I think #1 is a super solid idea. I'd love to go beyond that— I'm familiar with the tech and love the satisfaction of a more DIY approach— but other end users preclude my doing so.
The author mentions quality in big email service but only passingly mentions what that encompasses. Smooth, responsive, well-worn, ceaselessly preened, and smoothed-over end-user UIs are important. Unfortunately, the open-source alternatives are comparatively rough.
(As a long-time developer and more recent designer, I write a lot of open-source code myself. I understand that these are complex and tedious problems to solve. However, without frank critique, "Open-Source Alternatives" will always be "Alternatives.")
Every interface I saw needed fundamental design work. My recent research showed 2+ decade old interface layouts w/new features just bolted on, visually complex toolbars, menus, and lists, little editing for views and controls, and comparatively unattractive designs(, which even if it doesn't matter to you, that doesn't invalidate its importance to others.) Even this crowd— people accustomed to configuring complex applications— lament the clunky interfaces.
To me, most open-source interfaces are like eating on a diet. Your sense of accomplishment offsets the discomfort... at least for a while. End-users, however, don't have or need, that holistic view of the service. To them, the interface IS the service. DIY/tech accomplishments are abstract and indirect factors, at most. For most, it's like eating on-diet, but someone else loses weight. Attractive alternatives make that unsustainable.
So the real hard part isn't technical— it's assembling an email stack where users don't feel deprived for having chosen it.
The solution is more collaboration between design and development expertise within the FOSS. If you have a position of authority in any FOSS projects, I implore you to be open-minded when presented with interface design ideas.
Happy to talk about productive ways to engage with designers and design feedback.
Firstly, I am one. I have ten years of full time back-end web dev experience and other types of coding for over a decade before that. I also know others— UX designers generally start in another field and dev work is a pretty common start.
Secondly, that few contribute as designers rather than developers is definitely a chicken and egg situation. Designers time and effort is universally seen as less valuable than developers’ and therefore more readily dismissed or minimized. People are worse at taking critique for things they’re not confident in, and as you note, most open source projects are maintained by developers. Ever give a brand new developer a code review? Yeah. That’s about what it’s like critiquing an open source project’s beloved “quirky” interface.
I’ve seen eager designers post issues in repos— some with complete wireframes and rationale having done a good amount of work already, asking for specific types of feedback— only for their system to be instantly bikeshedded into oblivion rather than productively discussed. Unsolicited contributions are often viewed as superfluous expenditures of dev time, or even viewed with outright suspicion or hostility. If it’s not submitted in the form of bite-sized PRs ready for production with the understanding that existing devs can veto any changes without any real justification. Going from a haphazardly assembled UI to a properly designed UI requires fundamental change, and that’s a lot of work. Would you contribute code in a project with those competing requirements?
Before any of that, any designer interested in open source software has almost certainly made the mistake of griping about the interface for gimp, or git. It’s a good preview for what lies ahead.
The author mentions quality in big email service but only passingly mentions what that encompasses. Smooth, responsive, well-worn, ceaselessly preened, and smoothed-over end-user UIs are important. Unfortunately, the open-source alternatives are comparatively rough.
(As a long-time developer and more recent designer, I write a lot of open-source code myself. I understand that these are complex and tedious problems to solve. However, without frank critique, "Open-Source Alternatives" will always be "Alternatives.")
Every interface I saw needed fundamental design work. My recent research showed 2+ decade old interface layouts w/new features just bolted on, visually complex toolbars, menus, and lists, little editing for views and controls, and comparatively unattractive designs(, which even if it doesn't matter to you, that doesn't invalidate its importance to others.) Even this crowd— people accustomed to configuring complex applications— lament the clunky interfaces.
To me, most open-source interfaces are like eating on a diet. Your sense of accomplishment offsets the discomfort... at least for a while. End-users, however, don't have or need, that holistic view of the service. To them, the interface IS the service. DIY/tech accomplishments are abstract and indirect factors, at most. For most, it's like eating on-diet, but someone else loses weight. Attractive alternatives make that unsustainable.
So the real hard part isn't technical— it's assembling an email stack where users don't feel deprived for having chosen it.
The solution is more collaboration between design and development expertise within the FOSS. If you have a position of authority in any FOSS projects, I implore you to be open-minded when presented with interface design ideas.
Happy to talk about productive ways to engage with designers and design feedback.