Making a universal email message have bespoke instructions for a specific mail provider. Call me old fashioned but I don't like that. Infact I still like to read my e-mails in plain text.
Also, I dare say, not so useful for the many of us accessing gmail via Mac devices' mail clients.
> Making a universal email message have bespoke instructions for a specific mail provider. Call me old fashioned but I don't like that.
Its all using open standard formats, and the specific schemas are open standards or proposed for standardization (and Google has said that its schema support may change if the schemas change in the standardization process.) Other providers could use it as well. This is how progress happens in open systems. The alternative is either abandoning the open system for new functionality, or just never getting new functionality at all. And its not the provider that is key here, but the client (the fact that for many gmail users the supplier of both the mail service and the mail client is the same makes it easy to confuse the issue.)
> Also, I dare say, not so useful for the many of us accessing gmail via Mac devices' mail clients.
Yes, features in the Gmail client that aren't included in other clients aren't useful to people using the other clients. I'm not sure why this is noteworthy.
Implementation-specific email headers aren't new, and many providers have been leveraging them in one way or another -- probably since email itself came to be. Outlook is a great example here. It's basically just value-add's for the client.
You can still read email in any client, so why would you choose any specific client? I think the onus remains on the content creators, just as it is on the web and elsewhere on the net, that they only use the extended functionality to enhance the content (and not replace it). An example here would be HTML emails -- which, since you said you prefer plain text, I'm sure you hate? But they are common and those that use them know that they need to include a "view on the web" link for clients who don't understand HTML.
I do like plain text the best though, as I think that's where email excels, though SMS has some overlap. Ultrafunk Popcorn[1] was my preferred email client for 5+ years, and was an awesome client. Required only a conf file and something silly like 200k of RAM to run. Sadly, development stopped on it awhile back I think, though it probably still works just fine. It's the equivalent of the foobar2000 music player, dead simple and efficient.
The fact that this was posted on the Google Apps blog is telling- I imagine that Google wants to roll this out to Apps users before general Gmail users.
I'm surprised by the reaction in here- yes, it's an addition to the standard e-mail system. Do we really want that system to stand absolutely still? If that's the case, why are we cheering so much web browser development? Surely a browser from 1997 should be good enough for anyone?
> I imagine that Google wants to roll this out to Apps users before general Gmail users.
That'll be a first. Historically, Google has deeply neglected Apps users. My Apps account didn't get G+ until almost a year after it became generally available.
Some weeks ago somebody proposed a way of indicating that he is just expecting a short reply to this email (for example yes/no). I think this is pretty close.
Also I can see uses for this on business systems. Notifications are send via email, could be useful to make it possible for users to also take action in their inbox without proceeding to web.
Lots of strangely negative reactions here. We (http://inky.com) think this is a positive development and plan to support it as well. We're happy Google has promoted open standards in doing this.
I don't think the reactions are strange at all. Google have a bad track record in implementing things and then abandoning them for one.
I want my email to be a consistent experience - not to get some different behavior if I access through a certain device. Email and its simplicity was universal - I saw the same text on my phone, tablet, laptop and desktop. Will every mail sender who makes use of this, include the JSON and an alternative link to achieve the same result. I think this could get very inconsistent very quickly. Fragmenting email is not something I like the idea of.
For Google Apps customers' internal mails I think this is useful. For the wider Internet I don't like it.
It's all Fire and Motion. Google wants this to gain traction so that competing email clients spend cycles gaining feature parity. And for what? Make clicking a link easier?
I tried Inky after following your link. I signed up, added an account, let it sync up and played with it. I then went to settings and deleted my account and quit Inky. I noticed my computer running hot a few hours later and it turned out "inkycore" had been running with 100% in the background the entire time.
The feature appears to be independently implementable in other clients, so if it takes off and those badges start appearing, then other e-mail clients can follow.
And some "designed for gmail" badges may actually be a good thing — maybe that would force Microsoft to do something with grotesque HTML rendering in the latest Outlook.
Whatever happened to the Unix philosphy? 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well'. Last thing I want in my inbox. Call me a purist but email is for emailing people.
> Whatever happened to the Unix philosphy? 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well'.
Its still a valid and important way of constructing software systems. But users mostly don't want a separate UI for each of those components, they want them strung together in a way which provides a simple experience that allows them to get the things they want to do done.
We were one of the companies to support this during the launch announcement today, and we've been playing with it for the past month or so. It's an awesome feature for transactional emails that require a quick action to be performed - we use it for task notification emails where you can check off a task as complete right within the email client. It's based on an open standard, and plain old HTTP POST so not specifically tied to Gmail.
Again, what is the difference between this and clicking a link? Instead of showing a link , they show a button is it? Adding a bunch of crap into email body is worth that?
This is right out of Microsoft's embrace/extend playbook.
a company that inserts this type of response hook in their emails needs to register with google. the response interface looks clearly separated—its not in the body of the email—so there is no way that a phisher could fake it.
so it actually could help to SOLVE the phishing issue. especially if other mail providers sign on.
Some html elements (like forms, form elements, ...) won't work in emails/get stripped by (web-)mail clients. The same goes for JavaScript and a lot of CSS features.
> I don't get it, wouldn't an html email with a form element do the same thing?
No, it wouldn't identify the meaning of the requested action to the email client in a way which allows the mail client to categorize/present the email specially based on the requested action, and in a manner which is consistent with other emails with the same kind of action request.
super cool. we are doing something similar with Birdseye Mail's Smart Actions http://www.birdseyemail.com/developers ... we opted to reuse open graph tags in favor of creating a new JSON / JavaScript syntax
Still really great that Google signed up partners for the rollout. It's a bit of a chicken vs. the egg problem for technologies like this and it seems they have some cool email providers on board to help with the adoption.
Regardless of the outcome, this is great for consumption of emails and for users who have trouble dealing with their high volume of email.
How long till gmail us turned into a hybrid private messaging/gmail system tightly integrated with G+ (more so than now)? Gmail as we know it seems to be on its last legs. Too bad, because it is a good product.
Just need to make sure I am getting this. Actions will make things happen once you open the email right? I am rather confused by this whole concept. Furthermore when will Google give me more control over my inbox like a builtin ifttt system? I mean filters does alot but I want more and not just for gmail but for all Google services. Example certain days I go to the gym but I only go if it is not raining. I wish I could tell calendar schedule gym if not raining. Is that what actions is?
Can the response include who is clicking the action? For example, if you want to take a quick poll from within an email that is sent to multiple people, can you identify who is voting for what?
[+] [-] planetjones|13 years ago|reply
Making a universal email message have bespoke instructions for a specific mail provider. Call me old fashioned but I don't like that. Infact I still like to read my e-mails in plain text.
Also, I dare say, not so useful for the many of us accessing gmail via Mac devices' mail clients.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|13 years ago|reply
Its all using open standard formats, and the specific schemas are open standards or proposed for standardization (and Google has said that its schema support may change if the schemas change in the standardization process.) Other providers could use it as well. This is how progress happens in open systems. The alternative is either abandoning the open system for new functionality, or just never getting new functionality at all. And its not the provider that is key here, but the client (the fact that for many gmail users the supplier of both the mail service and the mail client is the same makes it easy to confuse the issue.)
> Also, I dare say, not so useful for the many of us accessing gmail via Mac devices' mail clients.
Yes, features in the Gmail client that aren't included in other clients aren't useful to people using the other clients. I'm not sure why this is noteworthy.
[+] [-] andybak|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k3n|13 years ago|reply
You can still read email in any client, so why would you choose any specific client? I think the onus remains on the content creators, just as it is on the web and elsewhere on the net, that they only use the extended functionality to enhance the content (and not replace it). An example here would be HTML emails -- which, since you said you prefer plain text, I'm sure you hate? But they are common and those that use them know that they need to include a "view on the web" link for clients who don't understand HTML.
I do like plain text the best though, as I think that's where email excels, though SMS has some overlap. Ultrafunk Popcorn[1] was my preferred email client for 5+ years, and was an awesome client. Required only a conf file and something silly like 200k of RAM to run. Sadly, development stopped on it awhile back I think, though it probably still works just fine. It's the equivalent of the foobar2000 music player, dead simple and efficient.
1. http://web.archive.org/web/20130116201517/http://ultrafunk.c...
[+] [-] untog|13 years ago|reply
I'm surprised by the reaction in here- yes, it's an addition to the standard e-mail system. Do we really want that system to stand absolutely still? If that's the case, why are we cheering so much web browser development? Surely a browser from 1997 should be good enough for anyone?
[+] [-] MrDOS|13 years ago|reply
That'll be a first. Historically, Google has deeply neglected Apps users. My Apps account didn't get G+ until almost a year after it became generally available.
[+] [-] jpalomaki|13 years ago|reply
Also I can see uses for this on business systems. Notifications are send via email, could be useful to make it possible for users to also take action in their inbox without proceeding to web.
[+] [-] dmbaggett|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] planetjones|13 years ago|reply
I want my email to be a consistent experience - not to get some different behavior if I access through a certain device. Email and its simplicity was universal - I saw the same text on my phone, tablet, laptop and desktop. Will every mail sender who makes use of this, include the JSON and an alternative link to achieve the same result. I think this could get very inconsistent very quickly. Fragmenting email is not something I like the idea of.
For Google Apps customers' internal mails I think this is useful. For the wider Internet I don't like it.
[+] [-] bentcorner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calinet6|13 years ago|reply
Good marketing bit there ;)
[+] [-] TkTech|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diffsir|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nwh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pornel|13 years ago|reply
And some "designed for gmail" badges may actually be a good thing — maybe that would force Microsoft to do something with grotesque HTML rendering in the latest Outlook.
[+] [-] brudgers|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d43594|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|13 years ago|reply
Its still a valid and important way of constructing software systems. But users mostly don't want a separate UI for each of those components, they want them strung together in a way which provides a simple experience that allows them to get the things they want to do done.
[+] [-] kyrias|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] abraininavat|13 years ago|reply
Are you implying that there ever was a time when all programs did only one thing and did it well? Which era was that?
[+] [-] cafeconleche|13 years ago|reply
https://developers.google.com/gmail/schemas/actions/end-to-e... (The html with my own link) https://developers.google.com/gmail/schemas/embedding-schema...
From my account to the same account but it did not render any actions in my gmail inbox. Did any of you guys succeed in making the buttons appear?
[+] [-] MindTwister|13 years ago|reply
https://developers.google.com/gmail/schemas/actions/securing...
[+] [-] pornel|13 years ago|reply
https://developers.google.com/gmail/schemas/registering-with...
[+] [-] eli|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darxius|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mqzaidi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigtones|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reddit_clone|13 years ago|reply
This is right out of Microsoft's embrace/extend playbook.
[+] [-] qznc|13 years ago|reply
Btw how would one suggest something like this officially? There seems to be no issue tracker or anything for gmail.
[+] [-] dmbaggett|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dododo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patrickaljord|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] treahauet|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crucialfelix|13 years ago|reply
so it actually could help to SOLVE the phishing issue. especially if other mail providers sign on.
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yread|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfg|13 years ago|reply
Probably would be a security nightmare.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|13 years ago|reply
No, it wouldn't identify the meaning of the requested action to the email client in a way which allows the mail client to categorize/present the email specially based on the requested action, and in a manner which is consistent with other emails with the same kind of action request.
[+] [-] robspychala|13 years ago|reply
Still really great that Google signed up partners for the rollout. It's a bit of a chicken vs. the egg problem for technologies like this and it seems they have some cool email providers on board to help with the adoption.
Regardless of the outcome, this is great for consumption of emails and for users who have trouble dealing with their high volume of email.
[+] [-] orangethirty|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swah|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] QuantumGuy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] udfalkso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barapa|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dirkdk|13 years ago|reply
so how many other clients will support this? Gmail is pretty big, but if functionality is limited to Gmail it won't take off
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yarrel|13 years ago|reply