4 ms·

There are some valid reasons to avoid using HTML email (some of which are even listed on this page -- like avoiding link obfuscation), but my god does this page

There are some valid reasons to avoid using HTML email (some of which are even listed on this page -- like avoiding link obfuscation), but my god does this page come off as condescending, right from the opening line ("Plain-text email is strongly preferred"). The reality is that HTML email's too convenient to go away at this point. It fills enough niches both in people's corporate and personal lives to ever truly be undone, and having so many of the recommended clients being TUI-based (and emacs-based, apparently) shows a particular tone-deafness since TUI mail clients will almost certainly never be widely-adopted ever again, even by people who spend lots of time in a shell. Add on to that, that TUI mail clients will almost invariably render monospace fonts, which aren't great for reading things other than code.

vel0city 4y ago
Its also incredibly condescending having them tell me I shouldn't format my message as HTML when the message they're using to tell me that is an HTML formatted message. If plain text was more than acceptable to get the point across, this page wouldn't use HTML. Instead, they have an inline image, they have multiple font weights, anchor tags, inline styles, chosen fonts, changes in colors, hyperlinks, bulleted lists, etc.
- themadturk 4y ago
  But they're two different media. It's like they're saying "writing in longhand is best" but you're complaining because they're using mass print media to spread the word. Or complaining because a book or movie is advertised on TV or in a newspaper.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    Nearly all their arguments as to why prefer plaintext versus HTML apply for this media as well. Having this page as an HTML document instead of plain text increases security risks and can reduce accessibility. They argue you do not need HTML formatting to get a point across, but then rely on HTML formatting to get their point across. Why did they bother using bulleted lists? Why did they use links and anchor tags instead of just having the URL written out in plain text? Why would they bother embedding an image into their page instead of just giving us the URL and letting us choose to fetch it if we wanted to after reading the message? Maybe because its better to look at and read using HTML formatting instead of just plain text. Maybe I want a bulleted list in an email. Maybe I would like to have a link instead of just having a giant URL as plain text in my email. Maybe I'd like to have the image I'm talking about in my email in the email instead of being some other resource for the person to fetch. Its condescending for them to say "You should never use bulleted lists, here's a bulleted list of reasons why you shouldn't use bulleted lists!" Its condescending for them to say don't use links when they use loads of links. If its better to just put the full URL out there plainly, then they should have done it. They didn't because its not better, its nice using links. If the alternative is perfectly acceptable, why didn't they just use the alternative? They didn't, because the alternative isn't perfectly acceptable all the time. There's a good reason to mark up your writing. Its condescending for them to say: > Rich text isn't that great, anyway in a rich-text document. If rich text isn't that great, why are they using it? Because the alternative isn't that great!

vel0city 4y ago

Its also incredibly condescending having them tell me I shouldn't format my message as HTML when the message they're using to tell me that is an HTML formatted message. If plain text was more than acceptable to get the point across, this page wouldn't use HTML. Instead, they have an inline image, they have multiple font weights, anchor tags, inline styles, chosen fonts, changes in colors, hyperlinks, bulleted lists, etc.

themadturk 4y ago
But they're two different media. It's like they're saying "writing in longhand is best" but you're complaining because they're using mass print media to spread the word. Or complaining because a book or movie is advertised on TV or in a newspaper.
- vel0city 4y ago
  Nearly all their arguments as to why prefer plaintext versus HTML apply for this media as well. Having this page as an HTML document instead of plain text increases security risks and can reduce accessibility. They argue you do not need HTML formatting to get a point across, but then rely on HTML formatting to get their point across. Why did they bother using bulleted lists? Why did they use links and anchor tags instead of just having the URL written out in plain text? Why would they bother embedding an image into their page instead of just giving us the URL and letting us choose to fetch it if we wanted to after reading the message? Maybe because its better to look at and read using HTML formatting instead of just plain text. Maybe I want a bulleted list in an email. Maybe I would like to have a link instead of just having a giant URL as plain text in my email. Maybe I'd like to have the image I'm talking about in my email in the email instead of being some other resource for the person to fetch. Its condescending for them to say "You should never use bulleted lists, here's a bulleted list of reasons why you shouldn't use bulleted lists!" Its condescending for them to say don't use links when they use loads of links. If its better to just put the full URL out there plainly, then they should have done it. They didn't because its not better, its nice using links. If the alternative is perfectly acceptable, why didn't they just use the alternative? They didn't, because the alternative isn't perfectly acceptable all the time. There's a good reason to mark up your writing. Its condescending for them to say: > Rich text isn't that great, anyway in a rich-text document. If rich text isn't that great, why are they using it? Because the alternative isn't that great!