Gmail just became really good

http://henry.precheur.org/2008/5/24/Gmail%20just%20became%20really%20good.html

by henryprecheur • 18 years ago

9 24 18 years ago

henry.precheur.org

I think the UI version one is the best (not generic html). the new ui they've done is slow and bloated, and seems to have little improvements.

jrockway• 18 years ago

It's amusing that people still avoid JavaScript for absolutely no reason. 1998 called, they want their unfounded fear back.

npk• 18 years ago

Not really -- I use plain HTML because otherwise the AJAX requests eats 50% of my CPU and a huge part of my memory. The HTML browser is just plain faster.

ovi256• 18 years ago

Not trying to belittle, but it sounds like you have a slow CPU. For modern machines, a JS interpreter (which powers AJAX) is a light, negligible charge.

adduc• 18 years ago

I use Gmail's plain HTML layout because my connection is spotty and slow in most places I'm at, and the AJAXie layout takes up additional bandwidth.

Prrometheus• 18 years ago

But how can you remember anyone's email address without the javascript auto-complete feature turned on?

ivankirigin• 18 years ago

EXACTLY. The benefit of turning off javascript is small, and the cost is huge.

ryanmahoski• 18 years ago

On a mobile unit, sure. But JavaScript powers keyboard shortcuts, my favorite Gmail feature. If that costs me CPU cycles or bandwidth latency, I don't notice it. I appreciate simplicity but on a modern computer/browser, efficiency and features often trump convention and portability.

hollerith• 18 years ago

I agree with the article. I like Gmail a lot better now that I no longer have to manually switch it back to "basic HTML" mode.

nazgulnarsil• 18 years ago

thank christ. now I can actually use my gmail account instead of just forwarding it to other accounts.

maxklein• 18 years ago

I would NEVER cater for an audience that willingly switched off javascript. This is like people who refuse to buy any cars that have electronics in them. Javascript is no longer some esoteric or slow - it's supported by 90% of all browsers, and pretty much critical for most of the web.

tdavis• 18 years ago

All this discussion makes me think that if someone were to create, say, a Firefox plug-in for accessibility -- one that could react to Javascript-related DOM changes and such -- there would be a serious market for it.

Of course, if web developers would stop being lazy and properly implement things like progressive enhancement and graceful degradation, it wouldn't be needed. Every site I make starts as non-Javascript, even if I plan for the entire thing to be laden with it in the end.

Then again, all of this is moot anyway, because the author gave absolutely no reasons for why he prefers the HTML version and doesn't use the JS version. I am going to run with the idea that he fears JAVASCRIPT GNOMES!!!

Gmail just became really good

Related Stories