I used to have to create an HTML email newsletter (who knows, perhaps some of you have even received it - you’ll know who you are), but even though it was deliberately done for people who wanted the visuals, so our target audience were HTML viewers by default, it still sucked.
Each email client recognised different forms of HTML. Some wouldn’t display unless it had certain headers, some would strip out those headers, each making the page display differently. And you could only use inline CSS.
In the end, we went with the simplest we could that still looked good, which I think was an elegant design, but it was easily messed up if you made even one tiny mistake.
I am using KMail, Debian, KDE, which will not compose in HTML. Incoming HTML messages are first displayed as a mess with with all the formatting junk displayed as text. There is a box to click to display in the original format.
I had clung to NS 4.X for email as long as I could. I loved its powerful, friendly, non MS like spell check. When I switched to the Debian OS, I had a choice of several email programs. I finally went with KMail. It lacks some features of the old NS spell check, but has some stuff to make up for it.
I seldom miss composing in HTML. When I used NS, I usually used the text mode. NS did display both text and HTML. Sometimes HTML in eyestraining small font. If you are sending an all text email, I see no reason to send it in HTML, or worse yet as a .docx attachment. For now, I am returning them unread requesting a different format. I did not rush out and buy Windows 7 and feel no obligation to accommodate those that did.
My one sister is one of the few people sending me HMTL emails. I think I will email her son with the one link above and suggest he turns the HTML off on his mother’s computer. She will never miss it.
Oh, I get emails from a few people that KMail puts the formatting garbage in a winmail.dat attachment.
This is also a good general rule for webpages: Let the content determine the format. If your content is essays, then your web page should display correctly even in something ancient like Lynx, or another imageless browser (which are a lot more common than you think). If your content is the pictures you took over summer vacation, then obviously it’s not going to work with an imageless browser, but your page should still not require Flash or Java(script). If your content is browser-based games, then it’s reasonable to require Flash and/or Java. In any case, you can add higher levels of fanciness, but make sure that it’s only supplemental, and that the main content still works without it.
I am going to be the voice in the wilderness on this one and say that I think plain text email sucks.
When I use html email, that doesn’t mean it is full of junk borders, backgrounds, and pictures.
For example, when I get an email that has a lot of questions, I put my response to each question after each of their questions. Usually this is done by changing the color of my response to blue or green so they can distinguish my response from their text. If you have html off, all the text looks the same and so it just looks like a big jumble.
Have you never wanted to use different fonts? Underline? Bold? Colors? In more complicated email communication, this can make things easier (i.e. “Please refer to the red paragraph below” when there are many paragraphs and you are highlighting one in particular).
I say screw plain text. This is the 21st century, get with the program.
You are mixing up the capabilities of technology with social expectations of interaction.
Yes, when I’m working in the office, all my colleages use Microsoft Outlook to its fullest and all internal emails make heavy use of fonts, graphics, arrows annotating screenshots, etc. No plain HTML here.
However, Stan Shmenge wants to send out emails to a non peer group audience (customers?). This is a different type of social circle. In this case, we interact at arms length. It is irrelevant what the current modern capabilities of HTML email clients are. Many folks prefer not to use it in that fashion. When I get my car is due for an oil change, it’s ok for the Toyota dealership to send me a notification email. However, that email doesn’t need to be loud obnoxious HTML. Work colleagues yes, but car dealership no.
Likewise, videophones (and webcams) as a technology have been around for more than a decade but most people don’t want to converse with strangers like that. It’s not a technology barrier and we’re not luddites. Maybe I’m ok with using videophones talking to my parents while they see me in my pajamas but I don’t want to talk to a telemarketer like that. I don’t care if they come out with 3D holographic videophones next year – I still don’t want to talk to telemarketers that way.
Yes, I see your point, and it is a good one, but I still see the same assumption in your post:“loud obnoxious HTML.” There is nothing about HTML that is loud and obnoxious. To me, that is confusing a style and a technology.
How about just not sending loud and obnoxious emails whether it is in html or not? If you use html and you want to underline a word, go for it because now you can do that.
Anyway, I am going to bow out of this one. It is obvious that most people (at least on here) don’t want to recieve html emails for reasons that are up to them. I would listen to your customers.
first thing I do whenever I configure an email client is set the defaults to text only. I NEVER allow html emails. Or graphics. Way too dangerous. Sometimes I get emails full of html and I just shake my head, mutter noob, and pick through the message to find what is being said. annoying, but some people just like that kind of stuff and are willing to take the risk.
I didn’t, but now I did and it’s basically a lot of fluff that is either not relevant to me (I have a very fast connection, I use Gmail which can handle anything and filters spam and potentially malicious stuff pretty damn well, I don’t print most e-mails, I’m not disabled, etc.) or simply dumb (“color combinations that are horrific to the reader and give them headaches after a long day at work” - oh jeez, I don’t think my fragile body could bear viewing a horrific color combination!).
There’s really only one decent point on that list: mobiles. I can see how a fixed-width layout could potentially be annoying if I was reading it on my phone since I do send and receive e-mails on the go sometimes. But it’s still not really a reason to get all raged up about something so insignificant.
ETA: Oh, and searchability could be an issue too. But making an HTML e-mail doesn’t necessarily mean the content won’t be searchable - only really if the text is an image.
I don’t see why the newsletter can’t be sent as a PDF attachment or better yet as a link to a PDF file they can downloaded. It isn’t like you have to buy Adobe Acrobat anymore. Microsoft Word can save as PDF. PDF gives you better control on the look of the newsletter anyway.
Oh God, no, PLEASE no. If there’s one thing more horrific than unnecessary HTML in emails, it’s unnecessary PDF.
Slow, unwieldy, pain to view on mobile devices, a nightmare to navigate and scroll through, harder to archive and search through, prone to even more security exploits…
I think the biggest argument against fancily formatted emails are mobile phones. More and more people are checking email on their phones. If I can’t read the email on my phone it most likely gets deleted.
PDFs are basically trying to shoehorn the precomputer idea that the sender has full control of how the message looks. This is 2011 you have no idea the size and shape of the viewer people are using. Your message must be readable on a vast array of devices. PDFs really break this idea. Drop PDFs and move forward.
Every problem that the early internet had with HTML e-mails has been resolved.
But those problems have now migrated to smartphones.
One principle has remained the same since the earliest days of advertising: If you want your message read, keep it short and simple.
