

Or you could mark the message as 'important' before sending it.

Alternatively, you could still choose email vs sms with a single toggle instead of having to use two very different apps for what is essentially the same thing.

Re: Re-Designing the classic email client

#85

Post by calinet6 »

moeffju wrote: post #43

Sparrow is so close to this. All it's lacking is the all-attachments view and the prioritizing, but you can hack the prioritizing easily enough with Gmail labels. Even then, I don't think that's enough, though. I think e-mail nowadays needs to be more of a TODO manager and less about messaging.

Agreed, 100%. I saw the screenshot and thought, "Oh, it's Sparrow with some red colors and a new little organization feature. Neat."

Sparrow is literally this exact client design, minus the cute "Actionsteps" or whatever. They could easily add some more color coding to Sparrow and it would fill this need pretty easily (well, that and fix some annoyances, which as is usually the case, is the larger usability problem—simply not being annoying).

More importantly, you're right: e-mail is no longer just communication. Our e-mail clients are how we organize incoming tasks and work. This is why GTD and the like focus so strongly on e-mail, because it's become our primary means of incoming information. Organizing that is the problem, and it does need a solution.

Re: Re-Designing the classic email client

#86

Post by ezy »

This person needs to try outlook. You see, there's a little flag you can click on next to the email with a task priority. And a todo bar/list which shows them in priority order. Not only has it existed before, but it really doesn't help that much. You still need to apply yourself to use it correctly. This doesn't change that.

Sigh... but then I knew I was in for wheel re-invention as soon as I saw the "modern creative workflow" sales bullshit. Perhaps there's something to be gained by making it prettier than outlook, I dunno. I feel like Alan Kay -- read about your history folks. If you're going to "re-invent email" you might want to, I don't know -- try out many different existing email clients?

Re: Re-Designing the classic email client

#88

Post by lazerwalker »

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #73
blhack wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my kitchen I have: 1. A fridge 2. A coffee machine 3. A stove 4. A microwave 5. A blender 6. Mixing bowls 7. Measuring cups All I want to do is feed myself. Why on earth do I need to have so many different things to do it? To...most people, having a separate "app" for things that do wildly different things is a good . Skype and email fill completely different roles to me, and I suspect they fill completely differe…

> If it's late, I might send my friend an email instead of an SMS because I know that the SMS will probably wake her up, and the email won't. That should be up to the other end to determine. I should not need to say `SMS wakes me up, email doesn't' when they are fundamentally the same thing. That's an implementation detail. The right way to do this is for the other person to be able to tell the phone what they want,…

There are a lot of implicit social expectations built into different messaging systems.

I have friends who I regularly email, SMS, and IM with. We've never explicitly discussed this, but it's pretty much assumed that sending an SMS means you want a response ASAP, an IM expects a response within a few hours, and an email can wait a day or two. Even though all three are ostensibly messaging systems, there is a social understanding that different messaging mediums have different purposes; simply filtering based on sender doesn't convey enough contextual information to make a meaningful decision.

Re: Re-Designing the classic email client

#89

Post by Timothee »

hapless wrote: post #8

This guy has teeny tiny letters hardcoded into JPGs on his web site. I can't read it. Fortunately, this means I can disregard what he has to say about UI/UX. Sometimes the medium IS the message.

The ghosting on the first quote and the logo is really hurting my eyes. When reading further down "clean typography", I had the same thought of "how can this guy's opinion on this be trusted?".

Before Svbtle, Dustin Curtis had a few posts where the design was completely custom for each one but still didn't use any image to display text in various position. So it can be done.

Re: Re-Designing the classic email client

#90

Post by dllthomas »

blhack wrote: post #75
koenigdavidmj wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's late, I might send my friend an email instead of an SMS because I know that the SMS will probably wake her up, and the email won't. That should be up to the other end to determine. I should not need to say `SMS wakes me up, email doesn't' when they are fundamentally the same thing. That's an implementation detail. The right way to do this is for the other person to be able to tell the phone what they want,…

Sometimes I do want my friends to wake me up in the middle of the night: "I'm drunk, I need a ride home." "Can I stay at your house." "$emergency" "Hey, I really just need somebody to talk to..." etc. etc. I don't want to have to go through my entire contact list, individually setting people who can and can't wake me up at night. There is already a mechanism for this, it's called "human interaction". My friends know…

I've been wishing there was a layer between my phone and me that said, effectively, "You've reached David's phone - if this is an emergency or he's expecting your call, press 1; otherwise, press 2 to set up an appointment for a later call, or 3 leave a voicemail message." Where 2 would talk to my calendar and ideally their calendar and figure out a time that works for both of us without my involvement. Sure, people could just mash 1, but people always have an option to be rude when there's interpersonal interaction going on, and at least this way they have a way not to be rude while still reaching out to me by phone, and a way to actually get through to me in an emergency.
Post reply on HN