03 Jul 2003 | Paul said...

Yeah, that's a little surprising given the audience for your newsletter. I personally dislike HTML email, as it rarely seems to hold any real advantage for users over text email. For marketeers, though, HTML email is a nice option.

03 Jul 2003 | Bill Brown said...

I'm a plain text man, myself. I always reject the HTML option, but I know a lot of people who love it (look at all the colors in my mail!). I don't understand why since HTML mail allows marketers so many more options to both sell you stuff without relying on good content and to embed bugs to verify your email address.

I'd say produce an HTML newsletter, but make it worthwhile. The people who love HTML will love it and the people who accidentally selected HTML will realize that they need to change it to plain text.

03 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

I agree that it is a bit surprising, given the audience.

I, personally, filter all HTML email into my SPAM mailbox.

Oh CRAP! Just signed up for your list and found out it is Topica hosted. Topica is notorious for tolerating spammers.

"Word on the street" is that a lot of mail admins no longer accept any mail coming from a Topica owned mail server. Also, Topica tends to not give a crap about any efforts to unsub from their lists.

Here's one link gleaned from a semi-recent debate on Topica on another list:

http://www.spews.org/html/S1522.html

03 Jul 2003 | Don Schenck said...

We send our newsletter both ways, and we get about 50 percent HTML request.

I LOVE HTML email. Why wouldn't you love pictures, formatting, etc etc?? What's not to love.

I'm about to do a "refresh" to our newsletter, with many "teaser" paragraphs that drive the reader to our web site.

03 Jul 2003 | James said...

We dont currently publish an HTML version of the newsletter (people who signed up for HTML just get the text one)

Hmmm... why are you offering a product that you don't deliver?

03 Jul 2003 | JF said...

why are you offering a product that you don't deliver?

Do you mean why do we allow people to sign up for HTML if we don't have an HTML newsletter? It's out of our control -- Topica makes that call. However, it's good to know what people want so we can tailor our offering to their needs.

03 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

I LOVE HTML email. Why wouldn't you love pictures, formatting, etc etc?? What's not to love.

Well, some people certainly love it, but, that's really what the web was invented for. Many (myself included) believe that email is best as text, allowing *me* to format *my* email as I see fit.

I personally think the best solution is send plain-text email with a link at the very top to the web version. Everyone's happy.

That said, if people ask for HTML email, and you want to send it, then no one can really complain.

Do reconsider using Topica though.

03 Jul 2003 | James said...

It's out of our control -- Topica makes that call.

Ahh... thanks for the clarification, Jason. I didn't that you would overlook something like that. ;-)

03 Jul 2003 | jazer said...

That's really what the web was invented for. Many (myself included) believe that email is best as text, allowing *me* to format *my* email as I see fit.

I do agree with this, although "HTML mail" doesn't always have to mean "gaudy, table-ized, image-laden mail." I often use HTML mail when I want to put some headings in my emails or use bold/italics. You can often times greatly improve readability by adding a few of this navigational devices.

03 Jul 2003 | hurley #1 said...

To me, the most valuable feature of HTML e-mail is that it allows you to replace a long database-generated URL with a text link. Long URLs tend to break across lines in text e-mail messages, and the line break prevents the URL from being clickable. I get a lot of complaints about this from one of my clients.

Yes, I know about tinyurl.com, but I would only use that for personal mail, not professional work.

The other thing I like about HTML mail is the ability to add some simple formatting, as jazer says above.

There are ways to send combined HTML and text in one message, and I'm looking into that for some listservs that we operate.

03 Jul 2003 | Michael Spina said...

I prefer plain text email, because when I want to see layout and pictures, I use the Web. When I want to read messages or newsletters, I want to see text.

Also, my Mac version of MS Outlook 2001 that I have to use at work completely mangles HTML mail. No, worse than that, it makes blue underlined hyperlinks that don't work, and give you no way to see what the URL was supposed to be.

03 Jul 2003 | Mal Ross said...

Formatted with restraint, I find HTML newsletters preferable to plain text for the simple fact the extra formatting can aid scannability. I suspect people are quite happy to go with HTML emails from 37signals as they trust you guys not to overdo it.

03 Jul 2003 | Mal Ross said...

Oh, and I'm surprised how many tech/design people shy away from formatted emails. I would've thought the potential for better scannability would be plenty incentive. Well, provided you know your audience can receive in the format you use, of course.

At work, the entire company uses Outlook for email, so I take advantage of its excellent Rich Text option (not HTML mail) for internal mails. It offers a very limited, but perfectly-judged, set of formatting options (bold, italic, bullet, indent, colour). It can really enhance the delivery of your message and doesn't mangle things the way the HTML option can (I know where you're coming from, Michael S).

03 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

I often use HTML mail when I want to put some headings in my emails or use bold/italics.

Another thought...if you need to use headings in your email, perhaps the message is a bit much for email.

For me, email is more conversation than content. If it's something that I need to take time to absorb, send it as an attached formatted document or point me at a web site.

03 Jul 2003 | jupiter said...

Does anybody care about users who are not connected to the web when reading HTML-emails with images (e.g. because their mailer automatically disconnects after downloading email). That's what I fear most.

03 Jul 2003 | jupiter said...

Does anybody care about users who are not connected to the web when reading HTML-emails with images (e.g. because their mailer automatically disconnects after downloading email). That's what I fear most.

03 Jul 2003 | jupiter said...

Oooops...sorry for that!

03 Jul 2003 | hurley #1 said...

Does anybody care about users who are not connected to the web when reading HTML-emails with images (e.g. because their mailer automatically disconnects after downloading email).

Given that something around half the U.S. online public is still using dialup connections (though that proportion is declining fast), this is a real concern. I was on dialup until last year, and I hated HTML messages with images for that exact reason.

In response to Darrel, I think e-mail is and can be appropriately used for a lot more than just conversation. Listservs are still an important way for people to communicate with clients or interest groups, and listserv messages frequently can be improved with a bit of simple formatting. And it's considered bad form to include attachments with listserv messages.

03 Jul 2003 | Wilson said...

One of the best features of Outlook 2003 is the 'not viewing images in HTML' option. Actually, you have two good options:
1) Allow only text, no HTML mail at all
2) Allow HTML without allowing any images.

However, I still prefer viewing the message source to the nicely formed message body. You know like being able to view the actual message header and that stuff...ah well.

03 Jul 2003 | macho said...

Text email does not record opened mail, and its harder to record click-throughs.

04 Jul 2003 | jupiter said...

Does anybody else use embedded images which can be seen offline? We thought it would be ok - as long as they're used carefully an do not blow up the size of the message. But then we found out that embedded images don't work if the recipient has a yahoo- or hotmail-account.

I also prefer HTML-mail because an image often says more than thousand words.

04 Jul 2003 | Anthony Baker said...

I've generally done both plain text and html versions for clients, but for one recent client (and after some research), we went ahead and did only an html version (separating out the few AOL addresses we had, to handle those -- see more below). I was very surprised by the number of people who read and then clicked-through to the site from the html email. And we only had two people unsubscribe.

Now, that said, I make sure to design the html emails to be very easy to read, taking into account all of the annoying things I've noticed over the years with poorly-formed html email. Here's a link to the newsletter we sent out.

I think I might start leaning more toward html entirely in the future, depending on the client.

That said, AOL continues to be the only hitch in that plan. The latest versions of their OS (7.0 and 8.0) support html pretty damn well, but previous versions are spotty at best.

04 Jul 2003 | Anthony Baker said...

Oh, also, I recently viewed a copy of the HTML email on my Palm Zire 71, using Dataviz's Desktop to Go application. It automatically converts html email to text-only, and the html email we sent out came across in ascii text on my Palm nearly perfectly.

06 Jul 2003 | Matt said...

Does the sign-up form default to HTML or Plain text? If it's HTML, that could explain the even proportion...

06 Jul 2003 | JF said...

Does the sign-up form default to HTML or Plain text? If it's HTML, that could explain the even proportion...

Defaults as unspecified.

07 Jul 2003 | pb said...

Most surprising is that users selected HTML despite text being the default.

You shouldn't lose too much sleep over the anti-HTML camp. They are stuck in the web stone ages.

Go with HTML but as another poster noted, use restraint. Then it will actually look less like spam than even text does.

08 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

You shouldn't lose too much sleep over the anti-HTML camp. They are stuck in the web stone ages.

Email isn't the web.

09 Jul 2003 | jupiter said...

Email isn't the web.

What's the real difference between a HTML-email and a page in a web-browser?

I think it's the responsibility of the sender to consider wether he wants send textual information or "push" a website to the recipient.

09 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

What's the real difference between a HTML-email and a page in a web-browser?

Who's in control. If I'm using a web browser, I'm in control of my experience. HTML email is just a "HEY LOOK AT ME I AM SO DAMN IMPORTANT THAT I AM OVERRIDING YOUR PREFERENCES AND WILL FORCE YOU TO LOOK AT THIS WEB PAGE EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO". Ugh.

I don't want web content pushed down my throat wherever I go. I don't want it on my TV. I don't want it on my radio. I don't want it in my email. When I want it, I'll use my web browser.

I think it's the responsibility of the sender to consider wether he wants send textual information or "push" a website to the recipient.

It's the responsibility of the sender to consider what their actual goal is and who their actual audience is.

I can't deny that HTML emails can work. But that doesn't change my opinion that they are a bad thing. To each their own, of course.

10 Jul 2003 | jupiter said...

But that doesn't change my opinion that they are a bad thing.

Darrel, I suppose you prefer textbooks and don't like magazines that much - do you?

11 Jul 2003 | Simon said...

If you do go for HTML email *make sure its lite*.

I just got 200Ks worth this morning from the same organisation.

11 Jul 2003 | Chris said...

I feel that HTML emails have the same advantages as HTML web pages compared to a word document. It allows you to organize and format the message/content into a more readable format. Using defined headings, highlighting, and positioning content can really make a difference on how the information is prioritized and read.

The important thing to remember is to keep it simple. Just 'cause it is HTML does not mean you need to include images.

31 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.