Earlier this year, I began exclusively using Gmail for my e-mail needs and abandoned Mail.app. After upgrading to Leopard and spotting Gmail's recent IMAP support, I decided to do a backwards trial and attempt to switch back to Mail.app.
First let's talk about Gmail's IMAP support, which I'm not especially pleased with. To get on wireless devices (ie, the iPhone), they had to offer this at some point, but it's just not completely compatible with the way Gmail works. The most egregious thing I found was that every time Mail.app autosaved a draft while I was typing, Gmail would create an entire new message in the conversation. When I was away from my Mac and looking at Gmail.com, I'd see a conversation that had 15+ incomplete replies from me, all nonsense. (Maybe this is just Mail.app but it's unusable)
Second, and more importantly, I want to address my biggest issue with Mail.app. Gmail's killer feature that keeps me sticking with it is Conversations; yes, yes, I realize that Mail has a threads display, but it's just not the same. Conversations keep me organized and represent a significant increase in efficiency. Until Mail.app can duplicate that, I can't use it. I can barely use Outlook at work for the same reason. Mail clients and Gmail's web competitors are simply behind the times until they copy this feature. Mail's display and information design is pretty, and as mail clients go it's usable, but it's not written for straight up efficiency like Gmail is.
Before I get labeled a Gmail fanboy, I'll address the two features that I can't stand on Gmail. First, Contacts is borderline unusable for any professional user, even the new version. No merging contacts and lack of metadata points are my two biggest complaints. I've got a few thousand contacts that are in my personal and professional life, meaning that duplicate cards are inevitable. But Gmail doesn't let me merge them. In fact, I can't even copy the information manually if it contains duplicate e-mail addresses, because Gmail gives an error. In that case, you have to delete the card you don't want (yes, really), and then paste the missing e-mail address into the card you want to keep. Almost completely unusable.
Second, if I'm to use Gmail professionally, I need additional data points in the Contacts screens. I need a space for URL, to mark e-mail addresses as inactive, etc. Why do I need to mark addresses inactive? People change e-mail addresses, but I still want to associate old conversations with them. But I don't want to mistakenly e-mail an old address. For a system that's meant to be a permanent archive of your e-mail and that aims toward professional/geeky users, this sort of detail makes all the different.
I'm sticking with Gmail, but the devil is in the details, Google, and I get the feeling that you're falling behind.
Recently in The Interwebs Category
Well, it's not the prettiest site I've ever built, but for just a few hours of work I'm happy with this version 0.5 of my 2008 Presidential Primary Calendar.
Update: I should have thought of this in the first place, but I want to ask you all what the next steps should be in the development of that site. What can we do to make it most useful to citizens?
So I have a new version of Gmail (maybe everyone does?), but it really doesn't seem all that different. Anyone know what the deal is?
Update: Ok, I spoke too soon. In addition to the new refinements, the address book is all new. (See this post.)
Update II: The new Gmail is, at best, underwhelming. Other than the new address book, I'm not seeing and productivity or workflow enhancements, which is what I'd hoped would come out. The UI is tighter and the whole product is much faster, both of which are welcome enhancements. But the changes seem to be merely cosmetic, and frankly I think that despite the fact that Gmail is a great product, it's starting to show its age.
My number 1 feature request would be a "merge contacts" button so I could select 2-3 contacts that are actually a single person and merge them. Apple's address book does this fairly well and it's a heck of a useful feature when you've got thousands of contacts, some of which are clearly duplicates.
What's your number 1 request for Gmail?
If you are going to offer a downloaded software service, please make sure that downloads are (1) reliable and (2) fast. I'm on a super-fast government network and getting 50 kb/second off of your servers.
You know, I never wondered about this until I saw it on Ricky's blog:
If you've ever wondered if Rupert Murdoch has a MySpace account, here's your answer. Anderson has his own Rupert stories: "He called me once and couldn't log in for some reason. I was trying to help him over the phone, saying, 'Type this. Type that. What do you see on your screen?' And he says, 'It says, 'Welcome John.' And I'm like, 'John? Why does it say John?' and he says [affecting his own version of the deep, slightly cranky voice], 'I don't use my real name on MySpace.'"I'm loving the idea that Rupert Murdoch is out there trolling around MySpace under a fake name.
"Hi, we're Amazon and we just changed the entire marketplace." Again. I'm super-excited about this.
...but I like this clean, colorful look for my site. I'm going to add some flourish at some point, but I'm pretty satisfied.
(Oh, and as promised, it uses YUI Grids.)
I've had two tabs open all morning because I know they deserve to be written about, but I can't figure out what I want to say. So here goes.
Matt at 37 signals cherry picks some great tips from a more comprehensive list of Amazon.com's strategies for scaling and managing a web business. I'll distill it even more into a few of my very favorites:
Work from the customer backward. Focus on value you want to deliver for the customer. Force developers to focus on value delivered to the customer instead of building technology first and then figuring how to use it. Use measurement and objective debate to separate the good from the bad. I’ve been to several presentations by ex-Amazoners and this is the aspect of Amazon that strikes me as uniquely different and interesting from other companies. Their deep seated ethic is to expose real customers to a choice and see which one works best and to make decisions based on those tests. (favorite!!)In any case, check out Matt's favorites and the original list itself, which contains more details about Amazon's specific architecture and implementation.
I'm sure Amazon knows much better than me, but I'm going to pontificate anyway. As anyone who works with me knows, I heavily subscribe to the 37signals-style simplicity movement. Every move I make at work (in product design, etc) is aimed toward simplicity. I'm also a data head (according to my fellow Web Geeks at work), so the idea of divergent data bothers me.
Amazon is fantastic, but I think their Wish List system has gotten much too complicated. Surely you jest, Mr. Palmer! Hear me out.
I went on Amazon today to pick out books to read while in Japan. I picked out five books, all of which I will search for at the used book store tomorrow. So I didn't want to purchase today, but found I had way too many options to defer my purchase. I could add to a Wish List (of which I can have multiples), add to my Cart (and leave it there), add to my Cart then "Save for Later" or add to a Gift List.
See what I mean? Those are just the options to defer my purchase. I haven't even catalogued the methods to actually buy something.
Here's my suggestion (and again, Amazon probably knows better). Pare this down to a combined "intentions" system under the "Wishlist" moniker. Save for Later probably works well because the items are still in your "Cart," so you're more likely to buy them or tack them on to a later purchase. Wish Lists work because they capture an emotional desire to own/consume something, but aren't so intimidating as to make you feel you're putting off a purchase.
The "Save for Later" button in your Cart would add the item to your wish list (rather than keeping it in a separate system), but also lightly suggest it during subsequent checkouts. Why? Because you came closer to buying it, so you're more likely to do so in the future.
That'd be a new feature (I think, right?) - add-on purchase suggestions during checkout. You'd be shown suggestions of items you might want to tack on to your purchase. They wouldn't show you just any items from your wish list, but those that are maybe 20% under your average item cost in addition to "Save for Later" items. If you can hit a sweet spot for add-on purchase prices, sales would increase; it might even be worth it to tie this into the Super-Saver shipping program by suggesting items that would make the transaction qualify for free shipping.
As for Wish Lists, make them simpler! Wish Lists themselves are too complicated. Rate 1-5 how much you'd *really* like to receive this item. What Wish List does this belong in? How do I access my Wish List(s)? Why isn't it easy to add an item from one during checkout?
If only 5% of your customers are using comments and ratings in Wish Lists, get rid of them. I can't imagine a large amount of people use either of those features, and it's usually worth making the system less intimidating for customers. Go back to having one Wish List, but perhaps make it taggable.
Here's the lesson. Every time the web gets simpler, more people use it. The more people use it, the more things people buy. Amazon is the undisputed leader in online commerce, but I think they could create a more useful, but simpler "intentions" system that made customers feel less intimidated and encouraged more purchasing.
But what do you think? Is Amazon too complex?
