Maybe, but the UX works. I'd be very happy if they didn't start tinkering just for the sake of not being "stale". (See: Gnome Shell.)

As a daily user for 10+ years I can say there is certainly room to incrementally improve TB in many areas, like calendar and contacts, but don't mess with UX success.

I used thunderbird for years, gave up, and then tried it again a couple years ago. I think the UI/UX is really bad and was the reason I had forgotten why I left, and it was the reason I gave up the second time.

I unfortunately can't remember my complaints to make them more specific for a lively discussion, but I guess I am an anecdotal counter-point for thinking the UX was actually not a success.

I'd say a bad UI that is stable and familiar to the majority of users is actually a better UX than some new thing. See the MS Office "ribbon" interface for a good example.

Car manufacturers don't try to reinvent the steering wheel & pedals UI every couple years.

That is basically the motto of the Bloomberg Terminal, so I would agree with that to some extent.

Search is really bad and every time I use it I feel something is now shown (and what IS shown is totally irrelevant and old).

Also, I see that a dark mode would be a requirement today as everything else either complies with OS's dark mode setting (Windows 10, OS X) or has it's own dark theme.

People say here that the UI is bad but nobody says what exactly is supposed to be bad about it. Or is it just enough that it doesn't look like the blown up UIs that are in fashion today?

The icons are ugly, there are too many boxy sections on any given view, the top left pane in the calendar provides no useful information and is ugly. There is too much noise and clutter, it could be simpler and cleaner. I use it every day, but I wish it was less ugly.

I gave up because the search was inexplicable Reddit level bad.

Personally, I prefer the 90s UX over the stuff we see these days.

The modernization of the FF UI, combined with the reduction in the ability to customize it enough to make it the way I want, is one of the reasons I stopped using Firefox (not the main reason, though!)

Whatever TB does, I hope they at least allow people the ability to modify the UI enough to make both of us happy!

> Personally, I prefer the 90s UX over the stuff we see these days.

Seriously, can I just have frames back instead of the "our whole site is one HUGE page" trend.

It’s hell adding recurring events in Thunderbird that only happen at non-standard intervals.

I work a rotating six week schedule with different workdays week to week. In iCal/Apple Calendar, I can intuitively copy/paste events to a different day of the week if the rotation changes. Thunderbird, with its 90s UI, doesn’t provide you with this option.

I’ve found refuge in eM Client on Windows, but it took a while before I came across the app.

Well comparing Apple Calendar with Thunderbird is not really fair. One is dedicated calendar app the other is email app.

I use thunderbird for email and calendar for calendar. When i compared Apple Mail with Thunderbird i found quirks small tech issues with Apple Mail especially when using something else than gmail.

I dunno, I see a borderless window, tabs, a settings page with big colorful icons representing each section, smooth fonts with DPI scaling, even a hamburger menu! Oh and it seems to happily support resizing the window larger than 800x600. Don't remember any of that in the 90s.

Don't fix what aint broken.

I don't mean to pile on, but could you please explain this a bit more?

Why should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater, just to chase cosmetic trends?

Can you give a compelling technical reason why this would be good for users, without using superficial UX fashionista platitudes?

Just because something isn't "on trend" doesn't mean it is bad. Some of the most important and beloved software has user interfaces that have not changed in decades.

I don't care if a UX designer would be embarrassed to use it in front of other mail clients. Trying to chase trends will usually just leave your software looking dated, anyway.

Unless you're willing to roll up your sleeves and keep existing functionality with your new trendy UX, then don't bother, because deprecating real functionality at the cost of a superficial fashion statement is really egregious and it needs to stop.

Nobody wants their workboots replaced with tennis shoes. And especially not because a UX designer wanting to stroke their ego and make a name for themselves.

Well firstly, having a great UX doesn’t mean throwing away features. It means improving the product you have so it’s more user friendly, increased readability, and more powerful. It can even mean increased features like better thread management, snooze support, better people-centric management, additional workflows explicitly supported (like zero inbox), etc.

Most of the sibling comments here are a “get off my lawn” type variety that IMHO are not fully informed by what good UX means. Great design isn’t superficial, in the least. A great user experience is a great user experience... it doesn’t mean compromising because something was hard, and it doesn’t throw away how the product is used or has evolved.

We should be aiming to improve and innovate to be helpful, not stagnate. And improvement means people’s existing needs are considered, not disregarded as many here seem to think.

> Great design isn’t superficial, in the least. A great user experience is a great user experience... it doesn’t mean compromising because something was hard, and it doesn’t throw away how the product is used or has evolved.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The complaint I am making, is that a lot of UX design is superficial, and done for the wrong reasons. Most of what Mozilla has done is terrible.

They've essentially gutted their browser because they want to be cool like Google.

But if we’re talking about ideals, then why wouldn’t you advocate for change towards great design versus stagnation? Now if you don’t trust Mozilla to pull it off, then that’s a different argument than so far has been made.

While I don’t personally know the designers at Mozilla, I’m doubtful that they simply “wanted to be cool like Google” and instead did their own research. I could be wrong but usually work isn’t so arbitrarily done for large products and teams.