Honestly, I don't think he gets that smart phones as they are now are not going to replace the PC form factor. Until a smart phone can be plugged into a docking station with a keyboard, the smart phone will be a limited data consuming (not creating) device. For example, you won't be watching TV or first run movies on a phone's screen (seriously, who the hell would?). But you can tap out a message for twitter or facebook on a phone. Phones fit those situations and I honestly love mine for navigation. Beyond that, if I want to play a game or watch a tv show or write up a lengthy comment on HN then I'm going to use a PC or a laptop since those form factors are much easier to use for those purposes.
Nice pith, but how about adding some meat to that rebuttal.
> "Sorry mom, I intended to write you a longer message but gmail encourages me to keep it short."
The topic at hand is power emailing. Not people who write a message to their family once a week as the majority of their email.
> Folks at Microsoft are nodding their heads and furiously tweeting this sentence.
I don't even know where you get this. Having a minimal interface with the most used features present and others grouped under menus of some sort is an age-old proven UI convention. This is the exact opposite of what I think of when I think of Microsoft software or other bloated programs with toolbars and ribbons bursting at the seams. Citing Microsoft is just a way for you to justify your emotional reaction to my comment without adding any substance.
> "The topic at hand is power emailing. Not people who write a message to their family once a week as the majority of their email."
That use-case is completely valid. Unless you're going to argue that GMail is meant to be a'power emailing' tool, which I'd disagree with. Optimising for something that doesn't suit the majority of users is usually a mistake.
I'm sorry, your message makes no sense to me. There's nothing about Gmail that prevents that use case. I just responded because it's a stupid example.
> Unless you're going to argue that GMail is meant to be a'power emailing' tool, which I'd disagree with.
Okay, so first of all, yes Google was in fact invented to be a power email tool because it was built by engineers for engineers.
But that's neither here nor there because obviously they are trying to improve it for the most common case which is the source of the much-reviled changes.
It's not normal people that are complaining about these changes. It's entrenched power emailers who had their workflow thrown off by change and whose muscle memory is leading them to believe that this redesign is a disaster. New users won't have any worse experience than they did before, I guarantee you that.
> "I'm sorry, your message makes no sense to me..."
I'm trying to point out that the topic is wider than power emailing as these feature changes affect everyone. You don't get to choose which ones to adopt.
> "Okay, so first of all, yes Google was in fact invented to be a power email tool because it was built by engineers for engineers. ... obviously they are trying to improve it for the most common case"
It doesn't follow that Gmail was 'invented to be a power email tool'. Also, there's an assumption in there they're genuinely trying to improve for the common case. It could also be a range of internal pressures forcing changes that are actually detrimental for users. Companies fuck up like this all the time, so let's not pretend that Google is somehow exempt from that class of big-company-mistake.
> I'm trying to point out that the topic is wider than power emailing as these feature changes affect everyone. You don't get to choose which ones to adopt.
And I'm arguing that Gmail's design decisions are made with a solid basis in the widest common use case despite all the self-righteous nerdrage piled upon the tired mantra that Google is horrible at design.
> It doesn't follow that Gmail was 'invented to be a power email tool'.
What do you mean it "doesn't follow"? I'm not justifying this as a logical argument, I'm repeating statements I've read from Gmail's creators in interviews over the years.
What exactly does "power emailing" mean to you? Is it the ability to send a lot of short emails quickly? Is it the ability to email while seeing emails come in?
From my perspective the new compose modal window removes power from the user. Instead of having all of the formatting tools and options open and ready to go, you've got to expand the window the see them. You've got less screen real estate to work with and even on the reply window you have to click on the formatting icon to get the formatting tools even though there is plenty of room to just show the tools in the first place.
Making users click more to complete a task is not bad if there is a good reason to do so. Forcing users to click more because you hid important functionality to save room that is not used for something else doesn't make sense. You've added load to the task for virtually no gain.
I guess if short, rapid fire emails are the primary mode of usage for a user the new compose UI works great. I'd imagine the vast majority of gmail users do not send a high volume of emails per day, and the old compose UI worked fine while surfacing all of the functionality they needed.
For my usage, the new compose has been a major step back. It now takes additional clicks to accomplish basic tasks (e.g. change the subject) and is less clear on what I am doing (e.g. when you cc someone and switch back to the body, the cc-ed names is now in To: line making it appear that you are sending it to them directly.) There are many other examples where the experience has become worse.
I am not clear if Google truly believes the new compose is an improvement or if there is a behind the scenes reason that is making up for the decrease in usability. The new product is so obviously a step back (to me) that I am assuming it's the latter. Has anyone seen a write up that has an explanation other than "improved practicality?"
Oh man, I wish I knew. Have you noticed this one? You're editing a wrapped paragraph, you use the right-arrow key to move, and once you're at the end of -any- line, it suddenly jumps down to the "..." (the toggle for displaying the quoted message).
Ah, is that what's happening? All I know is I go back to proof my email before sending and I keep randomly ending up at the bottom and cursing as I scroll back.
I-banker here. I deal with similar situations on fairly regular basis.
Couple of tips:
- NDA is useless. Sign it but don't expect them to adhere to it. Even if they don't, it's extremely difficult to prove a breach (they likely won't be disclosing it to others anyway, just using it against you).
- Ask them how they plan to price your assets - is it based on your financials, your technology, your customers, etc. This may disqualify them right away: e.g. they tell you is that they only look for revenue growth while you think your technology is the most important part of the company.
- Have them give you a formal presentation on their company and where they see your firm fitting in. This really serves 3 purposes:
a) allows you to see how they are approaching the market and whether they've thought this through or if it's a fly-by. If this is a random "let's see if we can buy this cheap" situation, they'll likely be reluctant to spend quality time with you;
b) you will learn what their pain points are, which will give you leverage later, if the acquisition progresses;
c) probably most important, you will spend time together and will start to get a sense on whether you can trust them. Establishing a beginning of a professional relationship goes a long way for you (e.g. sometimes you just know if the other person is a charlatan or if they are a straight shooter) and for them (they start developing a level of trust and are not as suspicious you'll trick THEM)
- after the initial meeting, share your concerns and ask them for suggestions on what they would do if they were in your shoes
There's more, feel free to reach out to me directly if you'd like.
What I like about this advice is that it puts the ball squarely back in the potential buyer's court and may help to minimize the distraction entailed in making wild guesses about potential deal structures and outcomes.
This is a case where the acquiring company has the burden of convincing a potential seller to sell. It is not a positive sign if the buyer is unwilling to pitch their deal all out.
> I love how conservative and backwards-looking Hacker News can be. PCs rule! Phones are toys!
Source: https://twitter.com/BenedictEvans/status/626173995566497792