Slashdot Mirror


Users Being Migrated To New Version of Hotmail

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has started work on migrating Hotmail users to a new version after testing the new system on select customers for almost two years. Microsoft stated in the article that more than 20 million users provided feedback to the new-look Hotmail. 'For now, Microsoft will give Hotmail users the option to continue using the old version if they don't want to switch to the upgraded version. However, at some point, everyone will be unilaterally migrated over to Windows Live Hotmail ... New users will be automatically signed up for Windows Live Hotmail but, like any user of the new service, they will get to choose from two user interfaces: a "classic" layout that closely resembles the old Hotmail; or the new interface, which was designed to look like Microsoft's Outlook e-mail and calendaring desktop application.'"

9 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. 20 Million users contributed feedback by hudsonhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and none of them asked for a "Mark as read" button?

    1. Re:20 Million users contributed feedback by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right click and hit "Mark as Read"

      The fact that there is a mechanism for this does not refute the previous poster's point. Right-clicking should never, ever be the only way to get to some functionality. I'm not sure I've ever seen a interface design or usability book that did not mention this. I think even MS's own UI design guidelines mention it. Right-clciking and selecting a menu option is a lot slower and less learnable than a button, but aside from that the important thing is relying upon multiple buttons breaks the interface for a wide variety of alternative input methods. Try doing that using a screen reader for the blind, or a stylus on a tablet, or even using MS's own voice recognition interface. Try it on a touch screen kiosk, using a control stick for people with palsey, or using a browser that does not support that function for one reason or another.

      When people are lower level developers and don't have any real UI training and are creating an application for internal use or for a special purpose with limited audience, I can forgive this sort of thing. When one of the largest software development houses on the planet does it for a program they plan to roll to millions of the general public it is just fucking absurd. I want to know. Where does MS hire their UI people and why can't they manage to avoid basic mistakes that have been known to the industry for decades now?

    2. Re:20 Million users contributed feedback by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is that graph measured in 'millions of unique spammers'?

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    3. Re:20 Million users contributed feedback by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's wrong with contextual menus? I think they're completely straightforward with "manipulate the object I'm clicking on" functions. Right click on a web page, and you get options relating to the web page. Right click on a graphic, and you get options relating to the graphic. Right click on highlighted text, and you get options relating to that text.

      Everything has its place:

      Menu bars: Control this application.
      Contextual menus: Control this object.
      Toolbars: Quick access to commonly used functions (almost always redundant with the other two).

      I can't find anything wrong with that at all, as long as you grasp the application/object difference.

  2. Dropping the Web-based E-mail Ball by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Two years ago, the company I work for began offering MS Outlook through the web to employees. At first I was skeptical, I didn't think it would be that useful. But, a year after that, it was seriously fully functional Outlook over a website. I also use Hotmail for my personal life and had wondered why in the hell Microsoft didn't apply the same great ideas from the web-based Outlook client to their Hotmail site. I don't think my company would drop its control of its Exchange Servers if Hotmail offered the same look and feel. I didn't think Microsoft would lose any business at all but they would have cornered the market in e-mail.

    Sometime between a year ago and today, it's become fully compliant with Firefox 2.0--I'm pretty impressed and actually don't mind using web-based Outlook when I'm out of the office.

    Why did Microsoft sit on their hands as Google slowly built up their capabilities to match those of Outlook? Why didn't Microsoft work on porting what they had done for Outlook to their Hotmail servers? I guess server load could always be the answer to those questions but I'm starting to think that Microsoft thought Hotmail would always be number one in personal e-mail. Thankfully, it looks like the competition is putting the pressure on them to improve their service.

    I used this tool two years ago, way to drop the ball, Microsoft. You could have beat Google to a calendar application and solidified Hotmail.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Dropping the Web-based E-mail Ball by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think that Hotmail was ever number 1 in online email. I think the only reason that anybody signed up was because they wanted to use MSN messenger, and it's extremely hard for most people to figure out that you can use a non-hotmail address, let alone figuring out the process for actually doing so. I've always found their spam filtering, amount of space (2 MB up until google's huge storage made them upgrade it) , and entire interface to be lacking. The biggest missing feature is an option to "Mark as read" as another poster pointed out. The only reason so many people have signed up, is because they think it's the only way to get on MSN Messenger.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  3. People still use hotmail? by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I havent seen a hotmail account in ages. They seem more rare then aol.com emails. The bulk of emails I have seen are either yahoo.com or gmail.com.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  4. pocket msn by BewireNomali · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i was part of the beta. seamless integration with windows mobile is the killer feature for me. i've had my motorola Q for about 8 months and i've needed to log into pocket msn twice (because I switched from original battery to extended life). mail is pushed to my phone and I get IMs etc. - as well as Live Search/Maps etc out of the box. I can honestly say that - having both a gmail account and live hotmail account - that gmail is down way more - which - coupled with the fact that I do most of my emailing and IMing from my mobile unit - have caused me to migrate back to being a dual user from being a gmail user exclusively for a while. i can imagine some of gmails problems are because of scale - so it'll be interesting to see how hotmail reacts when the service is sufficiently wide to test infrastructure.

    --
    un burrito me trampeó.
  5. Re:Hotmail Vs. Gmail by massysett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, they're competing on features, but I think Google realized something entirely different. Yahoo and MS were in the business of extracting cash from the user base. That's why they charged for disk space upgrades, extra filters, POP access, and so forth.

    Google realized they're in the business of extracting cash from advertisers. To do that, Google mines data. They scan emails and search for patterns so they can sell ads to those who are most likely to want to see them. In order to mine this data, it benefits Google if they see as much email as they possibly can. I think that's what explains the original 1GB size limit while others were doling out a measly 2-4MB: with all that space, you're encouraged to horde mail, and Google is free to mine information from it.

    Same goes for your mail forwarding. Google sees every single message that is forwarded through their servers. They can keep that data and use it for marketing. Even if you're not using Gmail and seeing those ads, they might one day use that data to give you ads in another context.

    Perhaps this is not a bad bargain, but few seem to realize that Google's goals are not altruistic here.