Anonymous reader "George" sent me this point-by-point rebuttal to "HTML in EMail is a Bad Idea." Naturally, I disagree with most of George's assertions, but his response is nevertheless the most cogent defense of HTML in email that I've seen. In the interest of fairness, I am reposting George's rebuttal here, without editing or commentary from me.
=====
POINT
=====Because HTML is for making web pages and plain text is for simple communications. If you're looking to create a web page or write a book, fine. But e-mail messages are not web pages or books. e-mail was designed for simple messaging. Anything else detracts, rather than adds to its core functionality. As Andy Roony said, "E-mail is simple. Like the pencil, it just works." Well, e-mail is not simple -- and it doesn't always work -- when HTML is involved.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============The fact that email and email clients were originally designed to transmit text only messages is probably a given fact not open to opinion or debate. It is also probably true that at this point in time there was a lack of widespread usage of graphics (excluding ASCII art and the like) by "common users". At that time it is also highly likely that either the technologies needed to produce textual effects and graphic effects in email were either non-existent, or the usage of graphics and images was not widespread enough to consider their inclusion into email clients of the time.
With time things change, and the introduction of the Internet into the public's living rooms and dens eventually transpired. At that point anyone that could avail him/herself of a dial up account could use the exciting "Information Highway". Now programs would be designed less for strict functionality and more for drawing the public's attention and imagination - creativity had crept into the mix.
=====
POINT
=====Because it encourages people to express themselves with fancy formatting rather than with carefully chosen words.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============People have never needed any encouragement in the area of poorly chosen wording. It may actually be more correct to state that for those who find it difficult to express themselves, HTML email provides additional avenues. Naturally this is an issue of opinion and point of view.
=====
POINT
=====Because it introduces compatibility problems with text-based clients like the hundreds of thousands of Pine users out there (see screenshot below).
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============This is sort of like pointing out that the HTML web page of today makes it increasingly difficult to use the Internet effectively with Internet Explorer 3.x. Although correct, basically the email client you are discussing is outmoded for today's general email traffic. You are fighting the Betamax VS VHS issue. Although Betamax was a superior format, the public at large chose VHS and today you cannot find a mass market video store renting betamax tapes. The same is true of Pine and other text only email clients.
=====
POINT
=====Because it introduces accessibility problems. When you write in plain text, the receiving mail client renders the text in whatever font the reader chooses. When you format email with HTML, the sender controls the formatting. But this is a trap: You only think your message will render the same way to the viewer as it appears to the sender. In reality, the receiver can end up squinting because the font looks so tiny, or vice versa. HTML is not rendered the same way from one viewing client to the next - all guarantee of accessibility goes out the window. This is especially problematic for visually impaired persons.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============True, as mass marketing occurs, 100% accessibility goes out the window. This is also true for HTML web pages. However it is also true that as with betamax tapes, the public's choice of VHS has forced you to make choices you may not enjoy.
=====
POINT
=====Because it can introduce security issues and trojan horses -- it's a gateway to danger as any Outlook user can tell you. HTML can include any number of scripts, dangerous links, controls, etc.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============True, very true and unfortunately some OS's are targeted more for these problems. Mass market companies have sprung up to address this issue with usually good results and affordable products - but it is true that 100% security is GONE with HTML email.
=====
POINT
=====Because it's being unfairly forced on the world by a single corporation (Microsoft).
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============I do not know if I'd agree with this point. It may be correct, however, since Microsoft does seem to have a record of pleasing the public and annoying system administrators with its new and updated products that probably could be better developed, although time-to-market would suffer. And so the general public and Sysadmins suffer with good software when the technologies exist for excellent software, even possibly bullet proof software if more time to develop were taken.
=====
POINT
=====- Because it takes a nice, short two-line e-mail body and makes it 15 lines long (see screenshot below).
- Because it more than doubles the size of e-mails as clients "handle" the issue by sending out plain text and HTML versions of the same e-mail. This of course also means increased bandwidth consumption, which -- take note all you bean pushers and IT professionals -- ultimately drives up costs.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============The issue of bandwidth is an increasingly less important one. Just like the roadways of the past, the Internet will be widened for the general user - which in the near future will be someone on some broadband connection with 24 hour access without dialup.
=====
POINT
=====Because it makes email software larger, slower, and more complicated, greatly increasing the chances of crashes and compatibility problems, as well as wasting memory, hard disk space, and CPU cycles. Think about it: to process HTML email, you're basically putting a web browser _inside_ your email program! (To give you an idea of how strongly some people feel about this, the person who contributed this also says "There are many who think it's okay just turn off the HTML option, but for the above reason, I refuse to use an email program that even has it as an _option_. I still use Claris Emailer and will never switch to anything else (I have an old Mac at home that I use for nothing but email, so I don't have to worry about ever being forced to upgrade to a "better" email client)."
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============Mentioning CPU cycles is a moot point unless you have a 286 or 386 processor running modern software - which is slim possibility, if any. The main thrust of this point is again the "I want to use my betamax video player in a VHS world". The amazing thing is that the "betamax video player" in this case actually has some minor successes in reading its "rival format".
=====
POINT
=====Because people spend more time choosing a font that the recipient probably doesn't even have on their system than in choosing their words carefully.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============Not a personal experience of mine. This is an aggravating point that the email client will handle, if somewhat less than perfectly. This issue was previously addressed in your 4th point.
=====
POINT
=====Because it wreaks havoc with any mailing list that sends out digests.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============I suppose the point is that sending HTML-formatted emails to a list that offers digests (which I assume are text only by nature) causes problems. This is an issue for the emailing list admin to make his/her users aware of, and has nothing to do with the capabilities of any given email client. Also, digests may someday change (??) to meet the "popular public's" email preference.
=====
POINT
=====Because it forces programmers writing e-mail clients to choose between supporting it and implementing features that will actually help handle e-mail.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============I think "features that will actually help handle e-mail" are probably the basis for HTML email clients. After all it is useless to compose email messages if they cannot be sent. I must be missing the point here.
=====
POINT
=====Because it violates the e-mail standards and protocols unnecessarily. Most users never use any of the "advanced" options and those who do typically go overboard -- usually spammers who use HTML's fancy styles as a way to garner attention.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============Email standards are changing. Possibly it is true that changing email standards itself instead of building HTML into it may have been a neater way to go. However it would also be re-inventing the wheel. If there is a way to neatly expand email standards to include formatting and graphics without introducing HTML's scripting and virus vulnerabilities, I am sure someone is working on it.
If you are simply re-stating the opinion that email is not meant for formatting and graphics then again it is the VHS VS betamax issue, imho.
=====
POINT
=====The only possible reasonable purposes for HTML e-mail are simple text styles such as bold and italics which can be expressed _in_ *other* WAYS that are /universally/ readable. :-)
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============Opinion. This may be **your** only possible reasonable purposes for HTML email. The world disagrees - VHS VS betamax issue.
=====
POINT
=====Because it encourages companies to think it's OK to do things like include code that will let them know if you're reading their e-mail. This actually happened to a friend, who received an e-mail from infobeat asking why he wasn't reading their daily news e-mails. I consider that a gross violation of privacy.
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============I do not know the distant past, but in the past several years ports of Outlook Express by default pop up a window alerting the email recipient that a return receipt was requested and asking if it should be sent. The issue here is finding those who use this information in this "automated" way and not using their services. IF I got such an inquiry via email I'd have some harsh words for the daily news provider.
=====
POINT
=====Because its presence, and the public's complicity with it, encourages the abuse of advertising bloat in your inbox. Knowing they can do eye-catching banner ads, spammers and corporations (such as Barnes and Noble) will fill half a page with ads for this and that, creating visual and mental clutter we'd all be better off without. We get enough of that on the web - we don't need it in our inboxes as well. Matt Pervy adds this observation:
==============
COUNTERPOINT
==============1) If Matt Pervy is worth reading then he would know the word is "useless", and not "use-less". 2) I do not think that HTML email encourages advertising via email. Almost any form of communication is leveraged by advertisers selling their products including having fast talking salesman knocking at your door to clean your carpet for free if you let them demonstrate how great the vacuum cleaner/shampooer is that they want to sell to you. No the issue is advertisers will find a way to reach you regardless of whether or not you even use email, again imho.
Regards,
George