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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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).

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-)

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?

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.

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.

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-)

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

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

"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.)

"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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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-)

"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?

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.

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.]