Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HTML Email Boilerplate

htmlemailboilerplate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: HTML Email Boilerplate

#101

Post by hessenwolf »

qjz wrote: post #54
hessenwolf wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll just pop upstairs to tell my bosses and upper managers that their waterfall charts of PnL for the quarter will be arriving as ascii art.

HTML email still handles that sort of thing poorly. I'd rather receive reports like that as PDF attachments. I can view those almost anywhere, and they're resizable.

They also have lots of tables, are easy to create, especially because of the stylesheets and support for html output in several different languages, and are easy to copy and paste from.

How would I make the pdfs? Please keep in mind that these are internal corporate emails, over several counries and firewalls, with a highly restrictive IT system.

Re: HTML Email Boilerplate

#102

Post by ez77 »

joshuacc wrote: post #93
ez77 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you eschew the use of typographical techniques that aid reading, both speed and comprehension, such as emboldening, headings, breaks, italics, font and colour changes? It is interesting to note that some of the most important works produced by mankind can be reproduced in essence without these aids [1]. Moreover, these well-meant aids are perceived as undue distractions and hence disabled by many [2], most of whic…

The question isn't whether important documents can be reasonably be represented as plain text. Clearly many can. The question is whether the typographical techniques listed are an aid in reading. And just as clearly, they are. And just to note, Readability actually preserves bold, headings, breaks, and italics, while providing a different set of fonts and colors based on the user's preferences.

My bad on Readability, as I made an assumption without checking.

I see what you are saying, and I partly agree, but I am of the opinion that language is rich enough to emphasize relevant points without further aids. But it's becoming SO common to use _SO_ many aids that this is already standarized with two levels in HTML, namely the em and strong tags. How long until we need a third semantic level of emphasis? Of course, I enjoy freedom and choice, so assume people/the market must prefer your style by and large.

For the record, I know that italics typography has been used for centuries as an aid in emphasis. Still, I humbly feel this is an unnecessary artefact, which more often than not turns into a crutch.

Re: HTML Email Boilerplate

#103

Post by deepandmeaning »

I found the hacks for display issues in various clients to be very helpful.

It's increasingly difficult to design HTML email templates which render well across all clients, this usually leads to design for the lowest common denominator. Usually Outlook and Gmail.

I'm sure there are loads of considerations for ISP's with regard to spam and other issues, but forcing design/rendering of HTML to 1990's type style and functionality is rather restrictive.

At some point I hope things will change, but with the popularity of mobile clients growing (and their small screen issues), I suspect if anything it will not.

Re: HTML Email Boilerplate

#104

Post by TerraHertz »

eneveu wrote: post #11
davidcollantes wrote: post #7

HTML and email are two things that do not go together well(IMHO). I prefer plain text.

Tell that to the business executives and the marketing departments :) I also prefer plain text, but I'd rather have useful tools to deal with the needs of the business, while offering plain-text as an option for people who prefer it.

It is precisely because I'd rather never read anything from 'business executives and marketing depts' that I use a text-only email client. Email is for concise communication of ideas via text. If you need pictures and pretty layouts to sell your ideas, email me a link to a web page. (Which I probably won't visit.)

There's ONE THING ONLY that html email is good for. And that's alerting me to a sender's failure to understand the fundamental natures of the different coding schemes for the written word.

Re: HTML Email Boilerplate

#106

Post by count »

mnutt wrote: post #60
antidaily wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IE8 screenshot. http://i.imgur.com/ZFDaO.png For the record, it works great in IE9.

I posted the link into Yammer, which tries to find the most significant image for the thumbnail. I couldn't figure out where that image came from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S25Zf8svHZQ

Re: HTML Email Boilerplate

#107

Post by eli »

ugh wrote: post #67
JacobAldridge wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MailChimp templates are all 600px wide, as a comparison, and that's what they recommend. It's annoying, since so many people have large monitors (notably me - so much white space around my drafts), BUT as you point out so many recipients are viewing emails on mobile devices (phone, tablet, even netbook-size laptops) as well as webmail clients and the Outlook preview pane.

My Mail window is at most 700px wide. That’s about 400px to 500px for the content. Most of the text-only mails I receive fit comfortable in that space without any scrolling and the line length is just perfect (60 to 80 characters per line). Why would I want my Mail window to be any bigger? I have all the space I need for comfortable reading and filing and more than half a screen to do something useful with. I don’t r…

Are mail apps so backwards that fluid layouts are not possible?

Outlook uses Microsoft Word's HTML rendering engine. So, in short, yes.

Re: HTML Email Boilerplate

#108

Post by oddthink »

benatkin wrote: post #77
skrebbel wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or use an email client with a horizontally split screen.

It seems you mixed up horizontal and vertical splitting. It happens a lot, I'm afraid. I wish it didn't happen so often. It's tedious to clear up such basic confusion when there are so many important user interface challenges to discuss. Also 900px wouldn't be a problem if not for a vertical split. 900px < 1024px. JoelSutherland is assuming that the window is divided, with some kind of a navigation pane taking up par…

Last I checked, horizontal and vertical splitting was ambiguous, but you sound very sure your way is right. Do you have a reference to support your confidence?

For example, both emacs and the Java JSplitPane call a "horizontal split" a split of the horizonal axis, resulting in two left/right panes. Meanwhile, vim calls the same operation a "vertical split."

Re: HTML Email Boilerplate

#109

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ez77 wrote: post #102
joshuacc wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn't whether important documents can be reasonably be represented as plain text. Clearly many can. The question is whether the typographical techniques listed are an aid in reading. And just as clearly, they are. And just to note, Readability actually preserves bold, headings, breaks, and italics, while providing a different set of fonts and colors based on the user's preferences.

My bad on Readability, as I made an assumption without checking. I see what you are saying, and I partly agree, but I am of the opinion that language is rich enough to emphasize relevant points without further aids. But it's becoming SO common to use _SO_ many aids that this is already standarized with two levels in HTML, namely the em and strong tags. How long until we need a third semantic level of emphasis? Of cou…

I like how you went to ALL-CAPS because you lacked the ability to add proper textual emphasis and then that you felt the need for more emphasis still and again broke writing conventions to indicate you wished to add underlining. Made your case for plain text perfectly.

Buttons for clothing have been invented, pretending that my coat doesn't need buttons and then holding it together with my arms so I don't freeze doesn't make sense to me.

Re: HTML Email Boilerplate

#110

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ez77 wrote: post #84
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of interest - do you paint/decorate the walls in your home. Do you wear coloured (ie dyed) clothing? Do you have a business card that has more than plain-text on it? When you return from a holiday and are telling friends about it, do you hand them a type written note that describes what other people would normally put in a photo? Do you eschew the use of typographical techniques that aid reading, both speed and c…

Do you eschew the use of typographical techniques that aid reading, both speed and comprehension, such as emboldening, headings, breaks, italics, font and colour changes? It is interesting to note that some of the most important works produced by mankind can be reproduced in essence without these aids [1]. Moreover, these well-meant aids are perceived as undue distractions and hence disabled by many [2], most of whic…

Both your examples are self-defeating.

Gutenburgs top projects are Kama Sutra, Sherlock Holmes and Punch - whilst Burton's original translation was text only I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the first of these has no need of illustration. The second is a [series of] novels, plaintext is fine there though often even novels have images ("plates") of some kind. The third, Punch is probably best known for it's illustrations and it's conveyance of political satire specifically through imagery (eg http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20759/20759-h/20759-h.htm).

Readbility uses background colour highlighting, keeps some formatting such as pulls and retains images.

You're welcome to prefer plaintext, some prefer black and white TV I'm sure, I just find it rather lacking in presenting the diverse types of information I wish to send and receive by email.

Post reply on HN