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

Please Google, let us revert to the classic Gmail look

productforums.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 187 posts

Re: Please Google, let us revert to the classic Gmail look

#171

Post by hashfunktion »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #26

Same thing happened with Google maps a couple of years ago. They changed the UI to one a lot less functional, gave users an option to use the old UI for a while, then took it away. Now we're stuck with gmaps that are much worse than they used to be. Product managers at Google (and everywhere else) don't get promoted for leaving good products alone.

>Product managers at Google (and everywhere else) don't get promoted for leaving good products alone.

But they should get demoted for making good products bad.

Re: Please Google, let us revert to the classic Gmail look

#172

Post by system2 »

begriffs wrote: post #109
system2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are using multiple machines, your desktop client will be a huge headache to set up each. Business computers at work have outlook, but personally, I cannot use the client(s) for my 6+ separate computers. Browser email is the way to go.

> a huge headache to set up OK, but "huge headache" is somewhat exaggerated. For many clients, gmail connection settings are a preset option, where you enter a username and application password. It's a one-time configuration. > outlook My condolences. > my 6+ separate computers You are perhaps an outlier? But I can see how it's a hassle in your particular case.

Outlook type of software download all of the emails. Which means gigabytes per account. I use multiple google emails (gsuite), and this makes things harder.

Re: Please Google, let us revert to the classic Gmail look

#173

Post by system2 »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #102
system2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are using multiple machines, your desktop client will be a huge headache to set up each. Business computers at work have outlook, but personally, I cannot use the client(s) for my 6+ separate computers. Browser email is the way to go.

Mmm I’m sure you accept that’s an extreme minority requirement. Anyway, what’s painful about setting up multiple clients?

Gigabytes of data per account. Sync issues. If you are asking, you probably never suffered from these.

Re: Please Google, let us revert to the classic Gmail look

#174

Post by JoshuaAshton »

joshuamorton wrote: post #170
londons_explore wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine takes 21 seconds to fully load, including the tasks and calendar sidebar from a fresh browser start with no caches and cookies, but only timing from clicking the sign in button.

I think that's misleading. I tested a few times this morning, and had clean-cache "load" times of 10-35 seconds, but I could use the app within 5 and chrome devtools showed ready in under 10. So I'm curious what your metric is. Is it until the last resource is fully rendered in devtools, until the ready action fires, or until you can actually do things?

My metric was until the loading bar finished on the little fancy but useless opening letter animation which also probably took a significant time to load.

Re: Please Google, let us revert to the classic Gmail look

#175

Post by explainplease »

joshuamorton wrote: post #170
londons_explore wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine takes 21 seconds to fully load, including the tasks and calendar sidebar from a fresh browser start with no caches and cookies, but only timing from clicking the sign in button.

I think that's misleading. I tested a few times this morning, and had clean-cache "load" times of 10-35 seconds, but I could use the app within 5 and chrome devtools showed ready in under 10. So I'm curious what your metric is. Is it until the last resource is fully rendered in devtools, until the ready action fires, or until you can actually do things?

Do you hear yourself? You said to him:

> 23 seconds is abnormal, not the experience of most users, and therefore likely either not consistent for you (maybe your WiFi connection dropped) or due to some wierd configuration on your end.

And then you said:

> I tested a few times this morning, and had clean-cache "load" times of 10-35 seconds

And the middle of that range is 22.5 seconds. And you accuse him (a commenter on HN) of being so inexperienced that he can't distinguish between a new UI's very slow load times and his WiFi disconnecting?

> (Technically speaking, I work on Gmail, but unrelated to this)

Is everyone on the Gmail team like this? If so, no wonder we're having these problems. Google just won't listen.

The first thing I noticed about the new UI, and the thing I notice every time I load it, is that it takes 5-10 times as long to load as the former UI. It's just yet another reason to migrate off of Gmail for me.

Re: Please Google, let us revert to the classic Gmail look

#178

Post by joshuamorton »

explainplease wrote: post #175
joshuamorton wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's misleading. I tested a few times this morning, and had clean-cache "load" times of 10-35 seconds, but I could use the app within 5 and chrome devtools showed ready in under 10. So I'm curious what your metric is. Is it until the last resource is fully rendered in devtools, until the ready action fires, or until you can actually do things?

Do you hear yourself? You said to him: > 23 seconds is abnormal, not the experience of most users, and therefore likely either not consistent for you (maybe your WiFi connection dropped) or due to some wierd configuration on your end. And then you said: > I tested a few times this morning, and had clean-cache "load" times of 10-35 seconds And the middle of that range is 22.5 seconds. And you accuse him (a commenter o…

If you read the rest of the comment, you'd see that the relevant load time was I mentioned wifi dropping because that's exactly the reason it took 35 seconds to load. Every other time was sub 15.

Please follow the guidelines and respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what I'm saying, which is on fact trying to understand the issue, not in fact blaming someone. There's no reason to be rude or accusatory.

Re: Please Google, let us revert to the classic Gmail look

#179

Post by deanCommie »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #26

Same thing happened with Google maps a couple of years ago. They changed the UI to one a lot less functional, gave users an option to use the old UI for a while, then took it away. Now we're stuck with gmaps that are much worse than they used to be. Product managers at Google (and everywhere else) don't get promoted for leaving good products alone.

OK, hang on, i'm with you that the initial redesign had less features, and was slower, but people forget that Google Maps used to have 2 buttons - Maps and Satelite view. Then they added Terrain

Then they added a little Street View guy

By making a pullout hamburger menu on the side, they were able to add: * Traffic * Google earth/globe integration * Notifications * Location Sharing * Your maps (used to be an entirely different site) * Your contributions * Your timelines * Multiple sharing options * Transit - including schedule exploring * Bicycle - including topographical elevation changes

And that's before you get to languages, tours, tips and tricks, settings, history, and ability to provide missing data.

Oh and every location, with contact information, photos, and menus.

You don't have to like the design aesthetic, and you can complain that all these features made the product unusably slow, but the re-design was NECESSARY to add the new features.

Re: Please Google, let us revert to the classic Gmail look

#180

Post by explainplease »

joshuamorton wrote: post #178
explainplease wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you hear yourself? You said to him: > 23 seconds is abnormal, not the experience of most users, and therefore likely either not consistent for you (maybe your WiFi connection dropped) or due to some wierd configuration on your end. And then you said: > I tested a few times this morning, and had clean-cache "load" times of 10-35 seconds And the middle of that range is 22.5 seconds. And you accuse him (a commenter o…

If you read the rest of the comment, you'd see that the relevant load time was I mentioned wifi dropping because that's exactly the reason it took 35 seconds to load. Every other time was sub 15. Please follow the guidelines and respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what I'm saying, which is on fact trying to understand the issue, not in fact blaming someone. There's no reason to be rude or accusatory.

> Please follow the guidelines and respond to the strongest possible interpretation of what I'm saying, which is on fact trying to understand the issue, not in fact blaming someone. There's no reason to be rude or accusatory.

It would be good if you would do the same. Your comments to him seem to not follow those guidelines.

Post reply on HN