I had the same reaction and at the bottom it goes more into details of the reasoning why plaintext is better. I, however disagree on pretty much all the points.
Yes, but some of the rationale is up to dispute, or simply out dated. For example, there is not an email client these days that do not render rich text/HTML. Those who do not, will convert it to plain text. Nothing to lose.
Besides making phishing easier (by disguising links, unless you hover over them), what exactly does HTML add?
Most people simply bang out a bunch of text without any formatting: what does wrapping HTML around that add? I have yet to see a layman someone add useful typographic flourishes to any business communications. Any "advanced" formatting has always come from marketers.
People use bold and italics, section headers, inline images, tables, text highlighting. The list goes on. Is it really that hard to wrap your head around the fact that formatting is useful for communication?
HTML emails are mainly used for marketing - that is, emails you probably don't want to see in the first place. The few advantages they offer for end-users, such as links, inline images, and bold or italic text, aren't worth the trade-off.
The idea that marketing emails = "you don't want them" is fairly popular in some crowds, but it's contradicted by the tremendous business success of using marketing emails. The reality is that most people want and use marketing emails.
For example, I'm signed up for marketing emails from several airlines and these routinely save me money when booking vacations. Cheap airline tickets are a limited resource, so real-time notification of new availability has financial value to me.
Same with end-of-season sales for clothing I like. One company gives email recipients 1-2 days to shop before the sale is posted publicly on the website and social media.
It also ignores the tremendous popularity of email newsletters, which employ HTML formatting to improve the user experience, exactly the same way content websites do. In fact HTML email newsletters are often better than websites, because email clients don't execute javascript. The advertising is far less intrusive.
duiker101|6 years ago
mrweasel|6 years ago
>Plain text is sufficient for the vast majority of all non-advertising emails.
None of the emails I receive on a daily basis needed to be HTML. The main reason for it, is allowing people to use their company logo in the footer.
jypepin|6 years ago
ignaloidas|6 years ago
davidcollantes|6 years ago
throw0101a|6 years ago
Besides making phishing easier (by disguising links, unless you hover over them), what exactly does HTML add?
Most people simply bang out a bunch of text without any formatting: what does wrapping HTML around that add? I have yet to see a layman someone add useful typographic flourishes to any business communications. Any "advanced" formatting has always come from marketers.
esoterica|6 years ago
aloisdg|6 years ago
HTML emails are mainly used for marketing - that is, emails you probably don't want to see in the first place. The few advantages they offer for end-users, such as links, inline images, and bold or italic text, aren't worth the trade-off.
and more at https://useplaintext.email/#why-plaintext
snowwrestler|6 years ago
For example, I'm signed up for marketing emails from several airlines and these routinely save me money when booking vacations. Cheap airline tickets are a limited resource, so real-time notification of new availability has financial value to me.
Same with end-of-season sales for clothing I like. One company gives email recipients 1-2 days to shop before the sale is posted publicly on the website and social media.
It also ignores the tremendous popularity of email newsletters, which employ HTML formatting to improve the user experience, exactly the same way content websites do. In fact HTML email newsletters are often better than websites, because email clients don't execute javascript. The advertising is far less intrusive.
atombender|6 years ago