[Sigil]

YES! One step closer to coming out of "beta!"

[macnews]

Before I tried Gmail, I lamented about how I wanted to put an email message in multiple folders. Gmail, with the "labels" solved that problem for me and I don't want to go back.
I can understand how people who use an email client can run in to problems with labels - but that is how IMAP handles things. I agree with the poster above who said Google should work with IMAP standards to get multiple folders or labels as a feature supported by IMAP. This would solve the entire issue. Label or folder is a metaphor as many have mentioned. Had Google just called them "folders" instead of "labels" people would only complain how their implementation of "folders" doesn't work great with IMAP or POP but I think people would fall in love with the notion of putting an email in multiple "folders".
I do hope the sidebar implementation of labels is nice as I rely on it the current "labels on the right" process now.

[zarmanto]

dreyfus said:

... Having one logic in the browser, and an entirely different one when using Mail or Entourage is not enhancing usability, at least not for those not using the Webmail interface 100% of the time. ...

But see, that right there is probably where the disconnect stems from. Google's business is predominantly web-apps; rolling in IMAP functionality was almost certainly a concession to those users who prefer to pull their personal data out of the cloud, with the software they've been using for years. And you are absolutely correct: new paradigms rarely interconnect seamlessly with legacy paradigms.

>While this is most-likely well-meant, it is quite a bit of a MS practise, too.

Well gee, you don't have to go around throwing insults... ;) But kidding aside: while I am by no means a Microsoft apologist (or even a Microsoft supporter for that matter) I would have to suggest that the majority of their ill-conceived "proprietary" solutions are in all likelihood well-meant too... from a certain point of view. The same could also be said of many of Apple's proprietary solutions, for that matter. Innovation isn't always embraced by its audience when it is first introduced.

[dreyfus]

zarmanto said:

But see, that right there is probably where the disconnect stems from. Google's business is predominantly web-apps; rolling in IMAP functionality was almost certainly a concession to those users who prefer to pull their personal data out of the cloud, with the software they've been using for years. And you are absolutely correct: new paradigms rarely interconnect seamlessly with legacy paradigms.

Well, it is more than a concession, actually this is what they say when advertising "Google Apps Premier Edition" (at 50 USD per user and year) to corporations: "End users can use the familiar Microsoft Outlook interface for email, contacts and calendar as they transition to Gmail and Google Calendar." So, they actually sell this service as being compatible with existing software, while it really isn't. Using an Exchange server (or OS X Server, or Kerio, or Zimbra) users will actually always get the same representation of their email server structure, no matter if using the desktop or the Web client. With Google Mail this is simply not the case. Of course there are other, even more severe, short-comings when comparing Google Apps to the alternatives (no tasks, no notes, almost unusable contacts application lacking fields for almost everything etc.), but IMHO they should really decide what Google Mail is supposed to be. If its a Web service for private users, then this is fine ? people can freely choose not to work with standards, if that's what they prefer. If they want to offer these services to corporations, then they should follow standards, or at least make it a user setting. For business users and most private users offline mail access is still a requirement, Google Gears does not work reliably as per now, so a client application will still be required for many.

[zarmanto]

rumplestiltskin said:

... Perhaps you are referring to pre HFS -MFS- volumes where folders weren'e really subdirectories?

Nope: I think you actually went too far back. It dates specifically to System 7.0, (circa 1991) when they introduced two hidden folders at the root of the hard drive; one to store items which were placed on the desktop and another to store items which were placed in the trash can... and they also added a plethora of sub-folders within the System Folder to categorize various other items. During the System 6.x era, files which were placed on the desktop were subject to being randomly shoved back into the root of the hard drive in the event of a system crash, and files which were placed in the trash had very little longevity, as they were promptly discarded whenever the Finder was closed. Adding the hidden folders resolved these issues.

Unfortunately, this bit of trivia comes largely from my own memory; I can't seem to find a direct reference which includes a note about the desktop folder itself -- though each of the other folders which were added are noted in Apple's legacy documentation. Maybe I'll just have to annotate the Wikipedia entry titled "History of Mac OS" myself. ;)

[zarmanto]

dreyfus said:

... So, they actually sell this service as being compatible with existing software, while it really isn't. ... IMHO they should really decide what Google Mail is supposed to be. ...

In this regards, I totally agree with you; while I am still a satisfied (non-corporate) user myself, it's pretty clear that Gmail has hidden behind the (ahem) label of "beta" software to avoid having to answer for exactly these types of issues, for far too long. As Sigil concisely quipped, perhaps we are indeed one step closer to shedding that mask.