dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com (Dave Crocker) wrote on 06.05.02 in
<5(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)14(_dot_)2(_dot_)20020506184403(_dot_)02131938(_at_)jay(_dot_)songbird(_dot_)com>:
At 11:43 PM 5/5/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
that wouldn't bother me a bit if such messages didn't have so much
gratuitous markup. in the vast majority of html messages I see, the html
contains no more
information than could have been conveyed in plain text, but has so much
cruft in it that it essentially cannot be read as text.
When people first get access to mechanisms for formatting, fonts, etc.,
they tend to overuse it. Over time, they learn to be more judicious.
Over how much time? At least 99% of the HTML formatting in mail that I see
*today* is not only injudicious, but flat out gruesome.
Formatting that is done well aids the communication, rather than detracting
from it, and adds another dimension to the communication.
Let's not damn the capability just because some people have not yet learned
to use it.
"Some people" == "Practically everyone who does use it". I've seen maybe
one or two exceptions. (And those were strictly not necessary, either.)
The idea that email content should be required to have less visual control
than a web page or a document simply doesn't make any sense.
Makes sense to me, given what people actually do with it.
MfG Kai