Thx Tygatur for replying.
1st, sorry for one of my phrases that was not precise enough, so I rewrite it (main changes or adds in bold, removals in red):
Leaving HTML available doesn’t force you to misuse it, and whatever yours, most circles are sending alternatively HTML or Plain Text to send their messages, and using HTML in them, in a very appropriate, measured and efficient manner, according to circumstances
Now you wrote:
I feel alike about email received from big companies, where so-called “customer service” is usually entrusted to staff who are assumed irresponsible and low-educated, which automatically make them selected and oriented that way. The bigger the company, the most useless and most bloated the message.
But from individuals (or one-person companies), the emails I receive are often much more sensible, they are often in PT, and when in HTML, it is often (not always I admit) used appropriately and usefully.
Personally I send much email in HTML.
[LIST=1]
[*]Structure
When you email, it is generally to tell something to someone. If you have to do so, it is most often because there is some difficulty in guessing or understanding - or you wouldn’t write. Examples: the recipient is not in the same context as you, is not seeing the same things, and there is some sort of ambiguity or complexity.
Hence most of messages (this one being just one more example) need some complexity and length - if you are able to make them short while clear, you will gain high efficiency; but often I can’t, either due to my own capabilities, or to the sheer complexity of the issue (big or small). I think that, even if yourself and your correspondent are both with the same mother language (which most often implies native English speakers), you will have some amount of the same problem.
If you write something long sans spending the time to structure it, your recipient will either miss what you are saying, or waste his time - or both.
Hence, most email messages need some amount of structure, thus of formatting. Hence, using HTML will let you make most messages faster at writing, faster at reading, safer at both.
[*]Images
An image is worth a hundred words.
In an HTML message, your image appears right in its due place inside the explanation; in a PT message, your message is longer for the eye (you need to display both the label and the URL), and your recipient has to click the URL, or even to copy it and paste it in another window or tab.
The image should be included as a link, not as a copy, so the image won’t make the message heavier (in Bytes): in most cases it’s better to use an image already posted somewhere, that the recipient already knows, which will faster remind him of what you mean; in other (rare) cases you can upload your image to an [COLOR=#800080]image host[/COLOR] (e.g. [URL=“http://imageshack.us”][COLOR=#800080]ImageShack®[/COLOR]).
Now I admit that, again due to MS sloppy work, most people are including images as copies instead of as links. The MS error is double:
[LIST]
[]the option is hidden in OE (Outlook Express) behind lengthy menu cascades and inaccurate and unclear wording (“Tools > Options > Send”, then in both “Mail Sending Format” and “News Sending Format”, open “HTML Settings” and clear the case “Send pictures with message”);
[]the default is this case checked, resulting in people sending copies of images when they think they send a link, thus bloating their message, and losing the automatic update if the image source is changed.[/LIST]
Once you change these settings in your email client, you can send email messages that are at the same time very informative and very light and fast to write and to read.
[*]External Links
I don’t feel the right to bother someone with forcing them to google to find what I am talking about, so almost all my messages contain a couple links. A too big proportion of URLs are uselessly long (e.g. Philips France [COLOR=#800080]Microchaînes[/COLOR]), and too many recipients are still (not their fault - culprits are MS and other email client writers) with bad settings in their email client (explanations in [URL=“http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general/browse_frm/thread/d7a4c969ef3c8412”][COLOR=#800080]For Long URLs, Accentuated Chars, encode as Quoted-Printable, Western European (ISO), use “EUR” for Euro symbol[/COLOR]), in which case long URLs in Plain Text messages won’t work unless copied-pasted-merged. Writing in HTML fully removes all these problems and lets me oppositely make a text short, clear, easy and comfortable to read, and more reliable since links will work anywhere and for anyone.
[*]Internal Links
When explaining something complex, your text is much clearer if you offer the reader relevant links to the other parts inside your own message. Easy to do in HTML, impossible in PT.
[/LIST]Of course all these tools are to be used sensibly. Recently I reported a bug to BitDefender. As most bugs it was tricky, in itself, in understanding it, and in guessing the cause. Once I had spent too much time on it, BitDefender would probably not have read my report if it had required the same time to read. So I sent a message reporting all the messages displayed, in a structured presentation, with tables and texts with color and background-colors monkeying what I saw on my screen, paragraphs and internal links. They were very happy and started to work on the issue (solved since - I can’t know if my own report was useful but I think so). In PT this would have been impossible, even with spending three more time.
Now let’s not get blind: sure it’s normal we focus on the ones using HTML wrongly, sure they are numerous; but let’s open eyes, a number others are using HTML appropriately; and more important, most people would gladly do so if a few settings in OE and others were a little better designed and explained.
Versailles, Fri 19 Oct 2007 16:43:35 +0200