No, I use gmail’s web interface, which is about as lacking in features as you’re ever likely to get.
I don’t honestly know quite why I find mailing lists easier to follow. I think it’s the tendency towards more quoting, or greater depth of quotes. It’s definitely mainly about how people structure their replies rather than the UI (although scrolling a long thread on Discourse with the way it hides things really sucks).
Reading and responding to recent posts is OK in Discourse - it’s referring back to older points that’s a pain - which is why I say my responses end up “shallower”.
Certainly it’s not a perfect answer (and rich text does not integrate well with mailing list style quoting in my experience). But the point is that “Discourse can do bullet points! And images! Etc.” isn’t really about Discourse per se. It’s great to have, but there’s other ways of getting it.
That one’s actually not bad (there are others that are really annoying, like the one about quoting a URL repeatedly, when I’m only including it because it was in someone else’s text that I quoted!) but it’s essentially pushing me to discard my reply (or post something half-completed, there’s no way I know of to keep a “draft” reply for later) so that I can respond later once I’ve collated information from a number of other comments - which as I pointed out above, I find really hard to do because of the thing about reviewing older posts.
Well, sort of. Only to one level, though, so if I try to find the original context of quotes in a multi-quoted message, I find I get lost very quickly. Having said that I just discovered that it’s possible to “expand” a quote block to get context. That’s a good example of a non-obvious feature in Discourse that if you haven’t found it, the interface sucks for you in ways that other people aren’t aware of And part of “accessible to new users” is about not having features like this which are hidden unless you are “in the know”…
This is a very good point. We really need to be very clear on priorities here - are we trying to find an effective medium for readers or participants (writers)? Obviously “both” would be ideal, but which do we favour in trade-offs? Further, participants can be divided into people who want to add in-depth comments, and people who just want to express relatively low-content “I agree” sentiments. A “like”-type system is suitable for such people.
I genuinely wonder whether having multiple communications channels is actually the best solution here. Fragmented discussions is a big issue, but so are some of the other things we’re talking about…