Re: Sending Emails vs. Links

From: Rob Frankel <rob_at_robfrankel.com>
Date: Tue 15 Mar 2005 17:41:42 -0600

Carmen Paulino wrote thusly:
 
>One of my firm's developers asked that I post her clarifications of some
>incorrect assumptions concerning the HtMail (aka HTML email) and Plain Mail
>issues.
>
>1. When you disable HTML email, you are not changing the effect of
>bandwidth. Your email client does not know if the email contains HTML
>formatting until AFTER it has been downloaded. An email's header does not
>contain information on the format, so you have no choice but to download.

True to some extent. If you set your mail app to not deliver
messages over a certain size, you actually do save bandwidth because
your app doesn't download them at all. However, I'm more concerned
about the time it takes to open HTML as the browser pulls the art and
displays the files.

>
>2. When you disable HTML email, you are actually reading the "MULTIPART
>ALTERNATIVE" section of the email... if it is present. Some bad email
>clients do not transmit this and then you end up seeing junk on the screen.
>Remember that more than 80% of the email being transmitted is in HTML format
>with a Multipart Alternative for reading plain text.

Which is why I recommend against HTML. If there's a way to screw it
up, you can bet that's the most widely practiced method.

>
>3. When you disable HTML email you do avoid downloading externally linked
>items, such as stylesheets and images. Newer email clients don't download
>these items unless you tell them to.

Right. That's where I was going.

>The email consortium recommends that
>people embed the images and external items in the email, which allows them
>to be displayed without user interaction. This means that while you may not
>be aware of it, you ultimately download these items even though you are
>reading plain text.

Depends on your system and app, though...

>
>4. In good practice, email recipients should always have the right to opt in
>to the email format they prefer. While many people prefer plain text email,
>there are many more these days who prefer HTML. Those are proponents (like
>myself) of the opinion that a company that doesn't format its email into a
>nice presentation (such as HTML allows), is not presenting itself in the
>best light. Others are annoyed by HTML emails and should of course be
>provided an opt-out opportunity, which is the best method to ensure they
>don't download extra alternative information. Just "killing" HTML email does
>not fulfill your goal of saving bandwidth.
>
>5. Poor formatting of an HTML Email such as in the example of background
>images (my screen is 1920 x 1200) is just that; poor design. It is not a
>good example of why HTML Formatting is bad for business. Just as in your
>website design, you should ensure that your presentation looks good in all
>sorts of scenarios.

Yabbut why even risk it? Plain text gets it right the first time
with no risk of alienation or misrepresentation.
--
Rob Frankel, "Yes, I really do turn users into evangelists for your brand."
Branding Expert http://www.RobFrankel.com
NEW BOOK: FrankelTips: The Second Year
http://frankelbiz.com/stock/StockCatalog.php?m=store
The best biz discussion list on the web: http://www.FrankelTips.com
Yes, there's a blog, if you can handle it: http://robfrankel.blogspot.com



Received on Tue Mar 15 2005 - 17:41:42 CST