XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Jerry wrote:

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for
Windows Firefox GMail users?

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you use a decent mail client nothing will change or matter.
But if you (only) use the webclient you could be disappointed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

On 09/26/2023 6:36 PM, Frank Miller wrote:

Jerry wrote:

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for
Windows Firefox GMail users?

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year
https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you use a decent mail client nothing will change or matter.
But if you (only) use the webclient you could be disappointed.

It means they will be able to bring you more ads when you use their
webmail to view your email.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Jerry <Jerry@JerryThinks.com> wrote:

Talk about domain forgery...

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for
Windows Firefox GMail users?

It means absolutely nothing for Windows users and Firefox users. It
means absolutely nothing to freeware users.

Will you kindly knock off the crossposting to irrelevant newsgroups?
What you posted is OFF TOPIC in all newsgroups. There is a newsgroup
that discusses Google. Go there.

Better yet, make alt.dev.null your home newsgroup. It wouldn't have been
off topic there.

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year >https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you had bothered to read the article, it explains.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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

Jerry <Jerry@JerryThinks.com> wrote:

Talk about domain forgery...

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for
Windows Firefox GMail users?

It means absolutely nothing for Windows users and Firefox users. It
means absolutely nothing to freeware users.

Will you kindly knock off the crossposting to irrelevant newsgroups?
What you posted is OFF TOPIC in all newsgroups. There is a newsgroup
that discusses Google. Go there.

Better yet, make alt.dev.null your home newsgroup. It wouldn't have been
off topic there.

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year >>https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you had bothered to read the article, it explains.

Yeah, posts like this make me reconsider reenabling my BOFH filter (see poster's PATH header).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Jerry <Jerry@JerryThinks.com> wrote:

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for
Windows Firefox GMail users?

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

The standard webmail client will likely use Javascript. If you disabled Javascript in any web browser (via settings or add-ons), the webmail
client may not function.

https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15049?hl=en
When you're in Basic HTML view, you won't find some Gmail features, such
as:
Chat
Spell checker
Keyboard shortcuts
Adding or importing contacts
Custom "from" addresses
Rich formatting
To get these features, switch to Standard view in a browser that works
with Gmail.

My guess is that you are already using standard HTML view. How do you
normally access your Gmail account? Using a web browser, or a local
e-mail client?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

On 27/09/2023 08:17, Jerry wrote:

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for Windows Firefox
GMail users?

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you are blind and rely on a screen-reader to read your email via the
web, it *does* matter.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

On 27/09/2023 08:17, Jerry wrote:

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for Windows Firefox >>GMail users?

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year >>https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you are blind and rely on a screen-reader to read your email via the
web, it *does* matter.

Can you use an email client in a terminal window with IMAP to access the
inbox in Gmail? Wouldn't that better interpret reading order on behalf
of the screen reader?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Jerry wrote:

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for Windows Firefox
GMail users?

If you're running a recent version of Firefox, this will have zero impact.

For older browsers (they carefully avoid saying how old is too old) it
will presumably not work at all.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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

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

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

On 27/09/2023 16:39, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

On 27/09/2023 08:17, Jerry wrote:

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for Windows Firefox
GMail users?

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year
https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you are blind and rely on a screen-reader to read your email via the
web, it *does* matter.

Can you use an email client in a terminal window with IMAP to access the inbox in Gmail? Wouldn't that better interpret reading order on behalf
of the screen reader?

Having to learn a new application is always a problem, even an interface
update buggers things up. You have to get someone to talk you through
all the new commands, and where what information is on screen and so on.

Note: I am not blind, but I have written software with the requirement
that it be usable by the blind.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Jerry,

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for Windows Firefox
GMail users?

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.

If I would need to describe your message it would be FUD and clickbait.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

On 27/09/2023 00:49, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Jerry <Jerry@JerryThinks.com> wrote:

Talk about domain forgery...

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for
Windows Firefox GMail users?

It means absolutely nothing for Windows users and Firefox users. It
means absolutely nothing to freeware users.

Will you kindly knock off the crossposting to irrelevant newsgroups?
What you posted is OFF TOPIC in all newsgroups. There is a newsgroup
that discusses Google. Go there.

Better yet, make alt.dev.null your home newsgroup. It wouldn't have been
off topic there.

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year
https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you had bothered to read the article, it explains.

ooh, very touchy today

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

"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.

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!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote

| If you are blind and rely on a screen-reader to read your email via the
| web, it *does* matter.
|

I would expect most blind people read email in plain text.
I do myself, simply for privacy and security. For the blind,
plain text is much simpler for a screenreader to handle.

I doubt that many, if any, blind people use cellphones. Even
with a screenreader, the touchscreen UI would be maddening.
(It's already maddening for a sighted person.) Without a
cellphone, Google makes it hard to access email.

Anyone putting up with the spying, the 2FA, the ads, etc
only cares about a certain kind of convenience: Being able
to access the Internet and their data from any device
easily. Once again, that's not a priority for the blind.

Google is doing what Apple, Microsoft and Facebook are
all trying to do and have been doing: Break Web standards
and set restrictions to create what Tim Berners-Lee has been
warning about for years now -- "silos" of data and API
functionality. Once you live in a silo, it's hard to go outside
the silo, but for the people inside it's like AOL. Everything
fits together. Google have almost reached a point where they
could actually usurp email itself by declaring that gmail will
no longer recognize non-gmail. All those Googlite silo dwellers
wouldn't even think of the possibility of leaving the Google teat.
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. (After all, how can they offer
the best geo-fencing reports if they don't have all the personal
information connected to each cellphone they track? They can
get it by hook or by crook, but it's easiest if most of the world
is just forced to give it to them.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Newyana2 wrote:

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote

| If you are blind and rely on a screen-reader to read your email via the
| web, it *does* matter.
|

I would expect most blind people read email in plain text.
I do myself, simply for privacy and security. For the blind,
plain text is much simpler for a screenreader to handle.

I doubt that many, if any, blind people use cellphones. Even
with a screenreader, the touchscreen UI would be maddening.
(It's already maddening for a sighted person.) Without a
cellphone, Google makes it hard to access email.

[snip]

The virtue of a phone is that you only need hearing to be able to use
it. So an ordinary phone would be ideal for a blind person.

Sadly, it's difficult (but probably not impossible) to find a cellphone
that a blind person can use - i.e. one with buttons that you can feel.



--
Graham J

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

ponyface <dennis.gange@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/09/2023 00:49, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Jerry <Jerry@JerryThinks.com> wrote:

Talk about domain forgery...

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for
Windows Firefox GMail users?

It means absolutely nothing for Windows users and Firefox users. It
means absolutely nothing to freeware users.

Will you kindly knock off the crossposting to irrelevant newsgroups?
What you posted is OFF TOPIC in all newsgroups. There is a newsgroup
that discusses Google. Go there.

Better yet, make alt.dev.null your home newsgroup. It wouldn't have been >>off topic there.

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year >>>https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you had bothered to read the article, it explains.

ooh, very touchy today

I'd have called out our off topic lying hysteria-spreading shill any day
of the week. Give me some credit here.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

. . .

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.

Nonsense. If he had that concern as opposed to shilling an article he
refused to read himself and lying that Google is turning off all HTML,
he'd have simply tested the standard interface with Firefox set to allow
lots of javascript to run.

I've been using the standard interface for a while. My adblocker add ons
are doing a nice job blocking ads.

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!

Thanks for spreading hysteria yourself. There's nothing new here that
someone on a help desk cannot answer basic questions. That's a method of spreading ignorance, not forcing a user to use Chrome in lieu of his
prefered browser.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

On 27/09/2023 16:39, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

On 27/09/2023 08:17, Jerry wrote:

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for Windows Firefox >>>>GMail users?

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year >>>>https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

If you are blind and rely on a screen-reader to read your email via the >>>web, it *does* matter.

Can you use an email client in a terminal window with IMAP to access the >>inbox in Gmail? Wouldn't that better interpret reading order on behalf
of the screen reader?

Having to learn a new application is always a problem, even an interface >update buggers things up. You have to get someone to talk you through
all the new commands, and where what information is on screen and so on.

Fair enough. I'm just questioning whether the Web interface Google is
turning off did an adequate job of preserving reading order. The email
client I use from a terminal certainly would.

Note: I am not blind, but I have written software with the requirement
that it be usable by the blind.

I understand. I used to argue that just making a Web page's text
viewable with lynx would likely result in a Web page page that a blind
user with the right tools wouldn't struggle with.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Newyana2,

| 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.

Thats not what I'm getting from the OPs post. Not by a long shot.

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.

Indeed. But thats something rather different than what the OPs wrote - or,
for that matter, what the link he supplied says.

Google could very well force people to use Chrome in most scenarios.

Only for those "people" under us who cannot think of using anything else
than gmail. Which is, I would say, a "people" problem. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

On 27/09/2023 23:47, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

[SNIP]

Note: I am not blind, but I have written software with the requirement
that it be usable by the blind.

I understand. I used to argue that just making a Web page's text
viewable with lynx would likely result in a Web page page that a blind
user with the right tools wouldn't struggle with.

Bingo!

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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

Nonsense. If he had that concern as opposed to shilling an article he
refused to read himself and lying that Google is turning off all HTML,
he'd have simply tested the standard interface with Firefox set to allow
lots of javascript to run.

1. The OP quoted EXACTLY (verbatim!) what the article said.
2. So for you to call it "lying" means you are a victim of your own bias.
3. Besides - he gave you the URL to the article - which you didn't read.

Without reading the article - you complained that it was wrong.
Without reading the OP - you claimed it was a lie.

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

Do you read anything before you claim everything you didn't read is a lie?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

Gunther F <grunther@nospam.edu> wrote:

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

Nonsense. If he had that concern as opposed to shilling an article he >>refused to read himself and lying that Google is turning off all HTML,
he'd have simply tested the standard interface with Firefox set to allow >>lots of javascript to run.

1. The OP quoted EXACTLY (verbatim!) what the article said.
2. So for you to call it "lying" means you are a victim of your own bias.

HTML is NOT being turned off in three months as the Subject states.
That's a lie.

How the fuck would the Web work with HTML turned off?

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

Of course I read the article. It stated that the standard interface had additional features that the basic interface lacked. That's how I
learned what would be offered to users after the basic interface gets eliminated.

Without reading the article - you complained that it was wrong.
Without reading the OP - you claimed it was a lie.

Worse - you say to test a future interface.

The interface exists RIGHT NOW. The user gets the basic interface if
javascript is turned off. If the user allows javascript to run, he gets
the basic interface.

Which won't release for three months from now.

There may well be an update to the standard interface coming.
Nevertheless, the interface exists right now.

Do you read anything before you claim everything you didn't read is a lie?

It's perfectly clear that you did not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jerry wrote:

What does Google turning off HTML in 3 months mean for Windows Firefox
GMail users?

Google to discontinue the Basic HTML version of Gmail next year https://www.neowin.net/news/google-to-discontinue-the-basic-html-version-of-gmail-next-year/

What will change?
Will it matter?

By design, supported browsers default to Standard View.
Basic Html is an option up until Jan. 2024.

Thereafter, afiacs, supported browsers will no longer have the option to
flip to Basic Html from Standard. Also, non-supported browsers(possibly
not defined in a list format by Google/GMail) after Jan 24th may or may
not funtion.
- i.e. If using a supported browser, Standard View is the default,
thus when using a supported browser the only thing that will change is
not being able to switch to Basic HTML view.

This web page has links to switch(at this time) from Standard to Basic
or Basic to Standard
<https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15049?>

Groups for Firefox and Freeware removed.
Win10 group used for this reply, even though the original question is
not applicable to Win10, only the browsers in use on the device.

--
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 13:45:07 +0100, Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk>
wrote:

Newyana2 wrote:

"Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote

| If you are blind and rely on a screen-reader to read your email via the
| web, it *does* matter.
|

I would expect most blind people read email in plain text.
I do myself, simply for privacy and security. For the blind,
plain text is much simpler for a screenreader to handle.

I doubt that many, if any, blind people use cellphones. Even
with a screenreader, the touchscreen UI would be maddening.
(It's already maddening for a sighted person.) Without a
cellphone, Google makes it hard to access email.

[snip]

The virtue of a phone is that you only need hearing to be able to use
it. So an ordinary phone would be ideal for a blind person.

Sadly, it's difficult (but probably not impossible) to find a cellphone
that a blind person can use - i.e. one with buttons that you can feel.

Bollocks.

https://www.o2.co.uk/shop/doro/6880

https://www.o2.co.uk/shop/nokia/215-like-new?contractType=payasyougo#contractType=payasyougo

https://www.o2.co.uk/shop/alcatel/3080-like-new?contractType=payasyougo#contractType=payasyougo


Difficult? I found those three, above, in about ten seconds of
searching. Had I bothered, I could probably have found scores of
'phones with physical buttons within a few minutes.

That is in the UKland which is never praised for its grasp of
cutting-edge tech and only from one mobile 'phone supplier.

If USAlia can't do far, far better then you just ain't complaining
enough. :)

J

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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
🦊

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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.]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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.

. . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

"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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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.

. . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

"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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.software.firefox, alt.comp.freeware

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)