Slashdot Mirror
Is HTML E-mail Still Evil?
Charlie Campbell asks: "My boss is pretty adamant about getting HTML newsletters to our clients; and, I'm pretty adamant about finding an alternative. I can understand the benefits in HTML mail from a designer's (mine) and marketing standpoint (that of my boss); yet, based on foreseeable issues with recipient software, mail filters, dial-up connections, etc. I feel that the risks outweigh the benefits. We've all heard this a million times... but is it now an outdated concern? Should I trust our client-base to be fully equipped for such a mailer? Should I worry about improper delivery marring our professional image? Is there anyone documenting the issue from a current-day perspective?"
I doubt that it will cause a professionalism problem. Anyone who cannot read HTML emails know that they exist and that they can't read them and will therefore, not think of your company as being non-professional. It is a good idea to allow the recipient to choose whether he wants HTML formatted news or plain-text, but the current position is not as bad as it may seem.
I don't mind HTML email, personally, but when I have a choice, I opt for the plain-text version. I think that's the key--allow people to receive your newsletters, receipts, or whatever in the format they want, and things should be fine.
I'd also default to HTML mailings, simply because the people who bitch loudest about HTML (non-pejorative) are also probably capable of finding the preference for plaintext themselves.
Yes.
Hundreds of thousands of email content publishers ask their users whether they want plain-text or HTML versions. Even if most users don't understand the question, they're used to being asked. Why don't you try that and then just publish one version of your newsletter to each of the resulting lists?
99% of business email is HTML. Nobody cares about the "evil" of HTML mail except a few crusty old geeks. Last I checked, even Mozilla defaults to sending HTML mail.
Keep in mind that business people come from the tradition of using propriety mailers like Lotus ccMail, Lotus Notes, and MSMail, and saw no reason to remove functionality when switching to Internet mail. These people just don't care about the archaic 7-bit Internet olden days. (And, yes, HTML in mail was a design mistake, but as of yet it's the only way to get colored fonts and pictures in your mail, so that's what's used.)
Just make sure include a text/plain part, so if your recpients want to drop the HTML, they have that option.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
It'd be interesting to see some form of bbcode for email. It'd do what most people would need it to do and I don't really think one can do a lot of damage with bbcode. Except emotional damage with the [img] tag, but nobody cares about that.
If you're targetting savvy developers (ie, me), then they probably wont read your crappy html mail (and I'd probably unsubscribe even if it were text, but that's really a different issue). But if you were targetting my mom, she'd probably not notice or care. In fact, she might like the html version with its pretty pictures or whatever.
The best way is to send both a text part and an HTML part and let the client decide how they want to see it. I made sure my client automatically shows me the text part if there are both.
-David
There. Now go play some cool javascript games!
I hate them, and I'll never use an e-mailclient which handles them by any other way than allowing me (if I want to) to view them with Lynx.
Using HTML in e-mails isn't exactly evil, but not including a text/plain-part containing the same information is IMNSHO so...
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
So it's "wrong" that some people want to read stuff in their inbox? Whatever you say, Mr Computer Use Nazi.
Nicely presented information will greatly increase the chance that people will click through. A bare link (probably broken in half by your old skool hardwrapping mailer) isn't going to generat much interest.
The right way to do ethics is to forget stupid dogmas like "HTML email is evil" and base your decisions how your actions affect other people. Like a lot of other technologies, HTML email can be misused; specifically, senders can breach security with script-based malware, and privacy with graphic-based tracking cookies. If you don't engage in these abuses yourself, where's the ethical issue?
If you're concerned about security of your own users, you might tell them, "don't accept HTML email". But even that's serious overkill -- Thunderbird is perfectly capable of blocking security and privacy penetration while still accepting HTML email. Outlook is less impressive that way, but Microsoft software is hardly the gold standard for security.
"HTML email is evil" is standard geek bigotry. We're able to get by with pure-text message, anybody who can't is an asshole. Its time to remember that the whole world doesn't revolve around us.
I get email and news alerts on my pager and phone, html versions are a pain in the ass.
;)
HTML does not belong in emails, unless its porn.
Even though I default to text e-mail and turn off previews in my mail client, I also accept that HTML e-mail has pretty much become the default.
I would suggest that your best option is to offer a choice of text or HTML, or if that seems unwieldy, to poll your client base for their preferences. If most of them want HTML, then that's what you should deliver to them
Asking them first is a good move. It makes them feel that you care about their needs, and in the event that you do go with a regular HTML format it will reassure them that you are not sending something malicious.
As is so often the case, this is a question of communication and marketing, not technology. Your choice, and how you implement it, should be determined by the needs or preferences of your clients, not by geekish outrage.
Personally I prefer either a URL back to your site or to a PDF.
Three Squirrels
In other words, if the OP wants the messages to get through, and doesn't want to piss off any clients, there isn't any other option than multipart.
Find free books.
Most of the proponents of Text-only email commonly ignore usability as a factor in their arguments.
Quite simply, HTML allows for newsletters (and even normal correspondence) to be displayed in a more readable fashion than a text email would be. Ask anyone in the publishing world and they will tell you that a good layout is vital. Many HTML newsletters make good use of columns and colored headings and such.....
And of course, for normal plain email correspondance, bold, italics, underlines, bulleted lists, and even hyperlinks are all vitally useful.
the ASCII ribbon campaign should have ended long ago
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
That says it all. You can present your ideas for consideration, if you work for the type who's willing to accept the input without marking you as a rebelious sot who need to be taught a lesson. But after the discussion, either take the check and do the work or find another job. If you aren't willing to shut up and carry on with the company plan, you can be replaced by one of several Microsoft programs.
Not that I'm trying to slam you, I read html mail as text on my personal e-mail. But html mail at work is a requirement, and a one of the lesser standards that I'm willing whore out for a cut of the pie. If you can present your reasons in a calm business case style Powerpoint brain dump void of combativeness, you've got a better shot than shouting "HTML IS EVIL" to the PHB who probably just want pretty picture to go to customer.
Rule number one: you are not your user.
Don't ask us geeks. Ask normal people.
Nielsen Norman Group publishes two sets of guidelines for email usability.
http://www.nngroup.com/reports/newsletters/
http://www.nngroup.com/reports/confirmation/
* Choice is best.
* If it looks broken, they'll notice and hate it.
* The first few lines and the subject/sender have to make the case for reading it at all in the age of spam.
These reports cost money but they are still much cheaper than losing customers.
You've got me on the cost, though; there are people for whom significant cost is incurred per kilobyte, but those people probably aren't going to opt-in for newsletters whose content will vary in length without being conscious of the possibility that it'll be in HTML by default.
For those occasions when they do get an inappropriately large message, failure to opt-out or change the delivery preference is entirely on them. You're right. That is an inevitable problem with HTML email. It's why many email programs are now blocking external images by default. Even gmail and hotmail are doing this. You missed the point; you could substitute slashdot for any other site in the gopher reference and it would still be true that for some information it is better to use styles and images than plaintext. Sometimes plaintext is better than the bells and whistles. I was refuting a specific false claim. So is HTTP. So your spam filter based on your training filters your email to your preference? You've got to be kidding.
The point is HTML email isn't going anywhere. Email is a very flexible system and things like HTML and attachments are exploitations of it. If the manner in which people craft their email is not acceptable to someone, then it's up to them to do something about it.
the html coded email is 1/2 of it, and the plain text version saying the same exact thing is the other 1/2 of the email. Thus, you essentially triple the size of each email, if you include all the html tags.
Additionally, even simple graphics will bloat this monstrously when they are encoded into the email. And more than likely the Boss wants an html newsletter because he wants to work some graphics magic.
I have a modest suggestion for Charlie: do up a sample email newsletter with very simple graphics (like maybe the company logo and perhaps one other line drawing), send it to yourself, then print the message source. When you and your boss can see exactly what happens when images are encoded for emailing, then the two of you can come up with a reasonable approach.
But by all means, consider letting your customers choose a plaintext version if they want to keep their inbox trim and svelte.
Putting the html version on the web with a link from a plaintext version is probably a good option for a lot of businesses.
Personally I just delete most of those e-mails - if they can't bother with a nice/friendly e-mail to me I'll take my business elsewhere.
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
HTML is NOT the universal data format over HTTP. By far the most data transfered over HTTP is MIME encoded binary data or one kind or another (mostly gifs, jpgs, mp3s etc.
In case you hadn't noticed HTML is a subset of text. In case you hadn't noticed ASCII is a piece of crap that should have died years ago - or are you suggesting that it's innapropriate for Japanese people to communicate via SMTP email?
It's perfectly fine to use SMTP to send Unicode text data. Why is it not fine to use SMPT to send HTML text data? Why would it be a feature to prevent an email message having embedded images? Do you think it's bad the way some word processors can embed spreadsheets? Do you think we should force the separation into different applications "where they belong"?
Do you think its bad that email clients support hyperlinking from plain text emails, on the grounds that hyperlinking belongs to the web, and hey, this is _email_? That would be dumb, right?
Do you also object to web based email clients, on the grounds that hey - this is the web - cut out the email!?
The sooner geeks get over the fact that technology moves on the better.
Marketing emails (whether spam or legit) are always _much_ more effective if they are HTML. Maybe not with you, but you aren't important. If you want the world at large to get a message, sending it in a (well designed) HTML email *is* more effective. It's that simple. Deal with it.
-----