4 ms·

HTML and email are two things that do not go together well(IMHO). I prefer plain text.

eneveu 15y ago
Tell that to the business executives and the marketing departments :) I also prefer plain text, but I'd rather have useful tools to deal with the needs of the business, while offering plain-text as an option for people who prefer it.
- TerraHertz 15y ago
  It is precisely because I'd rather never read anything from 'business executives and marketing depts' that I use a text-only email client. Email is for concise communication of ideas via text. If you need pictures and pretty layouts to sell your ideas, email me a link to a web page. (Which I probably won't visit.) There's ONE THING ONLY that html email is good for. And that's alerting me to a sender's failure to understand the fundamental natures of the different coding schemes for the written word.
JonLim 15y ago
Why not offer both? A well made HTML email will make it easier for your recipients to actually read your email.
- bxr 15y ago
  HTML emails already offer both, hidden in the mime message is a plain text version. Clients just usually don't show the plain text one when there is an html version.
  - andrewcooke 15y ago
    this isn't guaranteed. for example, when i subscribed to groupon (in chile) there was no text alternative.
  - brlewis 15y ago
    multipart/alternative isn't automatic. I create one for OurDoings email updates, but almost every mail service mangles it on forwarding.
mise 15y ago
I agree - but only for homemade email campaigns. Aweber and Mailchimp, for example, provide the basics needed for sending HTML plus plain text emails. Sorry, I haven't been able to load the site in this post as it's not loading, so I can't comment on any specifics.
systemtrigger 15y ago
You and I are in the minority. Imagine if Groupon sent their daily flyer in plain text: Click-through would plummet.
- initself 15y ago
  I used to get Slashdot sent to me as plain text. It was a sheer delight to read and I really miss having it formatted that way. I would pay a premium for it. Maybe it is just that most people have never been exposed to properly formatted text emails? I'm sure people find most of the websites they visit and the emails they read, filled with columns of extra garbage, to be cumbersome and difficult to read. Executives think that's what people want, but I doubt there has ever been an thorough examination of all the formats and their effects on people.
  - spullara 15y ago
    The reason those companies send HTML emails is because they convert better. It has nothing to do with "executives" liking them more. The deal and advertising businesses are very metrics driven and if text performed, they would use it. It doesn't do nearly as well, especially for products.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    >I used to get Slashdot sent to me as plain text. Comment nesting must have been awful. Or did you cheat and use pseudo-graphical characters to overcome the obvious limitation of plain-text for such a purpose?
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
Out of interest - do you paint/decorate the walls in your home. Do you wear coloured (ie dyed) clothing? Do you have a business card that has more than plain-text on it? When you return from a holiday and are telling friends about it, do you hand them a type written note that describes what other people would normally put in a photo? Do you eschew the use of typographical techniques that aid reading, both speed and comprehension, such as emboldening, headings, breaks, italics, font and colour changes? I never understood this "email should be only plaintext" argument. Getting information across is easier with options for images and textual enhancements. Do you use lynx for web browsing? When the KMail people were refusing to allow people to use HTML to reply to HTML emails properly one guy argued with me that to send photos to family members I should use FTP, send an address so they could log on and dl the photos to view - that this was somehow better than having the images there ready to view in the MUA.
- ez77 15y ago
  Do you eschew the use of typographical techniques that aid reading, both speed and comprehension, such as emboldening, headings, breaks, italics, font and colour changes? It is interesting to note that some of the most important works produced by mankind can be reproduced in essence without these aids [1]. Moreover, these well-meant aids are perceived as undue distractions and hence disabled by many [2], most of which are not die-hard plain-text users. [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/ http://www.gutenberg.org/ [2] https://www.readability.com/ https://www.readability.com/
  - joshuacc 15y ago
    The question isn't whether important documents can be reasonably be represented as plain text. Clearly many can. The question is whether the typographical techniques listed are an aid in reading. And just as clearly, they are. And just to note, Readability actually preserves bold, headings, breaks, and italics, while providing a different set of fonts and colors based on the user's preferences.
    - ez77 15y ago
      My bad on Readability, as I made an assumption without checking. I see what you are saying, and I partly agree, but I am of the opinion that language is rich enough to emphasize relevant points without further aids. But it's becoming SO common to use _SO_ many aids that this is already standarized with two levels in HTML, namely the em and strong tags. How long until we need a third semantic level of emphasis? Of course, I enjoy freedom and choice, so assume people/the market must prefer your style by and large. For the record, I know that italics typography has been used for centuries as an aid in emphasis. Still, I humbly feel this is an unnecessary artefact, which more often than not turns into a crutch.
lautis 15y ago
HTML email is like violence: if it isn't working, you're not using enough of it.

Tell that to the business executives and the marketing departments :) I also prefer plain text, but I'd rather have useful tools to deal with the needs of the business, while offering plain-text as an option for people who prefer it.

TerraHertz 15y ago
It is precisely because I'd rather never read anything from 'business executives and marketing depts' that I use a text-only email client. Email is for concise communication of ideas via text. If you need pictures and pretty layouts to sell your ideas, email me a link to a web page. (Which I probably won't visit.) There's ONE THING ONLY that html email is good for. And that's alerting me to a sender's failure to understand the fundamental natures of the different coding schemes for the written word.

JonLim 15y ago

Why not offer both? A well made HTML email will make it easier for your recipients to actually read your email.

bxr 15y ago
HTML emails already offer both, hidden in the mime message is a plain text version. Clients just usually don't show the plain text one when there is an html version.
- andrewcooke 15y ago
  this isn't guaranteed. for example, when i subscribed to groupon (in chile) there was no text alternative.
- brlewis 15y ago
  multipart/alternative isn't automatic. I create one for OurDoings email updates, but almost every mail service mangles it on forwarding.

mise 15y ago

I agree - but only for homemade email campaigns. Aweber and Mailchimp, for example, provide the basics needed for sending HTML plus plain text emails. Sorry, I haven't been able to load the site in this post as it's not loading, so I can't comment on any specifics.

systemtrigger 15y ago

You and I are in the minority. Imagine if Groupon sent their daily flyer in plain text: Click-through would plummet.

initself 15y ago
I used to get Slashdot sent to me as plain text. It was a sheer delight to read and I really miss having it formatted that way. I would pay a premium for it. Maybe it is just that most people have never been exposed to properly formatted text emails? I'm sure people find most of the websites they visit and the emails they read, filled with columns of extra garbage, to be cumbersome and difficult to read. Executives think that's what people want, but I doubt there has ever been an thorough examination of all the formats and their effects on people.
- spullara 15y ago
  The reason those companies send HTML emails is because they convert better. It has nothing to do with "executives" liking them more. The deal and advertising businesses are very metrics driven and if text performed, they would use it. It doesn't do nearly as well, especially for products.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >I used to get Slashdot sent to me as plain text. Comment nesting must have been awful. Or did you cheat and use pseudo-graphical characters to overcome the obvious limitation of plain-text for such a purpose?

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

Out of interest - do you paint/decorate the walls in your home. Do you wear coloured (ie dyed) clothing? Do you have a business card that has more than plain-text on it? When you return from a holiday and are telling friends about it, do you hand them a type written note that describes what other people would normally put in a photo? Do you eschew the use of typographical techniques that aid reading, both speed and comprehension, such as emboldening, headings, breaks, italics, font and colour changes? I never understood this "email should be only plaintext" argument. Getting information across is easier with options for images and textual enhancements. Do you use lynx for web browsing? When the KMail people were refusing to allow people to use HTML to reply to HTML emails properly one guy argued with me that to send photos to family members I should use FTP, send an address so they could log on and dl the photos to view - that this was somehow better than having the images there ready to view in the MUA.

ez77 15y ago
Do you eschew the use of typographical techniques that aid reading, both speed and comprehension, such as emboldening, headings, breaks, italics, font and colour changes? It is interesting to note that some of the most important works produced by mankind can be reproduced in essence without these aids [1]. Moreover, these well-meant aids are perceived as undue distractions and hence disabled by many [2], most of which are not die-hard plain-text users. [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/ http://www.gutenberg.org/ [2] https://www.readability.com/ https://www.readability.com/
- joshuacc 15y ago
  The question isn't whether important documents can be reasonably be represented as plain text. Clearly many can. The question is whether the typographical techniques listed are an aid in reading. And just as clearly, they are. And just to note, Readability actually preserves bold, headings, breaks, and italics, while providing a different set of fonts and colors based on the user's preferences.
  - ez77 15y ago
    My bad on Readability, as I made an assumption without checking. I see what you are saying, and I partly agree, but I am of the opinion that language is rich enough to emphasize relevant points without further aids. But it's becoming SO common to use _SO_ many aids that this is already standarized with two levels in HTML, namely the em and strong tags. How long until we need a third semantic level of emphasis? Of course, I enjoy freedom and choice, so assume people/the market must prefer your style by and large. For the record, I know that italics typography has been used for centuries as an aid in emphasis. Still, I humbly feel this is an unnecessary artefact, which more often than not turns into a crutch.

lautis 15y ago

HTML email is like violence: if it isn't working, you're not using enough of it.