A face lift for claws would be worth 1000 new features.
It is a fact that people rate software by how it looks, and anyone who is not a geek will pass up Claws - and the geeks will install it alongside whatever they regularly use.
I wonder if there is a way to get more open source UI work?
The UI is functional, simple, easy to use.
What I do care about, what I fear, are UI changes which remove options, obscure clarity, make workflow difficult, which seems to be 99% of UI "improvements" these days.
I want descriptive text under or as buttons. I want to see, and be able to easily grab and use a scrollbar.
I want things like this, and more. At the very least, if not be default, by config options.
But again, the ongoing trend seems to be not only to design for looks, not usage, but also prevent user change.
I am so happy with claws, so please, I say this politely, go away and take your UI thoughts with you.
Please, I beg you.
UI and UX matters more than developers care to admit.
What would be a functionally equivalent, but more user-friendly way to do it? (And preferably not 10x harder to implement)
Additionally one could add a text label, which displays an example date formatted by the currently selected choice.
It doesn't need a facelift or an overhaul! In fact, as soon as that happens I (and I suspect, majority of users) will leave it forever.
Like it or not, irrespective of whether or not you personally care about UI/UX, lots of people do and bad UI/UX has turned away thousands of people from Linux and friends.
- The same icons are recycled in multiple places, like queue and outbox. Why can't they get more icons? Why aren't they distinct?
- Why is it called "trash" AND "wastebin" in the same place, with two different styles of icon?
- Each of the "reply", "forward", etc buttons are all menu dropdowns. Each menu is a small click target. Why isn't this just an overflow menu? Why can't these be customized?
- The "connected" icon at the bottom appears to be stolen from an ancient Mozilla build (though I'm unsure of the origin). Is that truly the best visual indicator for connectivity in the year 2022?
- The inbox shows the file size of emails in two separate places, with a precision that goes down to tens of bytes. Why?
Your idea of good or bad UI doesn't consider that this UI already has things that could be net improved without actually removing or changing functionality. "Designed" implies that thought went into how it's used and looks. Nobody is advocating making it look like Material UI.
Localization? One of the screenshots is clearly in a uk locale where it's a wastebin, not trash? However... that screenshot is still connected to a server where the trash folder is named trash. Changing the name of server folders is gross, regardless.
> - Each of the "reply", "forward", etc buttons are all menu dropdowns. Each menu is a small click target. Why isn't this just an overflow menu? Why can't these be customized?
How can you tell it can't be customized from the screenshots? I think it's setable in the preferences, but it's been along time since I used Claws. I don't remember drop downs next to the reply buttons (and can't fathom why they'd be there) either, though. Maybe some address selection? They can still be buttons and have drop downs next to them, though. That's nice for reply, and then have a reply all in a drop down next to it, because reply all is terrible, but sometimes needed. (Actually, in a perfect world, it might be nice to carry all the address info into the draft and be able to select people to send to later, but that's a change in substance, and has issues when you're saving drafts on imap and restoring them later)
> - The "connected" icon at the bottom appears to be stolen from an ancient Mozilla build (though I'm unsure of the origin). Is that truly the best visual indicator for connectivity in the year 2022?
I mean... You click on it, and get disconnected operations. You could update it, but why? It works, it's clear if you've used it. It's unobtrusive if you don't.
> - The inbox shows the file size of emails in two separate places, with a precision that goes down to tens of bytes. Why?
I see three sizes in the main view, one for the list, one for the whole inbox, one for the currently selected items. This is pretty handy if you are trying to clean up mail to manage a storage quota, which is fairly important for people who have a storage quota. I don't remember if Claws uses three significant figures for size or two digits after the decimal place. We can't really critique this without more information.
Hyberbole, yes, but the interface of Claws is pretty much what makes me use it. It's blazingly fast and efficient. What would a re-design improve?
That is exactly the question people often forget to answer. We see this with both software and webdesign. Stuff gets a facelife, because it doesn't follow the latest trends. During the process features or design decisions made previously is often ignore or forgot, because they don't fix the new "vision".
In the case of Claws Mail an argument could be made for upgrading to a never version of GTK and get a facelift in the process. That could also hurt the users, if the UI move around to much, or break existing work-flows.
There is a lot of value in a stable UI. You can get caught in old or even deprecated libraries and UI interaction, that's a risk. There is however also value in being conservative and consistent. If you take an application(/web-application) like Chrome or Gmail, and you haven't used that in a few years, then you'll get overwhelmed. Something like Claws Mail or TextMate doesn't have that issue, you learned the concepts years ago, and they are just a valid now as they where then.
Since last year, they have a release branch (4.x.x) built with GTK+3. I know GTK 4 is on the way, but I think nobody is using it nowadays.
Also, backup and restore are super easy: just copy the ~/.claws_mail and ~/Mail directories and you're done: messages, attachments, accounts, contacts, everything.
But it would probably tax the hardware as such. Claws Mail, which is my #1 choice since decades, is probably the best that can be achieved without surrendering it to a more "modern" development style that could make it at least an order of magnitude bigger and slower. It's simply amazing that I can keep all my emails since 1997 (tens of thousands posts, with attachments, the older ones easily converted from Eudora, my then client under Windows) online so I can search everything I have posted or received instantly on indexed fields or in like 30 seconds on any other field, including spam.
Claws Mail could benefit however from being ported to a cleaner and better thought interface such as Qt (sorry for GTK lovers but to me latest GTK versions are an abomination), and possibly incorporating a conversation mode, but I wouldn't sacrifice anything of what makes it so great to add those features.
Is that actually a disadvantage?
Different people have different tastes. This is true for both the aesthetic and utilitarian aspects of user interface design. Our software should look and behave differently to reflect that reality, and the metric of success ought to be maintaining enough interest in the software to sustain its development. (In the case of open source software, that is attracting enough contributors. In the case of commercial software, that is attracting enough customers.)
Indeed, attracting more people may be more of a detriment than anything else. It may alienate the most dedicated contributors or it may attract users who do not contribute. (How many times have we seen open source developers gripe about their product garnering users who place excessive demands upon them?)
A set of icons/font would probably achieve the facelift you would like to see.
I am personally only interested in technogy that makes me productive, not tech that looks good. I want to be on the computer for as little time as possible.