On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:01:38 -0600, Gunther F wrote:

> Worse - you say to test a future interface.
> Which won't release for three months from now.

Not correct.

Both the "basic" and "standard" interfaces exist right now.
"Standard" is the default for modern browsers.

Right now, users can choose to use either "basic" or "standard".
"Switch to basic view" <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/>
"Switch to standard view" <https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15049>

The "basic" interface will be going away in three months.

--
Kind regards
Ralph Fox
🦊

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Without a
> cellphone, Google makes it hard to access email.
>
> Anyone putting up with the spying, the 2FA, the ads, etc
[...]
> They'd just tell their friends, with no irony, that they must
> switch to gmail, use webmail and have a cellphone that
> Google can have the number of.

Sigh!

Yes, if you have no cellphone *and* are stupid, Google makes it 'hard'
to access email. (Translation: No, you don't need a cellphone or a
phonenumber and you need 2SV (*not* 2FA) only *once* (per device).)

Why do you always feel the need to use these kinds of bogus arguments?
Can't you find any real arguments to criticize Google? I would think
there would be plenty of those.

[Rest of rants deleted.]

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> The standard webmail client will likely use Javascript.
>
> But it isn't the "standard" webmail client they're killing, it's the
> "basic" webmail client, that looks like something from the mid '90s

I wasn't confused on that point. I thought the basic HTML version might
not use [as much] Javascript compared to the standard version. Well,
not really. The less Javascript is because less features are available
in the basic version.

> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/>

Need to login to see whatever page you were trying to show.

> For me that works with javascript disabled, but unless that's the
> version of gmail you see and use, nothing's going away.

The Google article says what is different between basic and standard.
The standard has more features, and likely requires a faster connection
(to prevent excessive slow response) along with Javascript for those
additional features (and perhaps additions to HTML5 that aren't
available in older web browsers). Regardless of Javascript, and how
much of it there is, Google noted the extra standard version options
that are missing from the basic version.

However, just because the extra options are available doesn't mean you
have to use them. I've never used Chat, my web browser does spell
checking, I disabled the keyboard shortcuts, don't need a custom From
field to lie who is sending an e-mail, and I rarely miss having rich
formatting. As for importing/exporting contact data, I'm surprised
there is no import function for the basic version. You'd think Google
would use importing to help lure users from whatever they're using to
switch to Gmail.

If Google were to declare they were switching from their standard
version to only providing their basic version, eh, there would be little
that I'd miss. Having more, eh, not so important since I don't use the
more stuff. Plus, 99% of my e-mail handling is via local client.

VanguardLH wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> But it isn't the "standard" webmail client they're killing, it's the
>> "basic" webmail client, that looks like something from the mid '90s
>
> I wasn't confused on that point.

Not saying you were, possibly the O/P was.

>> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/>
>
> Need to login to see whatever page you were trying to show.

How many email systems *don't* require you to authenticate?

Gunther F,

> 1. The OP quoted EXACTLY (verbatim!) what the article said.

True. Though his subjectline belies it. And that means we have a post
which even belies itself. And I don't know about you, but I consider people
who are contradicting themselves as untrustworthy.

> 2. So for you to call it "lying" means you are a victim of your own bias.

Pray tell, which bias ? Using scary words in the hope nobody will challenge
you doesn't quite work for me I'm afraid.

Also, making claims is easy, but without underbuilding them they are baked
air. Worth exactly nothing.

Furthermore, you either have - still - not read the subjectline of this
thread, or are lying to yourself and trying to force us to believe that lie
of yours. Which one is it ? Stupid, or maliciously manipulative ?

> 3. Besides - he gave you the URL to the article - which you didn't read.

And you know that latter part.... how exactly ?

By making that claim, and the junk you added below it, you're showing
yourself as a mud-slinger, claiming stuff you have no idea how, and do not
actually want to support.

> Worse - you say to test a future interface.
> Which won't release for three months from now.

Do you know about the saying about the pot calling the kettle black ?
Thats you. You obviously have not read that link - or are unable comprehend
what it says.

I suggest you re-read that article. Than maybe, just maybe you will than
realize that the "basic HTML" and the "standard view" currently *both*
exist, but that the former will cease to do so.

IOW, you can *at this very moment* switch to "standard view" and have tree
months time to see if that works for you, and if not look for a replacement.
Perhaps even taking a *real* email account. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>VanguardLH wrote:

>>>The standard webmail client will likely use Javascript.

>>But it isn't the "standard" webmail client they're killing, it's the
>>"basic" webmail client, that looks like something from the mid '90s

>I wasn't confused on that point. I thought the basic HTML version might
>not use [as much] Javascript compared to the standard version. Well,
>not really. The less Javascript is because less features are available
>in the basic version.

I disalllow Google javascript unless needed. In Gmail, with javascript
disallowed, I get the basic version of the Web interface. With
javascript enabled, I get the standard version of the interface.

Basic runs with javascript disallowed.

>>. . .

>The Google article says what is different between basic and standard.
>The standard has more features, and likely requires a faster connection
>(to prevent excessive slow response) along with Javascript for those
>additional features (and perhaps additions to HTML5 that aren't
>available in older web browsers). Regardless of Javascript, and how
>much of it there is, Google noted the extra standard version options
>that are missing from the basic version.

>However, just because the extra options are available doesn't mean you
>have to use them. I've never used Chat, my web browser does spell
>checking, I disabled the keyboard shortcuts, don't need a custom From
>field to lie who is sending an e-mail, and I rarely miss having rich
>formatting. As for importing/exporting contact data, I'm surprised
>there is no import function for the basic version. You'd think Google
>would use importing to help lure users from whatever they're using to
>switch to Gmail.

I don't use any of that stuff either. If I want to use Gmail, I just
want to use mail functions. I don't expect there to be a common
interface to other features.
>. . .

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

| Yes, if you have no cellphone *and* are stupid, Google makes it 'hard'
| to access email. (Translation: No, you don't need a cellphone or a
| phonenumber and you need 2SV (*not* 2FA) only *once* (per device).)
|

I tried to access my brother's gmail after he had
a stroke. It wouldn't let me log in on my computer. It
wouldn't accept a cellphone to authenticate because
it wasn't his cellphone. I'd say that's something
no one should have to put up with for a mode of
communication that carries virtually no security.

On 9/27/23 5:39 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote
>
> | I would suggest you read that article again, both the subjectline(!) as
> well
> | as (the first line of) the second paragraph. It definitily *doesn't* say
> | they turn off HTML altogether.
> |
> I'm guessing he understood that. There's still a potential
> question (at least for worrywarts) whether Google's
> javascript razzmatazz UI with all the extra functions might
> make Firefox choke.

I only go to the website to check google's choice of junk -- perhaps it
guessed wrong -- and delete everything. For a while when I used Firefox
google switched me to some nasty version that just listed the mail in
the Inbox and nothing else. After a few weeks it switched back to allow
preferences, different 'folders', etc. -- the NORMAL stuff that you want
for email. If that's what they're killing, it's no loss.
> Google could very well force people to
> use Chrome in most scenarios. Chrome is already a monopoly
> browser. When I tried to help a friend set up POP email
> in TBird last year, for a college where she was working, the
> young college tech support actually had no idea what TBird
> or email protocol were. He couldn't tell me what the POP,
> IMAC, SMTP specs were for the server. He just told me
> to use Chrome!

Probably an Art History major :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Friends help you move. *Real* friends help you move bodies."
--A. Walker

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> But it isn't the "standard" webmail client they're killing, it's the
>>> "basic" webmail client, that looks like something from the mid '90s
>>
>> I wasn't confused on that point.
>
> Not saying you were, possibly the O/P was.
>
>>> <https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/h/>
>>
>> Need to login to see whatever page you were trying to show.
>
> How many email systems *don't* require you to authenticate?

I thought the Google shortlink might point to a Google article on the
difference between basic and standard versions of their webmail client,
but I already gave the Google article on that. Rather than actually
have Gmail users do the switch to see the difference, I thought the link
might point to more info on the difference between basic and standard.
Nope, it's actually a setting or switch. Sometimes a switch is 1-way:
no going back. No indication the switch wasn't permanent. I wasn't
prepared to switch, because I don't know if it would be permanent, and
I'd have to dig for the switch again to go back to what I had, or find
out there was no going back.

I suspect I'm using the standard version, because, in the settings, I
have Chat and other "standard" features disabled. In the webmail client
settings, I have the "smart features" disabled, which are:

Grammar
Spelling
Autocorrect
Smart Compose
Nudges
Smart Reply
Smart features in other Google products
Package tracking
Desktop notifications

The standard view might also have other features, but I've likely
disabled those, too, like:

Chat
Meet
Keyboard shortcuts
Create contacts for autocomplete
Hover actions
Dynamic email
Personal level indicators (sent to me & others, or sent only to me)
Auto advance
Templates

If I'm currently using the standard mode, I've probably disabled all
those extra features giving me the basic mode, anyway.

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> I disalllow Google javascript unless needed. In Gmail, with javascript
> disallowed, I get the basic version of the Web interface. With
> javascript enabled, I get the standard version of the interface.
>
> Basic runs with javascript disallowed.

Hmm, I can't even get logged in with Javascript disabled. When I go to
gmail.com, and normally get the login page, instead I see:

Couldn't sign you in

The browser you're using doesn't support JavaScript, or has JavaScript
turned off

To keep your Google Account secure, try signin in on a browser that
has JavaScript turns on. <Learn more>

The <Learn more> hyperlink points to:

https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7675428?hl=en-US

which mentions having to use a "supported" browser. "supported" means
Javascript is supported and enabled in the web browser.

I enabled Javascript to get past the login page. I disabled Javascript
once the webmail client was displayed, and refreshed the page to
eliminate any content generated by Javascript. Then I got:

Javascript must be enabled in order for you to use Gmail in standard
view.

There was a hyperlink to switch to basic view. I didn't want to do that
since I wasn't sure I could come back. It's not like basic/standard is
a setting that I can select in Gmail settings. Didn't find a basic vs
standard setting in my account settings, either. It's something
external, like an account setting (not exposed in those you can see)
instead of a service setting.

Considering how most users are visiting using a JavaScript capable web
browser, how many are using the basic view? I can't even get logged in
without Javascript enabled. Seems the change would affect few users.

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I disalllow Google javascript unless needed. In Gmail, with javascript
>>disallowed, I get the basic version of the Web interface. With
>>javascript enabled, I get the standard version of the interface.

>>Basic runs with javascript disallowed.

>Hmm, I can't even get logged in with Javascript disabled. When I go to
>gmail.com, and normally get the login page, instead I see:

> Couldn't sign you in

You've got the security token stored on your computer. I guess it's a
cookie, but I don't know. Perhaps basic users don't store the cookie
either but I don't see what cookies have to do with javascript.

Allow javascript to sign in, then disallow it. You'll see the option to
use the basic interface.

It's incredibly stupid to need to allow and disallow javascript, I know.

>. . .

>I enabled Javascript to get past the login page. I disabled Javascript
>once the webmail client was displayed, and refreshed the page to
>eliminate any content generated by Javascript. Then I got:

>Javascript must be enabled in order for you to use Gmail in standard
>view.

>There was a hyperlink to switch to basic view. I didn't want to do that
>since I wasn't sure I could come back.

You'll be able to return to standard view if you re-enable javascript.

>. . .

VanguardLH wrote:

> No indication the switch wasn't permanent. I wasn't prepared to switch,
> because I don't know if it would be permanent, and I'd have to dig for
> the switch again to go back to what I had, or find out there was no
> going back.

No, it isn't a switch, it's a separate URL to the basic version, if you
revert to the normal URL you get what you're used to, it doesn't promote
or demote your gmail account.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> No indication the switch wasn't permanent. I wasn't prepared to switch,
>> because I don't know if it would be permanent, and I'd have to dig for
>> the switch again to go back to what I had, or find out there was no
>> going back.
>
> No, it isn't a switch, it's a separate URL to the basic version, if you
> revert to the normal URL you get what you're used to, it doesn't promote
> or demote your gmail account.

Thanks for the clarification. Good to know I wouldn't step on a
landmine.

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> | Yes, if you have no cellphone *and* are stupid, Google makes it 'hard'
> | to access email. (Translation: No, you don't need a cellphone or a
> | phonenumber and you need 2SV (*not* 2FA) only *once* (per device).)
>
> I tried to access my brother's gmail after he had
> a stroke. It wouldn't let me log in on my computer. It
> wouldn't accept a cellphone to authenticate because
> it wasn't his cellphone. I'd say that's something
> no one should have to put up with for a mode of
> communication that carries virtually no security.

Ah, so Google didn't let you break into somebody's e-mail without the
proper authentication. Bad Google! Bad, bad Google!

BTW, you *do* realize that it's not just about email - i.e.
"communication that carries virtually no security" -, don't you? (Not
that email should not be kept private.)

These kind of scenarios - close relative can't get at relative's stuff
- are going to be more and more common and we will have to get used to
take precautions or live with the consequences. Not fun, but reality.

BTW, what probably would have worked is if you had used his computer,
but hat's easy to say, after the fact.

To be clear, of course I don't belittle the problem you had. But the
problem was not Google's. Most if not all providers would have given the
same or similar problem. Like everything, security and privacy doesn't
only have plusses, we'll have to accept the minuses as well.

VanguardLH wrote:
>
> If I'm currently using the standard mode, I've probably disabled all
> those extra features giving me the basic mode, anyway.
>

Basic mode provides a completely different view in the GMail web UI.

Basic Html strips away actions, features, functions and JavaScript
- no autocorrect, no chat, no rich formatting, no shortcuts and few
other missing features.
- i.e. a very simplified user experience
Basic, at one time, was intended for low bandwidth(slow connection) use.

Not certain, iirc Basic, quite a few years ago, was previously
referenced as 'Classic' view

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ