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

Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

blog.fogcreek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#21

Post by blowski »

Demiurge wrote: post #20
blowski wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For me, it's all about keeping some control over technology. That's fair enough, but you are very much in a minority.

Do you know of any usability research or somesuch that confirms this?

I spent some years working at an email-specific agency. They sent more than 5 billion emails during that time for some very big clients, and we did most of the data analysis. They also did a lot of usability testing.

I can tell you that on just about every metric - brand recall, clickthrough rates, ROI, unsubscribes - HTML outperformed plain text. There were exceptions, both in terms of types of campaign and types of sender - say, if your list includes lots of Hacker News readers.

We found, for example, that including just one image will increase open rates by more than 50% but I can't find it now. Another article on the same topic is here - http://www.alchemyworx.com/alchemy_worx/2009/newsletter/issu....

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#22

Post by Demiurge »

blowski wrote: post #21
Demiurge wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know of any usability research or somesuch that confirms this?

I spent some years working at an email-specific agency. They sent more than 5 billion emails during that time for some very big clients, and we did most of the data analysis. They also did a lot of usability testing. I can tell you that on just about every metric - brand recall, clickthrough rates, ROI, unsubscribes - HTML outperformed plain text. There were exceptions, both in terms of types of campaign and types of…

Ok, I am aware of the higher click rates, but that is part of my point. Well crafted imagery is no doubt more catchy and attention getting than plain text. However, is visual stimulation (manipulation?) supposed to be a part of communication medium? Between the reasons for why HTML should be in emails, where do you rank recipients well-being compared to ROI?

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#23

Post by pwhython »

Demiurge wrote: post #22
blowski wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent some years working at an email-specific agency. They sent more than 5 billion emails during that time for some very big clients, and we did most of the data analysis. They also did a lot of usability testing. I can tell you that on just about every metric - brand recall, clickthrough rates, ROI, unsubscribes - HTML outperformed plain text. There were exceptions, both in terms of types of campaign and types of…

Ok, I am aware of the higher click rates, but that is part of my point. Well crafted imagery is no doubt more catchy and attention getting than plain text. However, is visual stimulation (manipulation?) supposed to be a part of communication medium? Between the reasons for why HTML should be in emails, where do you rank recipients well-being compared to ROI?

Unfortunately, an un-branded email looks suspicious and unprofessional nowadays. You'll get more complaints and unsubs than ever versus a well-crafted (not over-the-top) engaging layout.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#24

Post by toki5 »

Demiurge wrote: post #19
benihana wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the vast majority of people enjoy pretty emails with non-monospaced fonts, whitespace and colors. It's mostly hackers who want to show off how old school they are that complain about html emails. Also, most emails like this have a text version you can receive - I believe it's necessary for CANSPAM compliance.

I don't think anyone is better off getting graphics and colors in their email, even if they enjoy it. After all, the email is supposed to inform of something. A website can be an interactive app, but email? Also, text-only doesn't mean monospace. I'm happy to read email in whatever sans-serif font the email client picks, with nice whitespacing.

>A website can be an interactive app, but email?

Fortunately, most e-mail clients support a "show this e-mail in text only" view mode. This means that you can have it your way, and others can have it theirs!

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#25

Post by Demiurge »

toki5 wrote: post #24
Demiurge wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is better off getting graphics and colors in their email, even if they enjoy it. After all, the email is supposed to inform of something. A website can be an interactive app, but email? Also, text-only doesn't mean monospace. I'm happy to read email in whatever sans-serif font the email client picks, with nice whitespacing.

>A website can be an interactive app, but email? Fortunately, most e-mail clients support a "show this e-mail in text only" view mode. This means that you can have it your way, and others can have it theirs!

Yeah, I do that every time!

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#27

Post by lstamour »

GrinningFool wrote: post #4

OT - minor pet peeve: When did "responsive" become synonymous with "handle different screen layouts gracefully" vs "responsive to the user"?

The original intent was to overlap the two meanings: to be both responsive as the user resizes the browser rather than to add scroll bars and to be responsive to the device capabilities: try to make buttons bigger for touch screens, etc. More direct responsive behaviour would likely be called user-centred, focused or, well, quick and efficient. :) perhaps even user-friendly AJAX to dip into some buzzword stew.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#28

Post by ams6110 »

blowski wrote: post #7
Demiurge wrote: post #5

Why can't emails just be text :(

Newsletters should include a text version as well, and you can set your client to show that instead of the HTML. "Normal" users (i.e. the non-geeks) do seem to prefer HTML emails, and in usability studies, A/B testing, and deliverability reports, HTML emails usually outperform text. In short, HTML emails are better for and preferred by recipients and senders in all but edge cases.

I find that sadly, more and more HTML email does not include a plain text part. I realize I'm in in a small minority of people who don't use a graphical email app. But if you care about that at all (and you probably should so that you also make life easier for your visually impaired clients who use screen readers) you should include plain text. Otherwise I simply won't read the email that you spent so much time and effort painstakingly formatting.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#29

Post by snowwrestler »

Demiurge wrote: post #22
blowski wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent some years working at an email-specific agency. They sent more than 5 billion emails during that time for some very big clients, and we did most of the data analysis. They also did a lot of usability testing. I can tell you that on just about every metric - brand recall, clickthrough rates, ROI, unsubscribes - HTML outperformed plain text. There were exceptions, both in terms of types of campaign and types of…

Ok, I am aware of the higher click rates, but that is part of my point. Well crafted imagery is no doubt more catchy and attention getting than plain text. However, is visual stimulation (manipulation?) supposed to be a part of communication medium? Between the reasons for why HTML should be in emails, where do you rank recipients well-being compared to ROI?

Images and fonts are a very valid and useful tools for communication. Even the most old-school, respectable newspapers use images, graphics, and a variety of fonts--even in their most serious news stories.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#30

Post by rodriguezcommaj »

benihana wrote: post #16
blowski wrote: post #8

At TechHub more than half our emails are opened on mobile (and mostly on iPhones, although there is some selective bias in there because of default image display settings). So mobile-first makes sense in every way. > We began by asking, what layouts work well on mobile? The answer for us was to think “single column.” This is nearly always the case. You can include pictures, and then use `align="right"` (or left) to m…

I actually have grown to dislike Litmus to be honest. I've sent an email to Litmus and to a device it was emulating, and it looked great on the device and busted as hell on Litmus. Leads to some false negative bugfixes.

I'm actually the Community Manager at Litmus. If you still use the service and have issues, don't hesitate to shoot us an email at hello@litmus.com - we're always trying to improve the service and help out our customers.
Post reply on HN