Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is HTML E-mail Still Evil?

Posted by Cliff on from the my-MUA-has-turned-into-a-browser dept.

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 but is it now an outdated concern?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?"

7 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Unlikely by hahafaha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Offer a plaintext alternative by pomo+monster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Is HTML E-mail Still Evil? by line-bundle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes.

    1. Re:Is HTML E-mail Still Evil? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If their market-think really believes that HTML email is so much better than text, they should consider just an e-mail of two URLs to their website and let the reader decide which (if either) they want to read. That would save them bandwidth also.

      But, that likely would be dismissed (because it makes sense). In market-think, they want the spotaneous impression. They really believe that colorful flashing crap helps sales. And since there are enough 'Ooh, pretty!' types out there, they have themselves convinced that it really works. When it comes to marketing, you can convince yourself by twisting the numbers and the interpretations so that any plan you want to come up with can be justified.

      See Iraq.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  4. Um... by torinth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. Welcome to the real world by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. "Evil" is bullshit by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you're going to get all religious, you should quit rather than use mass-mailing software, even for plain text messages. I mean, it's a spammer tool, right? How can you even consider using it?

    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.