HTML vs. Text Email

[Jon_King]

I used to run into compatibility problems using HTML email. I had the problem with some corporations using software like Lotus Notes and certain Oracle configs... so I quit HTML and went plain text.

I'd really like to use the formating avalable with HTML mail... what do you folks think about the compatability issues if any?

[coopster]

There was a good discussion on The Challenges of HTML Email [webmasterworld.com] that might be a beneficial read, Jon_King. It was almost a year ago but I would say that much if not all of it still applies today.

[jtara]

so I quit HTML and went plain text

Bully for you! I wish more would do so! I HATE getting HTML email.

There ARE no standards for HTML email. That's the problem. Sure, you can code to look good on the major clients, but that's it.

There are various reasons why HTML is rendered differently on different clients. Some use their own, limited HTML parsers, either because they didn't want to license a full one or because of security concerns. Some offer a choice for the user to use the IE engine or their own built-in one. Many block Javascript or provide an option to block Javascript. (I, for one, would never allow an email client to execute Javascript.)

And some clients don't support HTML email, and/or users have turned it off. Then what we see is garbage, or if we are lucky, plain text, followed by garbage. Or garbage followed by plain text.

Please, don't do it.

MUCH better is to simply provide a link to an HTTP page with your content. Either a text summary with a link, or the full content in text only with a link to the formatted version.

[Pibs]

I'd agree, HTML sucks.

In real world advertising people look at pictures, on the web they look at the text.

Another simple issue is sheer speed. I don't want to hang around waiting for your email to download, I just want to read what you have to say. Draw me pictures with your words, intrigue me, then I'll click on your link. And it better be relevant when I get there.

P.

[rocknbil]

I agree with plain text for email, but must speak as devils' advocate here . . . .

If you're good at server-side programming there IS a way to send BOTH text and HTML email in a single message and allow the email client to render whichever it is able to use. That is, even though the client's email may support HTML they may have it disabled. It involves sending a multipart message and is a bit complex for this thread (and I'd have to check my notes, I never use it.)

The downside is that 1) your message is now twice as large, which further taxes an already overburdened system, 2) usually when someone wants to send HTML formatted email they also want to bury the %^$%^^ thing with images, usually remotely hosted or attached but either way this makes your emails HUGE, 3) as has been mentioned there are the same compatibility issues we get with differing browsers but the problem is amplified by 10 or 20 times, 4) also as has been mentioned can be annoying, and 5) the multipart boundary, attached images, and other elements in multipart emails can cause your important message to get bounced or filtered.

IMO it's like the web, content is king, if you have something "important" to say, put it in text. You can do the simplest of HTML support and send a BEAUTIFULLY formatted and un-obnoxious message by adding a few mail headers on output:

To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: My Beutifully Formatted Email

Begin message . . .

If you compose your mail with minimal html, text-only readers won't be too annoyed by the tags

<p>

Hey I got a great new set of widgets in.

</p>

I haven't gotten too many complaints from attaching/linking to a small logo or signature at the request of my customers, but it's still against my principles. :-)

[pageoneresults]

For client email campaigns, we use a third party service that allows us to send both HTML and Text versions.

For all other email, plain text is fine. I try to get my clients to provide links to website content as much as possible instead of stuffing it into the email. Short emails are better with a few links going to the long version of the email content.

[Pibs]

Another point is more and more people are net-savvy and know that HTML files will tell the sender that they opened them.

Now, you open something and find it's spam. Congratulations, you just advertised the fact that your email address is valid, monitored and spam friendly. Nice.

Hence many turn off html as default simply to avoid the tracking issue. What do you actually gain from tracking compared to what you lose by people trying to *avoid* you tracking?

Of course you could solve everything by taking that principle of customer is king a stage further and just ask them - would you like your mails in plain text or html?

Then you have some more numbers to track and play with - and you'll know just how many of your newsletter sign-up don't want no stinking html.

P

[Jon_King]

It does seem that plain text is the way to go for standard B2B communication. Thank you for the responses.