|
|
Posted by Nico Schuyt on 11/06/06 11:29
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Nico Schuyt:
>>> I guess, though, some companies like to send all their emails
>>> with their logos and other banners... a not unreasonable thing to
>>> want?
>> I agree on that. I send HTML-mailings every month :-)
> Surely customers just love logos and banners, especially when using,
> say, a slow connection like GSM. They can't wait to see the fancy
> images and kewl formatting, which helps them to ignore the (excuse
> for) content.
>> Of course only to subscribers and with a proper text-equivalent and
>> embedded images to avoid the warnings in Outlook.
> If you had a case where it would be reasonable to send HTML email,
> then you should not include any "proper text-equivalent", since a
> user would get HTML email if and only if he explicitly asked for it
> when, say, subscribing to a newsletter.
The user is not informed that the newsletter will be in HTML. With a
text-equivalent there's no problem I think for those who don't like
HTML-mail (except for a tiny little bit of bandwidth)
>> Never heard anyone complain and no one seems to filter on HTML email
>> :-)
> Irony has become impossible,
No irony from my side. Maybe amused.
> so I won't even ask whether you wrote
> ironically or not. The emoticon ":-)" currently means just "I'm
> laughing at my own joke, or at something, or someone".
At least two of the options are appropriate. Smiling however, not laughing.
The smiley stands for: Almost everyone in this groups advices against
HTML-mail (that's why my suggestion to the OP was to use a link to a web
page). In real life the disadvantages seem to be less dramatic. (But I feel
guilty every time I press the send button :-)
--
Nico Schuyt
http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|