Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Dec 2007 16:27 UTC
Mac OS X Since my Cube could not run Leopard, and I did not have any other Macs, I was unable to delve into Leopard right away. Apple NL was kind enough to fix this problem for us, by generously loaning me a brand new MacBook with Leopard installed so I could review it for OSNews. Read on for the findings.
Thread beginning with comment 289088
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Stationary
by nevali on Thu 6th Dec 2007 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stationary"
nevali
Member since:
2006-10-12

I prefer HTML mail because I can format it any way that I want.


And for whose benefit is that, exactly?

You write e-mail for the recipient, not the sender. How do you know that the recipient agrees with your choices of colours/fonts/sizes? How do you know that your choices are sufficiently readable for them? More importantly, how do you know they want your choices imposed upon them?

That's right, you don't, you're just imposing your choices on those you communicate with, not because it benefits them, but because when you look through your “Sent mail” folder it's pretty—to you.

Yeah, I can see why that's such a concrete justification…

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Stationary
by aitvo on Thu 6th Dec 2007 23:18 in reply to "RE[5]: Stationary"
aitvo Member since:
2006-09-03

Tell me how you'd format a table of data and include pictures in a plain text email?

Thanks for the opinion, but when I send html based email it's not for glitter, it's to format a message so it is easy to read and understand.

Yes I am imposing a choice, and I wouldn't do it if it didn't benefit them. I don't send incredimail junk I send data that's useful, and I send it in HTML.

Oh, wait you are talking about hating mail because someone sends you mail that's pink and pretty.

That's no reason to discount the use of html in email. It's not like a few extra tags are that expensive.

Again, it's 2007 not 1988.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Stationary
by nevali on Thu 6th Dec 2007 23:34 in reply to "RE[6]: Stationary"
nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

That's no reason to discount the use of html in email. It's not like a few extra tags are that expensive.

Again, it's 2007 not 1988.


You're correct, it is 2007, and in 2007 (2008), there's increasing diversification in the means and modes of sending and receiving e-mail. You have no idea if your recipient's going to be sat in front of a PC on a corporate LAN, or receiving mail on a PDA, smartphone, (or not-so-smartphone—given pretty much every phone released in the past 5 years or so can do e-mail).

The “few extra tags” aren't expensive, if they're marked up properly by hand, but the only people who would even consider doing that are people producing e-mail campaigns rather than ordinary person-to-person messages. The rest of the time, the expense is determined—in general—by a team of people in Redmond, and they're not renowned for spitting out anything that isn't several multiples in size of the plain-text equivalent.

Pictures? Attach them, every mail client in popular usage will render previews anyway. Tables of data? Attach them—then at least they can be manipulated, copied and pasted sanely, and so on.

Yes, HTML e-mail could be fine, were it limited to a smattering of minor embellishments. Just emphasis and tables would cover 99% of the legitimate requirements for it, in fact. But that's not how it works. The vast majority of HTML e-mail sent and received is unmitigated bloated and the world would do well without it; you might use it sanely, but you're in a distinct minority, and if you're smart enough to use HTML e-mail without inducing cancer of the retina, you're smart enough to use alternative mechanisms for achieving the same thing anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 5