« Safer Email Tips | Home | Remembering the Floppy Disk »
Thoughts on HTML vs Text Email
By Al Gordon | January 10, 2007
An online poll of TNPC Newsletter readers found that by a 4-1 margin you wanted to receive the newsletter in HTML format instead of plain text. Verily, times have changed.
One hates to give away the fact that one is an old fogie, but back in the day when the network of computing enthusiasts who ultimately set this publication in motion were first getting acquainted, we relied on the old CompuServe network. And I do mean the old CompuServe network: not just dialup, not just 2400 baud, but pay-per-minute of use.
From that came the First Commandment of Netiquette: Thou Shalt Not Waste Bandwidth. Among the corollary principles was that knowledgeable users sent email as plain text. To resort to HTML or rich text formatting would make one a Philistine – or even worse, an AOL user.
Of course, once AOL’s all-you-can eat pricing model caught on and connection speeds escalated, there was little reason to maintain the plain text standard. You weren’t costing anyone either time or money, and you were making your messages more readable. With the widespread adoption of broadband, in fact, plain text became frankly a sign of Babbittry.
Technology is a funny thing, though. Of late there have been increasing security concerns with respect to rogue code hidden behind HTML messages. Plus so many people now are using portable messaging devices such as BlackBerries, Treos, and the like, which do not display HTML messages well. The upshot: plain text is making a comeback
(c) 2007 Al Gordon.
In addition to his computer interests, Al Gordon is a principal in the Boston-area strategic consulting firm, Mary Fifield Associates, www.maryfifieldassociates.com.
Popularity: 23%
Topics: Technology, Communication, Email |
January 10th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
The points you made were both accurate & valid but it still remains the many “experts” continue to advise that text is “safer”. Is this just a myth? John.
‘
January 10th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Not a myth. The danger is that HTML lets the unscrupulous hide malicious code or phishing links. And this is made worse when you use an email app that is lax on security — and yes, I mean Outlook.
Personally, what I use is really rich text formatted email. When an email program doesn’t offer a specific RTF option, I use HTML but only those features that would be supported in RTF. As a practical matter: nice fonts, italics, bolding, colors, graphics. But absolutely no “hidden” content: no links embedded in the graphics, no links of any kind that aren’t displayed as links, and so on.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Al,
Good Stuff. This goes right back to the old adage that “everything old will be new again.” If bellbottoms can make a comeback, then so can plain text!
January 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Maybe Dan will follow Al’s excellent guidelines in publishing the reader-preferred HTML version of the Newsletter: “I use HTML but only those features that would be supported in RTF. As a practical matter: nice fonts, italics, bolding, colors, graphics. But absolutely no “hidden” content: no links embedded in the graphics, no links of any kind that aren’t displayed as links, and so on.” (And just remember: hippies adopted groovy bellbottoms because not only did they look spiffy, they were cheap at army-navy surplus stores!)
January 13th, 2007 at 10:54 am
As an old curmudgeon who misses the old GEnie text-based service, I’ll welcom a resurgence of simple text. Some of us still have dialup, so excessive graphics do still cost time for some folks, and on my non-unlimited phone plan, they potentially cost me money. Some people also like to use colors that I find difficult to read, sometimes in the form of images where I can not override the colors. Fortunately, the HTML TNPC has thus far avoided such things. I wish others would be so kind.
January 13th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
On Wed., 10-Jan-2007, at 01:42pm EST (-0500 GMT),
“The Naked PC Newsletter” wrote:
> One hates to give away the fact that one is an old fogie, but
> back in the day when the network of computing enthusiasts who
> ultimately set this publication in motion were first getting
> acquainted, we relied on the old CompuServe network. And I do
> mean the old CompuServe network: not just dialup, not just 2400
> baud, but pay-per-minute of use.
I can testify personally to THAT! And not just 2400 baud: we actually
used *1200* baud! (The rates for 2400 were TWICE what they were for
1200 back then.)
Also, they gave you an “allowance” of E-Mail (they called it “Easyplex”
back then) that you could send or receive. Anything beyond that, and
you had to PAY for each E-Mail you sent or received!!!
Those were the Good Old (!?) Days!
January 13th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Glenn ~ I live on the edge of the boonies and we have limited choices for high speed connections. Years ago I finally was able to get ISDN connectivity. Not the fastest in the world but all I could get.
The next day my merchant credit card processing software arrived and one of the requirements was a modem that would drop to 1200 baud. Well the ISDN box could not handle that so I had to go configure the old modem just to accommodate that software.
~ Dan
January 13th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Ben ~ Al and I talked about the HTML newsletter before I sent the first one. I think you’ll see that there is very little actual formatting in place.
I explained the reason for the links last issue. One of the main things HTML gains us is that all readers have the links live. You would be surprised how many people have webmail that will not hyperlink the plain text links. Same with some AOL users.
I get the email from all of them. In any case we have received a lot of positive feedback.
~ Dan