|Towards a simpler, more beautiful nomenclature||Legacy2000||4/29/12 9:17 AM|
With the predominance of activity on the Gmail Product Forum about the "new look", many terms are being used to denote the old and new interfaces. For the sake of simplicity (reminiscent of the simplistic beauty that used to be Google), I suggest we all refer to them as Classic Gmail and Gfail, respctively.
Note to Google: For extra points, wiki Classic Coca-Cola and New Coke, and read how the world's largest soft drink company turned one of the biggest new product gaffes in history into one of the greatest marketing coups ever.
|Re: Towards a simpler, more beautiful nomenclature||bkc56||4/29/12 9:39 AM|
"Classic Gmail" was a previous version that Google ended support for some time back. You can't re-use the same name as it will cause even more confusion.
|Re: Towards a simpler, more beautiful nomenclature||Legacy2000||4/29/12 11:18 AM|
So I google "classic gmail" and get a bunch of references to the version now being retired. Then just for fun, I bing it and get references to the previous version. I'm gonna have to rethink my search engine preferences.
I suppose we could call it Neo-Classic Gmail. But the way Google seems to be headed, will it really matter in a few years what we called any of it?
|Re: Towards a simpler, more beautiful nomenclature||bkc56||4/29/12 4:51 PM|
I suppose we could call it Neo-Classic Gmail.I kind of like that. :-)
Well if past history is any indicator, in a year or so Google will make another big change to the UI, everyone will be whining about how to new version sucks, they want the old version, and if they don't get it they'll be going to yahoo. It's happened before, it's happening now (admittedly with a bit more enthusiasm) and it'll happen again.
|Re: Towards a simpler, more beautiful nomenclature||Legacy2000||4/29/12 5:57 PM|
So in a year or so, Google will decide that the current new interface is somehow lacking and needs to be replaced. I have no argument with that (if fact, I'm a year or so ahead of them on the uptake), but why not just leave Neo-Classic in place and take that year to do it right the first time?
|Re: Towards a simpler, more beautiful nomenclature||bkc56||4/29/12 8:53 PM|
... and take that year to do it right the first time?
Clearly a noteworthy question.
|Re: Towards a simpler, more beautiful nomenclature||Legacy2000||5/9/12 5:22 PM|
Not specifically related to Gmail, but on the topic of nomenclature, I ran across the term "Yahoogle" somewhere on the forums, and thought it is a good fit for the New Google.
|Re: Towards a simpler, more beautiful nomenclature||sleeplessbooks||5/9/12 8:45 PM|
Question: Why do we need such radical changes? There's stuff that always stays the same. Our cars, while there are major differences under the hood, have had very similar user interfaces for decades. Same with paper books. Same with so many things.
I am not totally opposed to change here... but I suspect that GMail wishes to toss a frog into a boiling pot, when a slow simmer is preferable. And... some of us feel burned.
Legacy2000: I miss the term "Yahooligan" so much. :o