At 13.59 -0400 0-05-11, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
I am not so sure I totally agree. Why exactly do we need HTML based
e-mail...Is it really necessary? E-mail is a service for transmitting a
written message, and written messages certainly don't require background
graphics or a full blown graphically based webpage.
Why should not graphics be of value in e-mail, when it is of
value in most other media like web pages, books, newspapers,
magazines, etc? Why should the e-mail medium not benefit
from graphics to enhance understandability and readability?
The size of the messages is really not an important issue.
Nets and disk space is not very expensive.
What is important, however, is writing time versus reading
time. Including graphics and neat formatting will increase
the writing time, but will, by making the message easier
to understand, reduce the writing time. This means that
neatly formatted messages give a cost/benefit gain, if
the number of recipients of a message is over a certain
limit. Thus, neatly formatted messages are more worth the
cost if you are mailing to a large mailing list than to
a single recipient.
In some cases, of course, neat formatting is so important
that it is worth the cost even with very few recipient.
For example, when I send error reports on computer software
to the developers of the software, I often include screen
shots showing how ther software does not work properly.
In such a case, the graphic is a very good way of persuading
the developer that something really is wrong with his
software.
At 15.04 -0400 0-05-11, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
Those newsletters that you have spoken of can quite
easily be distributed
in text format with the standard html tags that are used
in text based messages already.
Is the issue you are discussing whether to include the
graphics as body parts of the e-mail sent, or just include
<IMG> links, so that the recipient can retrieve them
through HTTP when reading. This is again a cost/efficiency
issue, you will have to compute the cost of sending and
storing all these images, versus the cost and time delay of
getting them from the source when reading them. In some
cases, the original image may not be retrievable through
HTTP for the people you are sending the mail to. For
example, you may want to send, in e-mail, an image from
an Intranet not available outside your company. In that
case, you have to include the image with the mail.
At 15.04 -0400 0-05-11, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
Regardless of whether a list
or commerce wishes to advertise through e-mail, there are already avenues
for distributing material to demographically selected individuals.
World Wide Web is *not* a good medium for distributing
news, since it does not have very good "news control", i.e.
facilities for a user to get lists of what is new and
selecting from these. E-mail, Usenet News and forum
software are much better for news distribution.
At 15.04 -0400 0-05-11, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
The issue here is not about whether it is technologically sound, but whether
we are able to market the masses with or without their expressed consent.
This is, I believe, the crucial point. HTML in e-mail
has got a bad reputation, not because the idea of
graphics in e-mail is wrong, but because it is
used, tooo much, by people sending us things
we would prefer not to get.
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/