[vlovich123]

Is the plain HTML version under even the most basic maintenance? I was under the impression that was the old interface and they just kept it around because people liked it/slower countries.

The mobile vs desktop versions you posted are likely the same codebase with minimal (if any) differences. My understanding is that generally such things are accomplished transparently with flex layouts that automatically adjust to screen size

[Jap2-0]

> Is the plain HTML version under even the most basic maintenance?

I doubt much work is being done on it, but presumably they at least make sure it works; I mentioned it because a few posts up (edit: you) mention testing (rather than initial design) as the reason why having multiple designs is so difficult.

> The mobile vs desktop versions you posted are likely the same codebase with minimal (if any) differences....

It's entirely possible that they're derived from a similar codebase at some point, but what reaches the browser is significantly different - it's barely responsive, based on user-agent, and appears to be significantly different obfuscated blobs of HTML, CSS, and JS.

[vlovich123]

I can’t speak to it but just because something is tested occasionally doesn’t mean the testing budgets are the same or serve the same purpose.

For example, the feature set required to support the HTML page could be frozen and the APIs backing them stable with no need to change. So testing isn’t really necessary. Alternatively, there’s just API changes being made to remove dependencies on deprecated code and so the testing coverage comes from the testing that happens of that API surface through other means. Finally, it could be that the HTML page is even fully staffed to support emerging markets. That’s a different budget potentially than the budget for the “rich” UI.

Again, my point isn’t to argue over the specific business pressures and practices Google has for their email UI. This requires a level of knowledge I don’t think either of us possess. All I’m trying to do is illustrate that there could be all kinds of pressures why the system is the way it is, but dismissing it as “laziness” or “stupidness” on the part of the designer is itself a lazy and stupid conclusion to make without concrete evidence. I generally assume that’s not the case and look for the incentives/pressures those people are under until there’s overwhelming evidence those people are actually stupid/incompetent (and even then, the question becomes what structures, incentives, pressures were in place to put those people in positions they shouldn’t occupy).