I sent this by email to kerz@cr....tastic.org & scott@scot....gregor.org because I understood that they had primary responsibility for Thunderbird and there is discussion on the web site of a UI redesign.
I have been sketching out some thoughts on how to improve the UI of Mozilla Mail/Thunderbird. I have included links to screencaps/mockups
below...
Current Mozilla Mail/Thunderbird main window (unavailable, use your own)
Proposed Mozilla Mail/Thunderbird main window http://shepherdstown.com/other/mozilla/images/main-mozilla-proposed.png
Current Mozilla Mail/Thunderbird compose message window http://shepherdstown.com/other/mozilla/images/compose-mozilla-current.png
Proposed Mozilla Mail/Thunderbird compose message window http://shepherdstown.com/other/mozilla/images/compose-mozilla-proposed.png
Compare Outlook compose message window http://shepherdstown.com/other/mozilla/images/compose-outlook-current.png
Compare Outlook Express compose message window http://shepherdstown.com/other/mozilla/images/compose-oe-current.png
If these interest you, I will explain in great detail why I did or didn't make changes. In short, I like overally layout of the current Mozilla main window, though it needs a lot of clean up. But I really hate the compose message window and would completely redesign it. The icons are from Crystal Classic (or MS standard, if Crystal was unavailable) and obviously would change dependent on the active theme.
Aside from GUI improvements, here are my top requests for improvements to Mail/Thunderbird (footprint and loadtimes are the least of my worries):
1.) Speed of text rendering (always buffered but sometimes lags by several words in on-screen rendering even w/ a GForce2 GTS @AGP4). Similarly, carriage returns can be slow.
2.) Poor ability to cut and paste HTML content into message bodies where content contains tables (there's no easy way to get rid of the
tables/cells). Contrast Outlook's handling of pasted HTML content.
3.) At least with IMAP, you must wait for mail to be successfully transferred before you are returned to the main screen.
4.) IMAP attachments are not cached locally and images can get lost if not embedded w/ message.
5.) Generally poor design of the editing toolbar (see my proposal)
6.) Bad inbox/folder managment tools/indicators (see my proposal w/ various icons).
7.) No ability to autodetect/create hyperlinks based on common mailto or hyperlink expressions (i.e. @ and www.). Contrast Outlook.
8.) No ability to open hyperlinks in compose mail window to verify that links are correct.
(Unofficial) Thunderbird proposed gui design / commentary
-
aigner
- Posts: 20
- Joined: February 8th, 2003, 11:42 am
-
XandreX
- Posts: 40
- Joined: November 5th, 2002, 5:31 am
- Location: france
- Contact:
Re: (Unofficial) Thunderbird proposed gui design / commentar
This has nothing to do with a 3D graphic accelerator. check your drivers, your RAM, or defrag your disk and freeze the swap file size.aigner wrote:1.) Speed of text rendering (always buffered but sometimes lags by several words in on-screen rendering even w/ a GForce2 GTS @AGP4). Similarly, carriage returns can be slow.
Usually, people do the opposite : have the URL in a browser, and copy-paste in the compose window. That usually avoids to have to have to type the URL, or if you have to type it, you can know whether it's valid or not (faster than if you switch from the compose window to the browser one, and so on until the URL is correct).aigner wrote:8.) No ability to open hyperlinks in compose mail window to verify that links are correct.
XandreX
I'm the kind of people your parents warned you about
I'm the kind of people your parents warned you about
-
aigner
- Posts: 20
- Joined: February 8th, 2003, 11:42 am
Thank you for your compliment!
I tried to eliminate any nonessential chrome element... down to the pixel. Of course, until the entire interface is rendered in SVG, it's a lot easier to clean up the interface in Photoshop.
On the main window, I:
* reordered the inbox columns with an emphasis on mail management at a glance, using the smallest amount of screen real estate--what's the priority, does it have an attachment, have I flagged it for attention, and have i replied to it. That's followed by text descriptions of author, subject and time sent. Nonessential icons/less important text were eliminated.
* added faint separators every three emails to provide easy reference of icons to email.
* reordered/worked the toolbar.
* enhanced the capabilities of the search function (you should be able to do full text searches within subject body from the main screen---find "xyz" in this folder).
* got rid of the clunky frame separators, odd colored borders and lines and errant pixels; reduced the height of the status bar.
* eliminated references to other programs in the menu bar and status (component) bar.
The compose message window was completely reworked. I:
* Eliminated the huge screen waste dedicated to attachments. If you have an attachment, then it would show a la Outlook. Attachments should be drag and droppable anywhere in the compose window (not just a dedicated area).
* Eliminated the recipient field screen waste and permited the author to see all recipients at once a la Outlook and OE.
* Eliminated the status bar--which is irrelevant if the compose window disappears upon queue to send, a la Outlook.
* Completely reworked both toolbars, with an emphasis on wordprocessor-like tools, without overdoing it a la Outlook+Word editing. Mozilla's lower toolbar currently is very primitive. OE currently has the best, though not perfect, toolbar layout. For clarity sake and because OE uses XP toolbar icons, I replicated those in the mockup... Important additions to the top toolbar include Cut, Copy, and Paste. Plus, digitally signed and encrypted icons deserve to be in the forefront if only because these functions should be emphasized in the future of email communications.
* Eliminated the frame resize bars, which are unnecessary and unappealing.
* Emphasized addressbook recipient entry a la Outlook.
I tried to eliminate any nonessential chrome element... down to the pixel. Of course, until the entire interface is rendered in SVG, it's a lot easier to clean up the interface in Photoshop.
On the main window, I:
* reordered the inbox columns with an emphasis on mail management at a glance, using the smallest amount of screen real estate--what's the priority, does it have an attachment, have I flagged it for attention, and have i replied to it. That's followed by text descriptions of author, subject and time sent. Nonessential icons/less important text were eliminated.
* added faint separators every three emails to provide easy reference of icons to email.
* reordered/worked the toolbar.
* enhanced the capabilities of the search function (you should be able to do full text searches within subject body from the main screen---find "xyz" in this folder).
* got rid of the clunky frame separators, odd colored borders and lines and errant pixels; reduced the height of the status bar.
* eliminated references to other programs in the menu bar and status (component) bar.
The compose message window was completely reworked. I:
* Eliminated the huge screen waste dedicated to attachments. If you have an attachment, then it would show a la Outlook. Attachments should be drag and droppable anywhere in the compose window (not just a dedicated area).
* Eliminated the recipient field screen waste and permited the author to see all recipients at once a la Outlook and OE.
* Eliminated the status bar--which is irrelevant if the compose window disappears upon queue to send, a la Outlook.
* Completely reworked both toolbars, with an emphasis on wordprocessor-like tools, without overdoing it a la Outlook+Word editing. Mozilla's lower toolbar currently is very primitive. OE currently has the best, though not perfect, toolbar layout. For clarity sake and because OE uses XP toolbar icons, I replicated those in the mockup... Important additions to the top toolbar include Cut, Copy, and Paste. Plus, digitally signed and encrypted icons deserve to be in the forefront if only because these functions should be emphasized in the future of email communications.
* Eliminated the frame resize bars, which are unnecessary and unappealing.
* Emphasized addressbook recipient entry a la Outlook.
-
ccoma
- Posts: 26
- Joined: March 30th, 2003, 8:57 am
- Location: berlin [germany]
TychoQuad wrote:Personally, i like the current compose message window over the outlook style ones
I second that !
There's no need for a change in IMHO. Especially the way you attach files in thunderbird/mozilla mail is far cooler than in outlook/-express, really !
not to forget: Nobody wants an outlook-clone, thunderbird should keep his own personality !
-
ahmetaa
- Posts: 65
- Joined: December 30th, 2002, 6:37 am
- Location: Istanbul, Turkiye
TychoQuad wrote:Personally, i like the current compose message window over the outlook style ones
Well, your proposal about the mozilla compose window has some good, some bad points in my opinion.
Good points,
it looks simpler. There are not so much speprator and shadowed lines in the screen and icons look better. But i would prefer a "save" icon anyway.
Bad points:
too much resemblance with outlook. i would like to see attachments somewhere on the screen as in mail/thn. Also i like the way entering e-mail adresses better ni mail/thun.
i also hate html composing, i wish text editing could be default.
-
aigner
- Posts: 20
- Joined: February 8th, 2003, 11:42 am
Re similarity to Outlook/OE...
Beyond the use of icons for mockup, the intent is to incorporate the best features of the market leading email clients. I don't have a religious zeal to ensure that Thunderbird looks distinct for the sake of distinction. The Modern theme is very distinct but not easy on the eyes and doesn't integrate with any OS look and feel. People who want a distinct look can personalize their client with themes.
Rather, I want something that is the most usable for the greatest number of individuals. And if something is both the most usuable and familiar at the same time, even better. That's the best way to ensure the greatest possible adoption. More users = great standards support and fewer bugs through greater testing. Please bear in mind that I am using XP and I believe that Mozilla should look as "native" as possible for each platform it runs on.
Re the attachments
First, I am way too used to dragging and dropping anywhere on the compose window. Dragging and dropping in a much smaller attachment window is a spacial limit, not feature. Second, I am constantly deleting the text url to a local file that I create by dragging a file onto the compose window. It's an illogical function. Third, if a message has no attachments, then you have wasted that screen space. Of course, if you have attached a file, you would see the attached file in the compose window in a highlighted field a la Outlook. In short, it's easier to attach files in Outlook and Outlook displays those attachments in the most efficient manner. I can't think of a more efficient manner, therefore, Thunderbird should adopt that method.
Re HTML editing
One thing that annoys me about Mozilla Mail is that there is no way to quickly switch between plain text and html editing modes on a per message basis. Assuming you had selected text only mode, then the gui could hide the lower toolbar. Nothing compells you to send an HTML email and hiding the lower toolbar would give you more space on your screen and provide a visual cue reinforcing the fact that you are in plain text mode. But there is only disadvantage to eliminating html editing altogether and only advantage to making editing as similar to your wordprocessor's (Word/WP) formatting toolbar as possible. Again usability for the largest number of users should be the polestar.
Beyond the use of icons for mockup, the intent is to incorporate the best features of the market leading email clients. I don't have a religious zeal to ensure that Thunderbird looks distinct for the sake of distinction. The Modern theme is very distinct but not easy on the eyes and doesn't integrate with any OS look and feel. People who want a distinct look can personalize their client with themes.
Rather, I want something that is the most usable for the greatest number of individuals. And if something is both the most usuable and familiar at the same time, even better. That's the best way to ensure the greatest possible adoption. More users = great standards support and fewer bugs through greater testing. Please bear in mind that I am using XP and I believe that Mozilla should look as "native" as possible for each platform it runs on.
Re the attachments
First, I am way too used to dragging and dropping anywhere on the compose window. Dragging and dropping in a much smaller attachment window is a spacial limit, not feature. Second, I am constantly deleting the text url to a local file that I create by dragging a file onto the compose window. It's an illogical function. Third, if a message has no attachments, then you have wasted that screen space. Of course, if you have attached a file, you would see the attached file in the compose window in a highlighted field a la Outlook. In short, it's easier to attach files in Outlook and Outlook displays those attachments in the most efficient manner. I can't think of a more efficient manner, therefore, Thunderbird should adopt that method.
Re HTML editing
One thing that annoys me about Mozilla Mail is that there is no way to quickly switch between plain text and html editing modes on a per message basis. Assuming you had selected text only mode, then the gui could hide the lower toolbar. Nothing compells you to send an HTML email and hiding the lower toolbar would give you more space on your screen and provide a visual cue reinforcing the fact that you are in plain text mode. But there is only disadvantage to eliminating html editing altogether and only advantage to making editing as similar to your wordprocessor's (Word/WP) formatting toolbar as possible. Again usability for the largest number of users should be the polestar.
-
Thumper
- Posts: 8037
- Joined: November 4th, 2002, 5:42 pm
- Location: Linlithgow, Scotland
- Contact:
-
none13
- Posts: 49
- Joined: April 4th, 2003, 3:20 pm
- Location: Sillamae, Estonia
I don't understand what the difficulty is with sending html mail when text mail is the default. On message-by-message basis. Just click <shift>+<write|reply|fwd>, and you get text message if you have set html by default and vice versa.
Am I misunderstanding something?
P.s. It's a pretty useful shortcut, it's a shame it's not blatanly documented.
Am I misunderstanding something?
P.s. It's a pretty useful shortcut, it's a shame it's not blatanly documented.
-
ahmetaa
- Posts: 65
- Joined: December 30th, 2002, 6:37 am
- Location: Istanbul, Turkiye
aigner wrote:Re similarity to Outlook/OE...
Beyond the use of icons for mockup, the intent is to incorporate the best features of the market leading email clients. I don't have a religious zeal to ensure that Thunderbird looks distinct for the sake of distinction. The Modern theme is very distinct but not easy on the eyes and doesn't integrate with any OS look and feel. People who want a distinct look can personalize their client with themes.
i didnt mean the "theme" distinction. i also do not think modern theme is the correct way to go. But similarity as words used, editboxes names and order, toolbar order, menu system etc. if it will have too much similarity with OE, it will have one advantage, but maybe two disadvantages. Advantage is; an OE user may adopt easily with Moz/Thunderbirf. But disadvantage is that, it will be called as just another copy of OE. it will not have its originality and probably disliked by not only by the mozilla but also probably other OS comunities (like linux and Macos X). In Your proposal, compose window is almost exactly same as outlook express, i find it a little irritating.
aigner wrote:Rather, I want something that is the most usable for the greatest number of individuals. And if something is both the most usuable and familiar at the same time, even better. That's the best way to ensure the greatest possible adoption. More users = great standards support and fewer bugs through greater testing. Please bear in mind that I am using XP and I believe that Mozilla should look as "native" as possible for each platform it runs on.
Mozilla, in classic mode especially already using most of the native widgets, AFAIK. So, apart from modern theme, i dont see a big issue on this. And, yet we know that for example Office XP is using a different theme than XP itself. and i agree that user adaptation is a key in a new product and having some similarities are good -if they are not excessive-.
aigner wrote:Re the attachments
First, I am way too used to dragging and dropping anywhere on the compose window. Dragging and dropping in a much smaller attachment window is a spacial limit, not feature. Second, I am constantly deleting the text url to a local file that I create by dragging a file onto the compose window. It's an illogical function. Third, if a message has no attachments, then you have wasted that screen space. Of course, if you have attached a file, you would see the attached file in the compose window in a highlighted field a la Outlook. In short, it's easier to attach files in Outlook and Outlook displays those attachments in the most efficient manner. I can't think of a more efficient manner, therefore, Thunderbird should adopt that method.
In my opinion Drag and drop is not the best way of making attachement. As you see not everybody is same in terms of habits. Drag and drop for me is only a secondary way of doing file movements; including attachments. it can be a plus, but not a must. When you intend to drag and drop dont you have to find the files anyway? Wasting screen space is a myth. %90 percent of the mails has only one receipant, i personally fint those edit boxes "too long" in outlook and your proposal. But, after all,i see it as not a big deal to have or not to have a constant attachment window after thinking a while.
aigner wrote:Re HTML editing
One thing that annoys me about Mozilla Mail is that there is no way to quickly switch between plain text and html editing modes on a per message basis. Assuming you had selected text only mode, then the gui could hide the lower toolbar. Nothing compells you to send an HTML email and hiding the lower toolbar would give you more space on your screen and provide a visual cue reinforcing the fact that you are in plain text mode. But there is only disadvantage to eliminating html editing altogether and only advantage to making editing as similar to your wordprocessor's (Word/WP) formatting toolbar as possible. Again usability for the largest number of users should be the polestar.
[/quote]
agree. but no such aspect is provided in outlook anyway. and i also agree that user stats will choose the correct way.
i appreciate your work, and hope at least some of your work will be applied in UI design of Moz/Thunderbird.
-
petrarch
- Posts: 56
- Joined: January 16th, 2003, 10:07 am
Re HTML editing
One thing that annoys me about Mozilla Mail is that there is no way to quickly switch between plain text and html editing modes on a per message basis. Assuming you had selected text only mode, then the gui could hide the lower toolbar. Nothing compells you to send an HTML email and hiding the lower toolbar would give you more space on your screen and provide a visual cue reinforcing the fact that you are in plain text mode. But there is only disadvantage to eliminating html editing altogether and only advantage to making editing as similar to your wordprocessor's (Word/WP) formatting toolbar as possible. Again usability for the largest number of users should be the polestar.
To be honest, if this were the primary concern, one shouldn't be composing in HTML to start with.
I agree with the prior comment that text only should be the default. For the good of the Internet, people should know precisely what they're getting into by enabling html content.
-
Thumper
- Posts: 8037
- Joined: November 4th, 2002, 5:42 pm
- Location: Linlithgow, Scotland
- Contact:
That's all very well, but frankly I don't think the world's mail problems will be solved by not allowing people to use rich text until they find a preference option.
As for receiving, Mozilla allows turning off of HTML and in addition prevents numerous Bad Things from being used as attacks by default. Nothing more is gained by not allowing images to load in emails. If mail is spam, that's what the spam filters are for.
- Chris
As for receiving, Mozilla allows turning off of HTML and in addition prevents numerous Bad Things from being used as attacks by default. Nothing more is gained by not allowing images to load in emails. If mail is spam, that's what the spam filters are for.
- Chris
-
petrarch
- Posts: 56
- Joined: January 16th, 2003, 10:07 am
That's all very well, but frankly I don't think the world's mail problems will be solved by not allowing people to use rich text until they find a preference option.
Sending HTML mail by default is what got us into this mess. Windows users are ridiculed for using Mail clients that send out html mail when it's completely unecessary in most cases. Mailing list administrators have spent how many man hours to bounce, strip, moderate, or otherwise deal with html? Message archives are big enough without having to deal with uncessary 2-20x inflation of message size for no reason. Have you tried to read some of the Usenet archives that have resulted from html posts? The html obfuscates the message content, making it that much harder to find whatever you're looking for. Most people aren't using the html, and don't realize they're sending it (to the detriment of everybody).
I am hard pressed to find a good reason to enable html by default. I honestly believe Windows users would have more standing amongst the elitists of the Internet if their software didn't do silly things like this.
As for receiving, Mozilla allows turning off of HTML and in addition prevents numerous Bad Things from being used as attacks by default. Nothing more is gained by not allowing images to load in emails. If mail is spam, that's what the spam filters are for.
This is dangerous. If the images are attached to the message, that's one thing. But it's a security and privacy risk to enable the loading of external images inline in email, at least not without the explicit authorization of the user. Spammers have and continue to have a field day with this. Outlook Express has been roundly critized for this mistake. Surely, we don't want to be compared with the security quality found in that shoddy Microsoft product?
edit: I was under the impression that MailNews already took care of displaying images safely anyway, no?