There is more to email than TEXT vs. HTML
There has been quite an attack against HTML based emails the last few weeks - probably started by Zeldman's post about the same. But they forget about the advantages of HTML formatting.
I fully agree that creating HTML based email to create fully styled emails is a bad idea. First of all it doesn't work (e.g. all images are removed in Outlook by default; other email clients may not support colors, CSS or simply fail to do so consistenly). Secondly, well, it is just plain stupid.
Don't do this (and these are some of the nicer ones):
But what about HTML formatting? HTML formatted text is easier to read than pure text - much easier actually. With HTML you got the ability to make:
- Bold or Italic text
- Headlines
- Horizontal lines
- Tables
- Lists
- Subscript or superscript
- Deleted text
- Blockquotes
- Text links (not URL links)
They are all great enhancements to presenting text and they provide a much better reading experience.
To give you an example, compare these two (very long) emails to see the power of HTML formatting vs. text only:
Original - text only formatting
Enhanced - HTML formatted
Not only is the HTML version easier to read, it creates nicer looking links, better headlines and section dividers, and much better lists - and it requires 20% less scrolling. HTML formatting seriously beats text-only formatting in every way imaginable.
The only things you cannot do with HTML emails is styling (colors, font sizing, and background trickery) and adding images - that is it. Think if it as HTML 1.0
And, the next time someone says that HTML emails suck, just smile at them because you know the trick.
HTML formatted emails rocks - HTML styled emails sucks.
Comments
Evan - Jun. 13, 2007
As with many things, it's not the tool that is good or bad, but how it is used - best summed by the last line of the article, "HTML formatted emails rocks - HTML styled emails sucks".
However, my rule of thumb is always send plain text unless I actually need HTML formatting for some reason. That way, the recipient can control the default font, etc that works for them, instead of getting some crappily formatted email with tiny bright blue text.
Just don't get me started on email disclaimers...
Jonathan - Jun. 14, 2007
I guess anyone defending the use of more complex HTML in emails doesn't know the latest news:
http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/archives/2007/01/microsoft_takes_email_design_b.html
Daniel Aleksandersen 
- Jun. 20, 2007
I think what you want is RTF, Thomas. Not HTML and CSS.
Thomas Baekdal - Jun. 20, 2007
Daniel, Yes - but it is very hard to send RFT from a web applications...
Hornswaggled - Aug. 3, 2007
Yeah that first email was difficult to read at best. The formatted html email was pleasant and you could actually skim through it and get a feel for it. Doing the same thing on the original you would have no clue. I guess I need to spend sometime learning this.
Published: Jun. 13, 2007 in notes
FaceBook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Flickr
Mirko
- Jun. 13, 2007
Partially true. HTML emails are more likely to end up in junk folder. The exaple email is not typical, it is an advertisement - it may well be shorter with a link to a full web page. IMHO, the average email is personal and short, hence no need for HTML, it is too often (95%) misused. Fortunately, Outlook has an option to convert all email to plain text...