HTML email digression

On 10/31/06 01:39, "Dom" <tbdomifree.fr> wrote:

>> I've read many places that spammers will often insert a tiny 1px by
>> 1px gif in their messages, so that when your mail client hits their
>> server to load that image, they know they've got another live one!!!
>> That alone is reason enough for me to turn off HTML mail viewing...
>
> At least, you may NOT load the images...
> it seems that Mail.app can do this: if its spam filter is "educated",
> the suspicious messages are directed to the junk folder, and their
> images are NOT charged!

that was way back before they discovered the joys of directory searching.
It's much more efficient for them to just hit ever possible email address on
a server, and see what happens. The spam boogers were just a waste of time
and effort.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 10/30/06 at 11:39 PM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:

>On 10/30/06 21:46, "Tony Meyer" <ta-meyerihug.co.nz> wrote:

>>Yes, but we're talking about HTML email, not IDEs. Presumably part
>>of it is due to the typical programmer dislike of HTML email, but
>>(at least in the mailing lists I read), I don't really see any
>>syntax colouring (or other use of HTML) for code *in email*.

>It's a personal choice. The ability of color to quickly and
>efficiently highlight comments from the rest of the code is not a
>minor plus.

But it is also possible to highlight comments with plain ASCII
and no coloring at all. And clearly, for that portion of the
population that is color blind, the "old fashioned" way one
needed to format code with simple ASCII, is far better than any
coloring available in HTML.

On 10/30/06 at 11:39 PM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:

>On 10/30/06 21:50, "Joe Gurman" <jgurmancomcast.net> wrote:

>>Anything other than plain ASCII or UTF-8 text plus attachments in
>>e-mail is the work of the devil. and yes, HTML is plaintext, but
>>differs in every browser (and e-mail client) in the universe. So
>>why bother?

>>If you like HTML, start a blog.

>And this is why the current mess in html exists

You have made several comments to the effect if HTML standards
existed for email, the issues several people have with HTML
email would not be present or at least reduced to the point of a
very minor annoyance. Frankly, I don't follow your logic.

I see the issues with HTML email as being more due to what I
would call abuse of capability than the lack of standards. For
example, how would the existence of standards prevent someone
from sending a message using say 48 pt font, red color and all
caps to express a single word "help". Is that really that much
more effective than "HELP!!!!"? And whether it is that much more
effective or not, I certainly don't want to receive such messages.

Similarly with HTML email, many will spend significantly more
time on the appearance of the message than the content of the
message simply because there is so many possible ways to use
HTML to change the visual appearance of the message. I believe
this reduces the effectiveness of the message and gets in the
way of efficient communication. How would standards help with
this issue?

The point is standards are fairly useless if not employed.

Additionally, the amount of visual clutter that distracts from
the message is significantly reduced with plain text in
comparison to HTML since most of the things that produce the
visual clutter simply aren't possible in plain text.

On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Tom Gewecke wrote:

>> Apple Mail comes with HTML-composing set as default;
>
> In reality Apple Mail does not send HTML unless the user specifically
> chooses to style the text of each message, despite the default
> preferences setting. It goes out as plain text if you just type it
> that way.

That's only if you're composing a new message. If you are replying
to a message and don't notice that it's an HTML message, your
response will also be HTML, unless you specify that *all* your
messages will be HTML (except when you select Rich Text explicitly).
That would be fine except for those HTML messages that are so heavily
dependent on the HTML tagging that they become unreadable (or
significant parts indistinguishable) when converted to plain text and
quoted in the reply.

--
Geoff Odhner

On 10/31/06 22:15, "Bill Rowe" <readlistssbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>> Yes, but we're talking about HTML email, not IDEs. Presumably part
>>> of it is due to the typical programmer dislike of HTML email, but
>>> (at least in the mailing lists I read), I don't really see any
>>> syntax colouring (or other use of HTML) for code *in email*.
>
>> It's a personal choice. The ability of color to quickly and
>> efficiently highlight comments from the rest of the code is not a
>> minor plus.
>
> But it is also possible to highlight comments with plain ASCII
> and no coloring at all. And clearly, for that portion of the
> population that is color blind, the "old fashioned" way one
> needed to format code with simple ASCII, is far better than any
> coloring available in HTML.

That's your opinion. I've seen too many variations in line wrapping destroy
ASCII highlighting. colors work quite well.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 10/31/06 22:15, "Bill Rowe" <readlistssbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>> Anything other than plain ASCII or UTF-8 text plus attachments in
>>> e-mail is the work of the devil. and yes, HTML is plaintext, but
>>> differs in every browser (and e-mail client) in the universe. So
>>> why bother?
>
>>> If you like HTML, start a blog.
>
>> And this is why the current mess in html exists
>
> You have made several comments to the effect if HTML standards
> existed for email, the issues several people have with HTML
> email would not be present or at least reduced to the point of a
> very minor annoyance. Frankly, I don't follow your logic.

If standards were ignored, then FireFox wouldn't matter, because everyone
would be still using IE everywhere, and the web would be an Active X
wonderland.

>
> I see the issues with HTML email as being more due to what I
> would call abuse of capability than the lack of standards. For
> example, how would the existence of standards prevent someone
> from sending a message using say 48 pt font, red color and all
> caps to express a single word "help". Is that really that much
> more effective than "HELP!!!!"? And whether it is that much more
> effective or not, I certainly don't want to receive such messages.

What makes you think plain text prevents this?

YY YY OOO UU UU
  YY YY OO OO UU UU
   YYY OO OO UU UU
   YY OO OO UU UU
  YY OOOO UUUU

can abuse ASCII too.

But I love how people assume that HTML email is only used for the
ridiculous. Of course, if we don't paint all uses of HTML in the extreme,
then it makes the reflex hatred of it look less reasonable.

>
> Similarly with HTML email, many will spend significantly more
> time on the appearance of the message than the content of the
> message simply because there is so many possible ways to use
> HTML to change the visual appearance of the message. I believe
> this reduces the effectiveness of the message and gets in the
> way of efficient communication. How would standards help with
> this issue?

Yeah, and with text only we get such scintillating improvements in
communication like:

OMG, r u srs? Ya, ttly! OMGLOL!!111

Thank god there was no HTML to ruin the utter clarity only achievable by
text.

>
> The point is standards are fairly useless if not employed.

The point is, there are no standards TO employ, but people sure do like
giving up before they even try. Of course

>
> Additionally, the amount of visual clutter that distracts from
> the message is significantly reduced with plain text in
> comparison to HTML since most of the things that produce the
> visual clutter simply aren't possible in plain text.

u r s0 rt. I cnt undrstnd h0w 1 w$ unbl3 2 s33 ur p1nt. Pl1n txt mk3$
3v3ryth1ng p3rf3kl33 cl33r. !t'$ MGIC~!!!!


--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 31 Oct 2006, at 21:15 , Bill Rowe wrote:
> On 10/30/06 at 11:39 PM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:
>> And this is why the current mess in html exists
>
> You have made several comments to the effect if HTML standards
> existed for email, the issues several people have with HTML
> email would not be present or at least reduced to the point of a
> very minor annoyance. Frankly, I don't follow your logic.

Well, for one thing, if MUAs followed standards every HTML message
would have a well-formatted and perfectly readable plain-text
alternative, so I for one, would never even SEE the HTML.

As I've said before, if it were not for THIS LIST, all html-only
email I receive would be dropped in the bit-bucket before I ever even
got it on my computers.

> I see the issues with HTML email as being more due to what I
> would call abuse of capability than the lack of standards. For
> example, how would the existence of standards prevent someone
> from sending a message using say 48 pt font, red color and all
> caps to express a single word "help". Is that really that much
> more effective than "HELP!!!!"? And whether it is that much more
> effective or not, I certainly don't want to receive such messages.

MUAs should allow you to set either your own style sheets or at the
very least minimum and maximum sizes, for one. Eudora did a decent
job of letting you choose which things you would allow the sender to
control on your display. For a time I used a custom style sheet in
my browser (black background, yellow text, no images, red links. It
was interesting) just to see how much control I could wrest from the
webdesigner (answer, a lot more than you might think).

> Similarly with HTML email, many will spend significantly more
> time on the appearance of the message than the content of the
> message simply because there is so many possible ways to use
> HTML to change the visual appearance of the message. I believe
> this reduces the effectiveness of the message and gets in the
> way of efficient communication. How would standards help with
> this issue?

Standards cannot make the illiterate literate, but they can help at
least make presentation consistent.

> comparison to HTML since most of the things that produce the
> visual clutter simply aren't possible in plain text.

Well, colors aren't, but I've seen plenty of 8 line high "ascii art"
words in email, and that is even worse than HTML.


--
They all have husbands and wives and children and houses and dogs,
and, you know, they've all made themselves a part of something and
they can talk about what they do. What am I gonna say? "I killed the
president of Paraguay with a fork. How've you been?"

On Oct 31, 2006, at 11:15 PM, Bill Rowe wrote:

> On 10/30/06 at 11:39 PM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/06 21:46, "Tony Meyer" <ta-meyerihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, but we're talking about HTML email, not IDEs. Presumably part
>>> of it is due to the typical programmer dislike of HTML email, but
>>> (at least in the mailing lists I read), I don't really see any
>>> syntax colouring (or other use of HTML) for code *in email*.
>
>> It's a personal choice. The ability of color to quickly and
>> efficiently highlight comments from the rest of the code is not a
>> minor plus.
>
> But it is also possible to highlight comments with plain ASCII
> and no coloring at all. And clearly, for that portion of the
> population that is color blind, the "old fashioned" way one
> needed to format code with simple ASCII, is far better than any
> coloring available in HTML.

But if the message isn't going to anyone who is color blind, or in
the case of a newsletter or whatever to which only a very small % of
recipients might be, then it is a matter or personal choice, or
marketing imperatives, or both.

Wanting or needing something colored for whatever reason is not
something that is inherently evil; when used effectively, color can
increase comprehension, speed of reading, inspire people to act,
improve retention of information, add emphasis, organize information,
etc., etc.

Though I still prefer plain text e-mail, I recognize the fact that on
many occasions, color and graphics make for a better and more
effective experience. That's why I always click the "load images"
button in Mail when I get a newsletter from Apple.

Marilyn

On Oct 31, 2006, at 11:15 PM, Bill Rowe wrote:

> On 10/30/06 at 11:39 PM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/06 21:50, "Joe Gurman" <jgurmancomcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Anything other than plain ASCII or UTF-8 text plus attachments in
>>> e-mail is the work of the devil. and yes, HTML is plaintext, but
>>> differs in every browser (and e-mail client) in the universe. So
>>> why bother?
>
>>> If you like HTML, start a blog.
>
>> And this is why the current mess in html exists
>
> You have made several comments to the effect if HTML standards
> existed for email, the issues several people have with HTML
> email would not be present or at least reduced to the point of a
> very minor annoyance. Frankly, I don't follow your logic.

The standards that exist for HTML haven't exactly improved the
overall state of design on the web either.

>
> I see the issues with HTML email as being more due to what I
> would call abuse of capability than the lack of standards. For
> example, how would the existence of standards prevent someone
> from sending a message using say 48 pt font, red color and all
> caps to express a single word "help". Is that really that much
> more effective than "HELP!!!!"? And whether it is that much more
> effective or not, I certainly don't want to receive such messages.

Bad design is bad design, but there have been, and will be, occasions
when having HELP in large red type will communicate that action is
imperative more effectively, maybe even in 58 points, than help in
ASCII type. Understanding how color communicates is more critical in
this scenario than whether or not HTML eMail is a viable
communications tool now and in the future.

>
> Similarly with HTML email, many will spend significantly more
> time on the appearance of the message than the content of the
> message simply because there is so many possible ways to use
> HTML to change the visual appearance of the message. I believe
> this reduces the effectiveness of the message and gets in the
> way of efficient communication. How would standards help with
> this issue?
>
> The point is standards are fairly useless if not employed.

In fact, standards, whatever they might be, don't necessarily
determine whether a design is effective or not.

>
> Additionally, the amount of visual clutter that distracts from
> the message is significantly reduced with plain text in
> comparison to HTML since most of the things that produce the
> visual clutter simply aren't possible in plain text.
>

I think the fact that visually oriented print and broadcast
communications, and the increasingly visual web, become ever more
popular proves that graphics can be very powerful, effective, and
popular communications tools. As long as the communications avenues
are available, and as technology improves and production becomes
cheaper, visually orientated communications have gained in market
share throughout history.

Marilyn

On Nov 1, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Google Kreme wrote:

> Well, colors aren't, but I've seen plenty of 8 line high "ascii art"
> words in email, and that is even worse than HTML.

Particularly for those of us who read plain text email in a variable
pitch font most of the time (Eudora, nearly alone, makes it easy to
switch to a fixed width for a particular message--that's what the
|<->| icon does).

In that case, the message falls within Baxter's first law of email:
if it's hard to read, toss it out (there's lots of other email).

   --John

On Nov 1, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Marilyn Matty wrote:
> Though I still prefer plain text e-mail, I recognize the fact that on
> many occasions, color and graphics make for a better and more
> effective experience. That's why I always click the "load images"
> button in Mail when I get a newsletter from Apple.

Well said. *Well done* HTML mail can be really nice to receive.
Apple's certainly qualifies.

Since I've done the "prefer plain text" hack to Mail, my UI action is
different for those: command-]

   --John

On 11/1/06 at 1:06 AM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:
>On 10/31/06 22:15, "Bill Rowe" <readlistssbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>But it is also possible to highlight comments with plain ASCII and
>>no coloring at all. And clearly, for that portion of the population
>>that is color blind, the "old fashioned" way one needed to format
>>code with simple ASCII, is far better than any coloring available
>>in HTML.

>That's your opinion. I've seen too many variations in line wrapping
>destroy ASCII highlighting. colors work quite well.

I don't understand what portion of my comment you are
characterizing as opinion. The portion that says it is possible
to highlight comments without color? If so, should I provide an
example to show it possible?

The portion that says for *color blind* people the ASCII style
highlighting must clearly be more effective than color they
cannot see by definition?

On 11/1/06 at 1:06 AM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:

>On 10/31/06 22:15, "Bill Rowe" <readlistssbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>Additionally, the amount of visual clutter that distracts from the
>>message is significantly reduced with plain text in comparison to
>>HTML since most of the things that produce the visual clutter
>>simply aren't possible in plain text.

>u r s0 rt. I cnt undrstnd h0w 1 w$ unbl3 2 s33 ur p1nt. Pl1n txt
>mk3$ 3v3ryth1ng p3rf3kl33 cl33r. !t'$ MGIC~!!!!

Obviously, I failed to effectively communicate the point I was
attempting to make. I was not attempting to say plain text
prevents someone from writing gibberish or doing something to
obscure the message or otherwise make it unintelligible by
adding visual clutter. As you clearly demonstrate any medium can
be abused in such a fashion.

But note what you did. You intentionally made your message
difficult to interpret. I am certain you spent extra effort to
do that over what it would have taken to create a clear readable
message. Contrast this with HTML, where it is no more difficult
to specify say a 48 pt font than it is say a 10 pt font. The
effort to add visual clutter is no more in HTML than the effort
to create the message in the first place.

Most people who post are trying to communicate a message with a
minimum of effort. Typically, they will use what is readily
available in the medium they are writing and not expend extra
effort to obscure the message. So, with plain text most will
write as I am doing here with no effort spent to obscure the
message. But with HTML since there is no significant additional
effort to add color, size, etc. many will use these features
thinking it enhances the message when it actually degrades
readability. The very nature of HTML makes it much easier to
create such visual clutter than plain text and to some extent
encourages it.

And to keep this on track, the existence of standard cannot
change this.

On 11/1/06 at 12:19 PM, mmattynyc.rr.com (Marilyn Matty) wrote:

>Wanting or needing something colored for whatever reason is not
>something that is inherently evil; when used effectively, color can
>increase comprehension, speed of reading, inspire people to act,
>improve retention of information, add emphasis, organize
>information, etc., etc.

>Though I still prefer plain text e-mail, I recognize the fact that
>on many occasions, color and graphics make for a better and more
>effective experience. That's why I always click the "load images"
>button in Mail when I get a newsletter from Apple.

I totally agree color and graphics can be effectively employed
to greatly enhance a message and their existence in a message is
not inherently evil. But effective usage of color and graphics
seems to be seldom achieved. It is far more common to get HTML
messages where someone simply added such things with little or
no understanding of graphic arts.

The thing of it is, it seems a lot of usage of color etc in HTML
is used because the author in some way thinks it enhances the
appearance of the message. Little or more likely no thought is
given to how the reader will perceive the message. The point of
writing a message is to communicate with and perhaps persuade
your reader, not to demonstrate skill with HTML or create
something the writer happens to find visually attractive.

And the lack of color, graphics etc in plain text certainly
generally leads to more focus on the message and the reader
since there isn't color, graphics etc to think about when
composing the message.

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 04:52:19 -0800
  Bill Rowe <readlistssbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 11/1/06 at 1:06 AM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch)
>wrote:
>
>>On 10/31/06 22:15, "Bill Rowe" <readlistssbcglobal.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Additionally, the amount of visual clutter that distracts
>>>from the
>>>message is significantly reduced with plain text in
>>>comparison to
>>>HTML since most of the things that produce the visual
>>>clutter
>>>simply aren't possible in plain text.
>
>>u r s0 rt. I cnt undrstnd h0w 1 w$ unbl3 2 s33 ur p1nt.
>>Pl1n txt
>>mk3$ 3v3ryth1ng p3rf3kl33 cl33r. !t'$ MGIC~!!!!
>
> Obviously, I failed to effectively communicate the point
>I was
> attempting to make. I was not attempting to say plain
>text
> prevents someone from writing gibberish or doing
>something to
> obscure the message or otherwise make it unintelligible
>by
> adding visual clutter. As you clearly demonstrate any
>medium can
> be abused in such a fashion.
>
> But note what you did. You intentionally made your
>message
> difficult to interpret. I am certain you spent extra
>effort to
> do that over what it would have taken to create a clear
>readable
> message.

Nope. Took exactly as much effort as typing this line did.
The idea that it's harder to abuse text is silly.

> Contrast this with HTML, where it is no more
>difficult
> to specify say a 48 pt font than it is say a 10 pt font.
>The
> effort to add visual clutter is no more in HTML than the
>effort
> to create the message in the first place.

I can pick an unreadable font for text with the same ease
I can pick a readable one. How does plain text prevent
this?

>
> Most people who post are trying to communicate a message
>with a
> minimum of effort. Typically, they will use what is
>readily
> available in the medium they are writing and not expend
>extra
> effort to obscure the message. So, with plain text most
>will
> write as I am doing here with no effort spent to obscure
>the
> message. But with HTML since there is no significant
>additional
> effort to add color, size, etc. many will use these
>features
> thinking it enhances the message when it actually
>degrades
> readability. The very nature of HTML makes it much
>easier to
> create such visual clutter than plain text and to some
>extent
> encourages it.

That's a strawman and a half. The ease of use of a feature
or lack thereof is not going to guarantee readability, and
the idea that plain text will do this is silly.

>
> And to keep this on track, the existence of standard
>cannot
> change this.

So working overtime to somehow turn back the hands of time
to the 1970s WILL?

--
John C. Welch jwelchbynkii.com
Bynkii.com Opinions and analysis on stuff

On 11/7/06 06:52, "Bill Rowe" <readlistssbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>> But it is also possible to highlight comments with plain ASCII and
>>> no coloring at all. And clearly, for that portion of the population
>>> that is color blind, the "old fashioned" way one needed to format
>>> code with simple ASCII, is far better than any coloring available
>>> in HTML.
>
>> That's your opinion. I've seen too many variations in line wrapping
>> destroy ASCII highlighting. colors work quite well.
>
> I don't understand what portion of my comment you are
> characterizing as opinion. The portion that says it is possible
> to highlight comments without color? If so, should I provide an
> example to show it possible?

" And clearly, for that portion of the population that is color blind, the
"old fashioned" way one needed to format code with simple ASCII, is far
better than any coloring available in HTML."

No in fact it is not better than *anything* in HTML. "color" and "anything"
are not the same.

>
> The portion that says for *color blind* people the ASCII style
> highlighting must clearly be more effective than color they
> cannot see by definition?

There are any number of guides out there for avoiding color-blind issues. As
well, you also overlook things like italics, bolding and underlining, which
HTML gives you as a way of highlighting that is not based on color. That
would be part of the "anything html gives you" that plain text does not.

Your statement that ASCII is always better than anything HTML gives you is
the opinion part.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 11/7/06 06:52, "johnbaxterlistsmac.com" <johnbaxterlistsmac.com> wrote:

>> Well, colors aren't, but I've seen plenty of 8 line high "ascii art"
>> words in email, and that is even worse than HTML.
>
> Particularly for those of us who read plain text email in a variable
> pitch font most of the time (Eudora, nearly alone, makes it easy to
> switch to a fixed width for a particular message--that's what the
> |<->| icon does).
>
> In that case, the message falls within Baxter's first law of email:
> if it's hard to read, toss it out (there's lots of other email).

However, the point here is, that contrary to the email orthodoxy, plain text
is not a magic spell of clear, concise communication, nor is HTML
automatically a spell of blinding incomprehensible garbage.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On Nov 7, 2006, at 1:53 PM, John C. Welch wrote:

> I can pick an unreadable font for text with the same ease
> I can pick a readable one. How does plain text prevent
> this?

By giving the recipient control of the font and size (and various
other things in some mail clients). With a plain text message, it
doesn't matter to the recipient how the message appeared to you
(careful tabulations based on a fixed width font aside).

   --John

On 11/7/06 at 1:53 PM, jwelchbynkii.com (John C. Welch) wrote:

>That's a strawman and a half. The ease of use of a feature or lack
>thereof is not going to guarantee readability, and the idea that
>plain text will do this is silly.

The point is not that fewer features ensures readability.
Instead the point is more features creates more opportunity to
decrease readability. And many users tend to use such features
while paying little attention to readability. Hence, more
features tends to reduce readability.

[And with this message, I'm officially declaring this thread closed. -Adam]


A bigger problem is that the big majority of people don't realize
that there is a big difference between readability (facilitating the
comprehension blocks of text and words) and legibility
(distinguishing letterforms).

The defaults provided by every e-mail app I am familiar with are not
what anyone knowledgeable about typography would ever consider
readable. The type is too large, and the fact that line length
contracts and expands to fit the size of the last message viewed
necessitates constant adjusting and yields expanses of type that are
tiring and confusing to readers. Default fonts are also
waaaaaaaayyyyyy to large; in the case of one of the most popular e-
mail apps among the general public, Arial sucks, and the Mac version
even more so. Kerning and letterspacing? Ha.

Every time someone turns on their computer and composes a document
they make choices about how the information will appear, even if they
accept the defaults. And IMHO, there is no rational justification for
why options that can make documents readable or look good should not
exist. Just because something has the potential for abuse doesn't
mean that its use or existence should be eliminated unless it does
not have any redeeming social value (like heroin, etc.)

Marilyn