
Why Gmail's new design is unsuitable for heavy use - jzb
http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2011/11/5-problems-with-gmails-new-des.php
======
awakeasleep
There should be a publication archiving the superficially thoughtful, hate-
filled tirades that occur in reaction to every change that happens to public
facing things.

Then, when we create something, we can look through the archives and see the
volume of ire directed at what we've come to love, and draw a relaxed breath
realizing you really can't please everyone.

~~~
ubernostrum
Except this was neither hate-filled nor superficial.

The toolbar buttons, for example are a great example of a major usability
mistake: what we used to call "mystery meat navigation" back in the day,
because it was difficult or even impossible to know in advance what would
happen if you clicked a given button.

~~~
floris
If anything the icons would make it more suitable for "heavy use" because once
you get used to them they are an improvement to the old text, defeating the
point of this superficial article even more.

~~~
JabavuAdams
> If anything the icons would make it more suitable

No, this is incorrect. I'm a heavy user of Gmail, and I still can't find the
damn new refresh button. How many weeks should it take for me to get used to
this so-called "improvement". I preferred it when it was text. I just don't
see the new spiral icon thingie as "refresh".

Another way to look at it is if you make an improvement to something I don't
care about, it's not an improvement. Especially, if it makes my job harder.

You need to actually measure what users do, not generalize from unsupported
assertions.

~~~
digitaltoad
I'm exactly opposite. I had no problem finding the refresh button since the
icon used is basically the same exact icon used for refresh in multiple apps
that I use everyday, including every browser that I use (Chrome, Firefox,
Safari). It looks to me like a lot of the icons that have been used seem to be
a standard in a lot of apps that use icons without text.

------
FuzzyDunlop
I like the cleanliness of the new design and the use of whitespace to separate
things.

There are two general problems I have. One is the fact that the UI controls
tend to blend in with the rest of the page, and the fact they're just icons
isn't much help either. The other is inconsistency or otherwise controverting
user expectation.

The first problem means to mark something as spam I have to first remember
where to look for the button that doesn't stand out. I then have to hover over
it until the tooltip shows to make sure I've got the right one.

The second one manifests itself in the behaviour of the toolbar, some of the
UI element positions, and what I would call some rather basic principles:

On the actual mail screen, the toolbar has a fixed position, so it always
sticks to the top of the page when you scroll. On the inbox, it doesn't. Why
not?

The star icon is on the left on the inbox page. Why is it on the right when
you view the email? (This has persisted from the old design, to be fair.)

Why have they taken an Android design cue and put the form submission elements
at the top of the page? When you fill in any form, you expect the
submit/cancel buttons to be _below_ the form you're filling in, not above. I
have been caught out several times trying to scroll the compose page (that no
longer scrolls at all), only to realise the button I'm looking for is actually
at the opposite end.

While Google may be getting a better eye for aesthetic design and simplicity,
I think they're still quite a way from mastering intuition.

------
carterschonwald
My biggest issue personally with the new gmail design is that all the current
theme options are "two tone". By this I mean that with the old themes, you
could have 1 color for the background in the left pane, another for the menu
area of the current folder, and possibly another for the background in the
email thread/ composition region.

For the new gmail look, theres just "background color" and "foreground color".
Now I may just be a simple sentient hominid computer user, but most human
beings that are neither horse nor hammerhead shark have this wonderful thing
called depth perception (and color perception) which allows for more nuance in
our perception than just "front bit" and "back thingy", and moreover our brain
does a lot of heuristics when giving us our vision, one of which is using
contrast in two neighboring objects to detect that they are separated (by
those regions called borders).

Phrased a bit more directly, I think the biggest problem with the new gmail /
reader ui's is not aesthetics. Its not UI standard practice, its not this new
found homogeneity or "sparseness", though these all tie into the underlying
problem. Rather its that the human brain is optimized for using contrast in
depth or color or shade as a core hinting tool in perception. If they're going
to stick to general new style, they need to provide more dimensions in how
different ui elements can be themed.

The closest metaphorical analogue I can think of would be that the current ui
approach would be like having the classic cartoon "Samurai Jack" (which has a
very nice style that is notable for being one of the few cartoons that lack
black outlines at all) being colored with only two very close shades of gray &
a smattering of black and white in a few small places. Sure you can still see
everything, but your brain has to work harder to actually keep track of it
all.

------
tikhonj
I actually rather like the new design. It looks better and is more consistent
than before.

Unlike the poster, I actually really like the simple geometric style it now
uses. It's a nice break from the incessant rounded corners and gradients that
so many other web sites seem to favor (HN's design is similarly refreshing).

The icons are a major change and take getting used to, but I think they
improve the experience overall. The one think I find really stupid are the
gear icons--one in the top righthand corner for the Google+ style bar and one
gmail-specific. Having two identical icons that do the same thing is bad.
Apart from that, I think it's a good design.

However, while I like the new design, I really dislike the default theme. Some
of the gripes about separating content from the UI are addressed the other
themes. I particularly like the "dusk" and "dark" ones.

Overall, with a few reservations, I like where they're taking the design and
hope to see more web apps follow suit.

------
2arrs2ells
I've found that, using keyboard shortcuts (and with a decent Internet
connection), Gmail becomes about as efficient as Pine/Alpine (I've never used
mutt).

I don't love the redesign (I think the placement/appearance of the "important"
and "starred" markers is terrible), but since they didn't change keyboard
shortcuts at all, I can still plow through reading/replying/labeling messages.

~~~
dasil003
Yeah, my biggest complaint originally was the lack of density, since being
about to see the maximum number of emails has long been a killer feature of
Gmail, but they fixed that with the compact view.

The contrast issues are there, but it really doesn't bother me because I'm in
Gmail hours every day. All I need is consistency, responsiveness and
comprehensive keyboard shortcuts.

------
saturdaysaint
Gmail was never especially pretty, but the redesign and my experience in
highly focused mobile apps have pushed me back to Apple's native apps. To me,
the most important elements of the screen seem to pop out in Apple's apps, and
settings and controls sit thoughtfully in the background. My eyes gravitate to
the most salient elements of the screen - the mail list and the currently
opened e-mail. The compose window literally pushes to the foreground; I find
the effect focusing. You can hide screen elements you don't use!

In Gmail I feel like every control demands my attention equally. Having a big
red "compose" button might be nice for a novice, but it's irritating to me. I
search my e-mails every now and then, but not nearly enough to justify the
large search bar. Ditto with Gchat - MMS and Facebook have replaced IM as far
as I'm concerned. The "Plus Bar" at the top of the screen is useless if you,
you know, actually already have Google's Apps open most of the time (in which
case clicking anything gives you an extraneous tab). Huge swathes of my screen
are dedicated to things I barely use.

~~~
itcmcgrath
Yes!

I find the new interface has made me less efficient and distracted by the
screen elements I use the least.

~~~
saturdaysaint
I don't know why it's taken so long to get on my nerves, but yeah, going from
Gmail to native Mac apps really feels like going from a 7" netbook to a full
size laptop.

------
dylangs1030
The title is grossly inaccurate. I agree in principle with the author that
Gmail has some legitimate criticisms which can be levied against it, but the
title construes a much more serious tone than the article delivers. The first
paragraph or so of the article, the opening, doesn't give a real criticism. It
gives a short dissemination of why Gmail's theme isn't really fashionable. And
while it makes a good segue into claiming Gmail is sacrificing feature for
looks, I don't agree if that's the implicit complaint. I think Gmail can
support "heavy use" even if it doesn't delineate from the side interface and
doesn't give an entirely straightforward icon for every folder and label.

------
antimora
My little rant on Gmail's UX.

The Gmail's user interface has bloated over the years. I want my email to be
simple. I don't want chat, ads, additional info related the recipients or
senders on the top right corner, which is created to draw users attention to
ads. I don't my top toolbar be fixed; I want it to go away when I scroll down.

The only things I like about the gmail over other email clients is: search,
conversation, and spam filters, but it's becoming like an Outlook.

------
mtkd
I found the icons a bit challenging at first (as a heavy user) but through
that now.

It's really awesome to use in comparison with any other client I've worked
with.

If I could change one thing it would be the unread/read background contrast.

~~~
steve-howard
I dunno. Is it ever good UI design to replace clearly labeled buttons with
cute but confusing icons? Just because you can get used to it doesn't mean
it's a good change.

~~~
dasil003
Yes, for heavy users, because it makes it easier to see the important textual
content on the screen instead of a lot of UI elements.

~~~
sliverstorm
Agreed, a minimalistic (but fully functional) interface lacking eye-candy is a
positive for heavy users. It reduces noise on-screen.

------
chimeracoder
Gmail's redesign was what convinced me to finally switch to mutt.

I receive a lot of emails. I have to respond to a lot of them quickly. I don't
want a slick, modern-art-inspired user-interface - I just want to get in and
out of my inbox as fast as possible, with minimal distractions.

~~~
rbanffy
Putting an ssh service that runs Gmail through a mutt-like interface is the
kind of 20%-time project I would do if I were at Google.

~~~
dan00
mutt + gmail + offlineimap

~~~
chimeracoder
Is there a way to get archive, labels, and sending from multiple addresses to
work? If so, I think I could abandon the web client completely.

------
thurn
I'm a heavy user, and I still have no idea what the buttons do because I
exclusively use the keyboard shortcuts. I'd assume most really heavy Gmail
users avoid using the mouse.

------
notatoad
the idea that this tirade is specific to "heavy users" is laughable. if
anything, it applies more to light use than to heavy use. "mystery meat"
navigation is generally a no-no, but the exception to that rule is in heavily
used interfaces like email clients, where whatever is used will be memorized
by all users incredibly quickly, and the removal of labels can actually
streamline the interface.

the author doesn't make a single valid point regarding why the new interface
is worse specifically for heavy users. its just a collection of negative
reactions to change, like every other criticism since they introduced the new
layout.

~~~
watmough
Here's what the mail box toolbars look like in the old versus new, and the
author does cover these.

I think these pictures speak for themselves. One is a model of clarity and the
other is a context-sensitive, icon-infested mess.

<http://imgur.com/a/X4gdp>

------
yaix
On my netbook, Gmail is now almost unusable. All the position:fixed elements
at the top and botton and left side take up so much space, that the square
left for the actual email message has become rediculessly small.

If they offered simply a "super-compact with no fixed bs" option, I would be
happy. The rest of the new design I really don't care about.

------
dlaw
I was an intern at Google when this change was first rolled out internally.
Google employees had quite similar reactions.

The change was not implemented because people liked it, or didn't like it --
it was implemented because there was cold, hard data showing that new users
utilized the new design more effectively than the old design.

~~~
typpo
What were the metrics used to determine that the design is "more effective"?

------
cjfont
Some comments:

 _"A major problem that I have with the new interface is that Gmail has gone
from text-based buttons to an icon-only design."_

The text is there, it's simply been converted into tooltips. Are you really
going to need to have the text there after using the button a few dozen times?

 _"The bad is that the compact is hard to read, and comfortable displays less
information than the classic Gmail design."_

Perhaps it's because I'm using a custom theme and so my view is different, but
I don't really see much different between "compact" and the old design.

 _"Google has also removed the bottom toolbar from the interface. So if you're
at the bottom of your inbox, you have to move the mouse back up to the top of
the screen to archive, spam, mark messages read, and so forth."_

Seriously? Are you going to suffer from RSI from moving your mouse up the
screen each time you view your inbox? Not sure why your cursor keeps ending up
at the bottom of the screen each time you finish checking your inbox.

The only points I can really agree with the author on is that the new
interface is slower to use than before, and also on the excessive use of
whitespace -- there does seem to be a lot of unused area with the new look
(although it does make my theme look prettier).

~~~
schwit
The best icon is a word. There's no interpretation necessary between picture
and purpose. This new version looks like something from Microsoft ... change
for the sake of change.

~~~
CamperBob
Exactly.

If icons are the answer, why don't we use hieroglyphics everywhere?

------
roxtar
The one thing which I hate most about Gmail's new design is the damned
feedback button is always there the next time, no matter how many times I hit
"X".

~~~
gujk
If there is something you don't like about Gmail, just click the feedback
button and let Google know.

[http://ubuntuincident.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/hide-about-
th...](http://ubuntuincident.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/hide-about-the-new-look-
send-feedback-in-gmail/)

~~~
roxtar
Yes sir, I did do that. Thanks for the link.

------
teye
Tufte, who we all seem to worship, would praise separation of elements with
whitespace instead of dividing lines.

This article, like most things from uxmovement.com, would be a lot easier to
stomach with data backing up the author's preferences.

~~~
gbog
I don't even know who is Tufte, and don't worship anyone, thanks.

------
yarone
My #1 complaint: The grabber for expanding the height of the textbox has been
deleted!

See here: <http://i.imgur.com/MEGM1.png>

Previously, I'd expand the textbox to give myself more space (and "breathing
room", if you will).

------
tghw
"There's no divider between the mail contents and the navigation on either
side. Too much white space in many areas."

Um, the white space _is_ the divider. This really feels like they're
complaining because something changed and no one likes change.

~~~
zbowling
Is just whitespace enough to be considered a real divider? You're eyes can't
track it every well in a complicated interface. You need a huge amount of
whitespace to work like real dividing line.

------
Kev
I've been using the new design for about a week and overall I think it's an
improvement, but I've been griping non-stop about the chat/contact area
hogging space even when you drag it down as small as possible.

This comment started out as another one of those gripes, until I decided to
make one more attempt to hide the chat area for good. Turns out that clicking
on the speech bubble icon closes the contacts list/chat area. Can't believe it
took me a week to try that.

------
kapilkale
I think the visuals are fine. But there are lots of new UI issues.

For example, I frequently copy / paste an email address into from an email
header into the search bar. Now I can't do that without clicking that tiny
little triangle, which is so small I usually miss. It's extremely annoying.

If there's a better way to do this I'd love to know.

edit- the tiny triangle: <http://i.imgur.com/U4qBR.png>

~~~
nooneelse
If you hover over the person's name, and then click "more" in the popup, there
is a "Recent conversations" option that runs a similar search.

------
antirez
I think this design is very good and better for heavy users compared to the
previous one:

* The new way to reply to emails makes it a lot faster to reply in the common case. It makes emails more similars to chat conversations where you can reply with just one line or alike, that is a _necessary_ shift today, otherwise no one will reply to emails soon as it is a killer of your time.

* The icons will tell you what they do if your pointer is over the icon, since there are a few icons after a week or so you know what every one is doing, and the fact they are very well "exposed" in the UI makes their use comfortable.

* New stars make more sense, less different types, more semantically shaped and colored.

* When the UI is set to "compact" is the perfect amount of information IMHO, if you receive a lot of emails. But you can change that depending on the amount of conversions you handle and on your tastes.

What I really don't like instead? Formatting is not retained on emails, it
strips newlines, spaces and so forth in a random way. This is very very bad.

------
J_Darnley
I wonder why he doesn't try the basic interface. It still has text buttons and
all the "information density" you could need.

------
mwsherman
I wonder the degree to which user data is driving their choices. On the one
hand, they have a lot of it. On the other, it can’t really drive design.

Data can be used to support hypotheses, but it will not tell you what to try.
Very curious how Google deals with this.

------
ChuckMcM
I felt this was pretty fairly articulated critique of the changes to Gmail.
And the author admits that some of their issue may be part of a resistance to
change meme. I've gone on record with my issues about too much white space.
And even in 'compact' mode it is less useful to me.

Overall its the down side of G+ which has the effect of opening up things to
change which perhaps shouldn't be changed.

But on the positive side it creates opportunity for folks like Mailgunner to
get in. Its the tech version of the circle of life.

------
gorloth
The new gmail interface really feels like it's made for a touchscreen, problem
is a touchscreen UI feels awkward on a system with a mouse.

Question for all you web people out there, what would the difficulty of making
a stylish/greasemonkey/something script to keep the old layout/look? I'm a
programmer but I work on embedded systems in C, I don't have to worry about
this fancy internet stuff.

------
mark_l_watson
After getting used to the icons and learning to switch on "compact" mode on my
laptop, I like it about as well as the old version.

------
lwhi
I wonder if the interface would have been better received if the tighter
density was used as a default setting? Do first impressions of a UI add as
much weight to the way we perceive it, as they do when meeting a person for
the first time?

Personally I think the interface is good .. I like it, and I'm sure I'll grow
more comfortable with it as time goes on.

------
JohnTHaller
If you're a heavy email user, you should not be using webmail. You should be
using a real email client.

~~~
btilly
If you're a heavy email user who uses your email from multiple machines, an
efficient webmail is perfect.

~~~
dredmorbius
No, you use offlineimap to dump the mail to the host(s) you need to access it
from, and GET SHIT DONE.

Or you aggregate the mail to a single system you access via SSH and GET SHIT
DONE. So long as you're using Web protocols to talk to your mail, cut out the
complexity of the browser and leverage ssh & screen.

Similarly, if you deal with mail from multiple systems, you can relay/forward
it, or aggregate it via multiple retrieval systems (offlineimap is great and
synchronizes sent/read mail from numerous locations), but older POP protocols
can also work)

I have a daily mailstream that runs in the thousands of messages (many boxes,
much complaining, many people, other stuff).

 _I need an email system that surfaces stuff that matters, fast, effectively,
and efficiently, and lets me find, process, and adjudicate mail practically._

If you've never used an efficient and powerful console/CLI mail client such as
mutt or mh, you have no idea of the power this provides.

~~~
snowwrestler
In my daily life there are 10 devices I might use to access email. Instead of
spending time to configure IMAP and/or SSH on every device, I just log into
Gmail and get shit done the same way in all 10 places.

~~~
jarek
It takes a lot of effort to configure an ssh client to be sure.

------
davvid
What's with the zero pixel left margin? Lots of websites seem to be doing that
these days.

~~~
gujk
Usually it is a variable margin that wasn't tested on a screen the width of a
normal human's.

------
ck2
I still do not understand why the old interface cannot be made available for
another year or two.

The visual changes are obviously just cosmetic with little to no backend
modification.

It definitely feels like designers were given complete override to engineers.

------
mrleinad
So, everyone and their mothers are creating web applications suitable for
tablets. Do you really believe there's no room for web applications that could
be accessed from a good ol' desktop pc? How come is that?

------
el_presidente
People love to whine about changes to websites. OTOH, nobody complains when
their TV remote changes layout or when their living room rearranges itself
overnight.

It's a double standard.

------
tomrod
What? Gmail redesigned? I use a desktop client, so I never really focus on the
webside.

------
mkramlich
I also think the new design is a step backwards in usability. And yes I
thought we all learned by now that symbolic icons are not as good as text
labels. That's pretty much the point of human languages like English -- they
are symbols which have a meaning, and you arrange them in different ways to
convey different meanings. Given a choice between some arbitrary shape and the
text "STOP", guess which one will more clearly and unambiguously convey
"STOP"?

~~~
gujk
The pencil icon, obviously. Or maybe the square with a rectangle on top.

------
gcb
even though i think windows is wrong by not unpleasing users with design
changes for the better... and not agreeing that white space _may_ be ok to
separate the tag list and the message, there's no excuse to:

1\. the buttons without labels. your user WILL have to hover the mouse every
time he forgets one button.

2\. the fact that it moved from a huge clickable area to 17x17px button to see
the message headers (and that the header information was vastly reduced)

maybe some huge user testing proved those right... but my constant cursing
says that at least a 5% exist.

