It’s not like Gmail is only available via the web.
But that’s also their goal. It was about a year ago they killed the ability to use “lesssecureapps”? Now I have to create a new authorization key every ~2 weeks if I want getmail to keep working.
Comment on Google killing Basic HTML version of Gmail In January 2024
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 year ago
I don’t really see the accessibility angle with this. Just use an email client built with accessibility in mind. It’s not like Gmail is only available via the web. E-Mail clients have been a thing for longer than browsers.
kungen@feddit.nu 1 year ago
newIdentity@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I don’t. I use K-9 btw and it works flawlessly.
kungen@feddit.nu 1 year ago
But I don’t want to change my mail client, I just need something to replace fetchmail/getmail… I have too many procmail, msmtp, and mutt rules :(
ShortFuse@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Accessibility is horrible without JS. You should be modifying ARIA tags heavily as the user interacts with the page. I tried to write pages with no JS and realized the needs of the a11y group heavily outweighs the noScript group.
jpeps@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I agree. I really do feel for these people, but with a provider as accessibility friendly as Google, it’s really no different than any other set of people losing a specific brand of service.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s fine if you haven’t used Gmail for years as a blind person and have tons of archived emails. I don’t see a reason for discontinuing it. I can’t believe it takes a huge amount of effort to maintain.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 year ago
An additional frontend always brings in the question of “will this backend change break the other frontend?” It’s not so much the maintenence itself, but it may be holding back the main web interface.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I admit I am totally out of my element here, but why can’t you keep updating the main interface and leave the HTML interface virtually as-is? What have they added to Gmail that could not either be replicated or just ignored on the HTML level? Aren’t the protocols still the same? I don’t understand how new code on the front end would make that stop working unless it was a complete overhaul, but I admit I could easily be missing something.
wmassingham@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The old HTML and new fancy interfaces both depend on a backend, presumably the same one. But if they want to change anything on the backend, they risk breaking any interface that uses it. So if they ignore it, it’ll probably end up broken.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 1 year ago
That depends on how they have set everything up. In an ideal world the HTML page just gets its information more or less directly from the mail protocols you’d use with a separate client as well. But speaking from experience the tech is never set up ideally. Not even at billion dollar companies.
Of course, it’s also very likely that they just want to kill the simple interface because they can track more stuff in the JavaScript one.
killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Stab in the dark here: HTML email is an attack vector that is under constant innovation by those who wish to exploit it. This likely leads to a not insignificant amount of investment by Google just to keep a step ahead of attackers.
This is true of many types of software but most software doesn’t provide a user friendly route to being easily exploited by malicious third parties. In this case that is rendering HTML from unknown sources.
That said, I still agree with your point. Google are a leader in the email space and any serious email service should be providing accessible ways of reading emails in all supported formats if they want to continue to be taken seriously.