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 but is it now an outdated concern?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?"

3 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. the fact that you're asking... by spoonyfork · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ... is the answer to your question. Some people think HTML email is evil, some don't. So what to do? Give them a choice. A lot of mailing lists that I subscribe to offer subscribers a choice: plain text or HTML. Let your subscribers decide what they want.

    P.S. Suggestion: default to plain text because HTML is, in fact, evil.

    --
    Speak truth to power.
  2. Then it's good enough for me, too by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That must be why newspapers have a single size and type font without images, why people go to movie theaters to read screenplays, and why we're all reading gopher://slashdot.org.

    Newspapers neither cost more nor take longer to read the more images they contain.

    Going to a movie theatre doesn't include a hidden bug at the start of the movie that confirms to some marketing droid that I'm a real person and they should feel free to spam my future visits with an extra 30 minutes of commercials before the movie starts.

    And speaking as a former modem user who hasn't had broadband for that long, I promise you Slashdot is perfectly usable and just as informative/interesting with images disabled.

    The grandparent was right on the money. E-mail is a text medium. If you can't tell me something through that medium, then chances are I don't want your e-mail. In fact, and this is a very good reason that businesses should not send HTML e-mails without an explicit request, your e-mail will get a huge negative score on my Bayesian anti-spam filter just for having it. That applies whether it's alone or combined with a separate text-only version, though if the text-only version matches the HTML content closely the penalty isn't so great. Moreover, even if it gets through the filter, it'll get rendered as plain text anyway, and therefore probably look worse than it would have done if you'd just sent me that in the first place. It's not exactly likely to improve your sales/feedback level/customer satisfaction/whatever on either count...

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  3. Re:Email clients that still dont support it by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "For a text-only version, please go to www.oursite.com/newslettes/2005-05-14" or something.

    The opposite. Send a text version, and have a link encouraging recipients to see the HTML version in all its glory, on a web page, where HTML is supposed to be used. Some nesletters I get do exactly this. For those who like HTML, it's only a click away, and is much more efficient all around. Your marketing guy can use Flash, play music or whatever crap takes their fancy. Also tell the PHB that it's less likely to be flagged as spam.