Quote:
Originally Posted by Grhm
If having a second, parallel web interface is a security risk and a drain on resources, why on Earth did Fastmail set up the new interface in the first place?
If they have to drop one of the interfaces then they should drop the new one.
It doesn't work at all on my device, and in my experience of it on library computers it is inferior to Classic in almost every way.
It is a failed experiment.
They have had several years working on it and it still falls well short of the standard of functionality, speed, ergonomics and accessibility of the 'classic' interface... which itself is inferior to the original 'old' interface it replaced.
To say it has 'a modern look and feel' is vacuous.
If Ford brought out a new car that was slower, harder to drive and less comfortable than the model it replaced, they would be laughed out of town for drawing attention to its 'modern look and feel'.
Computer technology seems to be the only area of life in which people meekly accept that 'modern' inevitably means worse.
It doesn't have to be this way!
|
Agreed, on all counts.
And here is another related point, from a personal perspective, if I may.
A family member of mine is happy using the classic interface. She is locked out of using the standard interface because her older browser is not supported. And before anyone asks why she doesn't simply update her browser, she couldn't further upgrade her browser even if she wanted to do so, because it is the highest version supported by her computer's OS, and further upgrading of her OS is not feasible. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that the only way for her to coninue using Fastmail after the classic interface is discontinued would be to buy an entirely new device, something she has no need or desire to do.
She doesn't need or use elaborate features and would be perfectly glad to use a 'basic' or 'minimalist' interface that provides simple access to her account without all the bells and whistles, but her browser is also incompatible with
https://tiny.fastmail.com/, the 'minimalist' interface which previously afforded at least a basic login capability to users of older systems and browsers. (I'm not sure when this incompatibility took hold, but a test login using
https://tiny.fastmail.com worked OK at some point during the past year, so some change must have been made fairly recently that now precludes this option, at least in her case.)
There is no intrinsic reason, either technical or economic, why such corporate decisions are inevitable. To cite several examples large and small, Gmail, EuMX, and VFEmail all make allowance for backwards compatibility which accommodate as many users as possible, including those willing to do without fancy features. Gmail offers a 'basic HTML interface' which will work with just about anything, and EuMX and VFEmail offer a 'basic' or 'minimalist' interface (available as a choice at the Horde login page). A number of other reputable and reliable providers offer similar or analogous options in connection with various webmail interfaces or as a stand-alone separate log-in option.
If providers at opposite ends of the size and resources spectrum can offer versions of this sort of simple user option, then why can't Fastmail do it? Clearly it is not economically impractical for VFEmail or EuMX to do this, and they are quite small operations, so a provider doesn't have to possess Gmail's bottomless resources to display this sort of flexibility. Why should my family member have to choose between buying a new device she does not need or sacrificing access to her Fastmail account?
I accept that backwards compatibility can realistically be taken only so far, and I acknowledge that eventually a time does come when older software and the technology that uses it must be retired and replaced. In this case, however, Fastmail has been disingenuous from the very beginning about its intentions regarding the 'old' interface, while continuously chipping away and redefining and degrading it.
I understand all the reasons given for their decisions, but their past record in this connection disinclines me to viewing their actions with much sympathy or approval.