4 ms·

I very much prefer for emails to contain text only, or with HTML only as attachments, and it has absolutely zero to do with any desire to show off to other peop

by b6 13y ago

I very much prefer for emails to contain text only, or with HTML only as attachments, and it has absolutely zero to do with any desire to show off to other people. For me, it's all about keeping some control over technology. I tell a very limited program like mutt what to do, and it does it. This is in contrast to begging an incredibly complicated program like a browser to do something, where much of what it is doing is controlled by invisible embedded code written by people who may be hostile toward me.

blowski 13y ago
> For me, it's all about keeping some control over technology. That's fair enough, but you are very much in a minority.
- Demiurge 13y ago
  Do you know of any usability research or somesuch that confirms this?
  - blowski 13y ago
    I spent some years working at an email-specific agency. They sent more than 5 billion emails during that time for some very big clients, and we did most of the data analysis. They also did a lot of usability testing. I can tell you that on just about every metric - brand recall, clickthrough rates, ROI, unsubscribes - HTML outperformed plain text. There were exceptions, both in terms of types of campaign and types of sender - say, if your list includes lots of Hacker News readers. We found, for example, that including just one image will increase open rates by more than 50% but I can't find it now. Another article on the same topic is here - http://www.alchemyworx.com/alchemy_worx/2009/newsletter/issue7/lp/lp3_email_design_images.html http://www.alchemyworx.com/alchemy_worx/2009/newsletter/issu....
    - Demiurge 13y ago
      Ok, I am aware of the higher click rates, but that is part of my point. Well crafted imagery is no doubt more catchy and attention getting than plain text. However, is visual stimulation (manipulation?) supposed to be a part of communication medium? Between the reasons for why HTML should be in emails, where do you rank recipients well-being compared to ROI?
      - pwhython 13y ago
        Unfortunately, an un-branded email looks suspicious and unprofessional nowadays. You'll get more complaints and unsubs than ever versus a well-crafted (not over-the-top) engaging layout.
      - snowwrestler 13y ago
        Images and fonts are a very valid and useful tools for communication. Even the most old-school, respectable newspapers use images, graphics, and a variety of fonts--even in their most serious news stories.
- skdjf 13y ago
  The minority that won't get hit by the next worm. It's boring to see everything being reinvented again, just with more color and horrible mistakes. A quick note to web.de and gmx.whatever who send mails as HTML-only: you suck

by b6 13y ago

blowski 13y ago

> For me, it's all about keeping some control over technology. That's fair enough, but you are very much in a minority.

Demiurge 13y ago
Do you know of any usability research or somesuch that confirms this?
- blowski 13y ago
  I spent some years working at an email-specific agency. They sent more than 5 billion emails during that time for some very big clients, and we did most of the data analysis. They also did a lot of usability testing. I can tell you that on just about every metric - brand recall, clickthrough rates, ROI, unsubscribes - HTML outperformed plain text. There were exceptions, both in terms of types of campaign and types of sender - say, if your list includes lots of Hacker News readers. We found, for example, that including just one image will increase open rates by more than 50% but I can't find it now. Another article on the same topic is here - http://www.alchemyworx.com/alchemy_worx/2009/newsletter/issue7/lp/lp3_email_design_images.html http://www.alchemyworx.com/alchemy_worx/2009/newsletter/issu....
  - Demiurge 13y ago
    Ok, I am aware of the higher click rates, but that is part of my point. Well crafted imagery is no doubt more catchy and attention getting than plain text. However, is visual stimulation (manipulation?) supposed to be a part of communication medium? Between the reasons for why HTML should be in emails, where do you rank recipients well-being compared to ROI?
    - pwhython 13y ago
      Unfortunately, an un-branded email looks suspicious and unprofessional nowadays. You'll get more complaints and unsubs than ever versus a well-crafted (not over-the-top) engaging layout.
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      Images and fonts are a very valid and useful tools for communication. Even the most old-school, respectable newspapers use images, graphics, and a variety of fonts--even in their most serious news stories.
skdjf 13y ago
The minority that won't get hit by the next worm. It's boring to see everything being reinvented again, just with more color and horrible mistakes. A quick note to web.de and gmx.whatever who send mails as HTML-only: you suck