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

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#31

Post by rodriguezcommaj »

ecesena wrote: post #6

Awesome, thanks! There should be more about responsive emails, both in terms of information and default templates. One of the bests to my knowledge is by Zurb [1], but the lack for Outlook support makes it almost unusable (at least for us). We ended up hacking from "the bigs" (Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin), although at the very beginning their templates also had issues here and there. This said, testing on so many dev…

The Zurb one is a cool start - you may also like Antwort - http://internations.github.io/antwort/ - and Brian Grave's Responsive Email Patterns - http://briangraves.github.io/ResponsiveEmailPatterns/

For general information, Anna Yeaman over at STYLECampaign made an amazing video on Responsive Email Design, a must-view if you're interested in the topic - http://stylecampaign.com/blog/2013/03/responsive-email-desig...

Shameless self promotion, I also wrote a book on the subject called Modern HTML Email - http://modernhtmlemail.com - good way to get into responsive email design and email marketing in general.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#32

Post by unsignedint »

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!

The problem is that "show this E-mail in text only" relies on the fact that whatever they use send out the E-mail also sends plain text as well as HTML as a multipart. I find most of places do that, but there are some services/implementations that simply sends out HTML, pretty much leaving it up to the mailer to interpret that E-mail.

Either you will be sending in HTML or plain text, I feel there shouldn't be any excuse of not attaching plain text version of it.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#33

Post by eli »

ecesena wrote: post #6

Awesome, thanks! There should be more about responsive emails, both in terms of information and default templates. One of the bests to my knowledge is by Zurb [1], but the lack for Outlook support makes it almost unusable (at least for us). We ended up hacking from "the bigs" (Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin), although at the very beginning their templates also had issues here and there. This said, testing on so many dev…

Err, doesn't Mailchimp already offer that? http://mailchimp.com/features/inbox-inspector/

I think most ESPs do these days.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#34

Post by eli »

blowski wrote: post #12
Keats wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a strange love for coding HTML emails That's a sentence I never thought I would ever hear. And I also recommend Litmus, pretty much the only sane way to test the rendering that I found.

Most of the time as a developer I am merely bluffing my way through, but with HTML email I can actually claim some degree of expertise.

They're also small and self-contained. It's like a poem.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#35

Post by victorhooi »

ams6110 wrote: post #28
blowski wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Unfortunately, you appear to be a minority.

Look, it's all well and good to say "I'm 1337! I use Mutt, or I use Links!". But let's be honest, the majority of people are not going to use a text mode web browser or a text mode email client.

And this isn't something you're born with, like a vision impairment, so people need to make a website accessible for you. This is a personal preference.

Hence, as much as some of us neckbeards might like to go back to a works where 256 colours was the bomb =), the rest of the world has moved on.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#36

Post by Brajeshwar »

Demiurge wrote: post #5

Why can't emails just be text :(

I have been a text-email lover and html-email hater until early this year (2013). I realize that almost everyone neither have any clue of the difference nor do they care. As mentioned elsewhere in this comment thread, people do love beautiful emails - the html kind.

I have dealt with quite a bit of clients and they love to use colors as separation for various degree and scaffolds of conversations.

For now, if I'm initiating an email and do not really need to be HTML, I try to stay with text. For other, I just follow the format the current email thread is in.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#39

Post by alextingle »

victorhooi wrote: post #35
ams6110 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Unfortunately, you appear to be a minority. Look, it's all well and good to say "I'm 1337! I use Mutt, or I use Links!". But let's be honest, the majority of people are not going to use a text mode web browser or a text mode email client. And this isn't something you're born with, like a vision impairment, so people need to make a website accessible for you. This is a personal preference. Hence, as much as some of us…

Text only e-mail is more productive for everyone, in exactly the same way that text only authoring applications are more productive. When you are writing something, fiddling around with the layout is just a distraction. Many people might prefer it, but lots of people also like to play Patience on their workstation rather that getting on with what they are supposed to be doing.

Re: Responsive HTML Emails: a Different Strategy

#40

Post by alextingle »

pbreit wrote: post #37
Demiurge wrote: post #5

Why can't emails just be text :(

HTML can be +much+ more effective than text.

...at distracting and confusing readers.

If your goal is to distract and confuse people, by getting them to click on your ads and buy your products, then use HTML e-mail. If you want to communicate clearly, then stop worrying about layout & typography and concentrate on the words you are writing.

Post reply on HN