What is Digg?84 Comments
- mikes1, on 10/11/2007, -13/+54Please, no. (unless you want to look really clueless)
http://www.efn.no/html-bad.html - ArchieAndrews, on 10/11/2007, -7/+34HTML sigs? Wtf, when did someone decide this was no longer a lousy idea? Did I miss a meeting?
- SteveMax, on 10/11/2007, -3/+29@resplence
That's not a Gmail feature. Gmail explicitly disallows HTML signatures. This is a Firefox extension that adds them (as in, "add a bunch of HTML to the bottom of all outgoing e-mail). Don't blame Google for this, blame the stupid kid who thinks this is a good idea, and the other stupid kid who programmed it. - uttles, on 10/17/2007, -13/+38I always thought anything but plain text in emails was pretty gay.
- varish, on 10/11/2007, -6/+25plan text email then :) i was under the false impression that using sigs are cool after reading the article :P
- grawity, on 10/17/2007, -11/+29HTML in e-mails sux0rz. And it sux even more in sigs.
- Gold3n, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Although I don't mind HTML signatures in private personal emails, I really hate it when people send these gigantic image laden signatures in the business world. When their weird formating makes their signature four times the size of the rest of the text, I just laugh.
- Jugalator, on 10/17/2007, -8/+22***** HTML mails.
- kbull, on 10/17/2007, -8/+21Buried as lame... because if your email sig is anything but text you are annoying.
- Otto, on 10/17/2007, -6/+17HTML in email? I can think of no better way to get ignored.
What we really need is a GMail feature that will autorespond to people and say "Your email was rejected because it contained HTML. Try again, but this time, send it as plain text like the rest of the world."
I would use that feature. - brasso, on 10/17/2007, -4/+15I hate HTML in emails... It isn’t used for anything good anyway, most HTML emails I receive is someone who just discovered how to change the colour and font of the text so it can’t be read.
- *jooloop*, on 10/17/2007, -5/+15Isn't that what a sig is? a signiture/message at the bottom of an e-mail?
- whitecamarors, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17Agreed. HTML signatures are stupid. Do nothing but bloat email traffic and look gay.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12"Do you sign your memos at the top of the page, too?"
No, but then again, I don't copy the letter I'm replying to verbatim, either.
"We're not railing against sigs, we're railing against html sigs."
It amazes me we live in a world where on-demand video over the internet is commonplace, but puting a simple image in an email is hard to do.
sometimes, I just want to attach an image and write some text next to it. - folletto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Nice story, bad ending. ;)
The e-mail standard support a thing called mime-type. It's designed to allow you to have a single mail with both text and html. A well formatted e-mail is both text AND html.
Html in an e-mail is a delicate thing, but could be done without harming anyone. Instead, it could increase the readability and effectiveness. A well designed signature, balanced WITH CSS to be unobtrusive, light and separated from the text flow, is better from any point of view.
Also, if you notice text is often used VARY BADLY in e-mails, adding huge paragraph just to obtain a "nice signature", that will be better if made with just unobtrusive CSS.
As said, the issue are the users, not the text-or-html e-mails. :)
The same happens on the web. A bad designed page is bad regardless of the technology used (tables or css). So, usually is better a plain text page. But if the page is well designed, you are getting the most from CSS pages, so they are rendered correctly on any browser.
If you wanna feel 'cool', 'hackish' or 'right' because everyone - also, here - says "text is the only right way", feel free to do it. Instead, you can turn on the brain and realize that there's no spoon... er... that the only answer is "it depends". ;) - SteveMax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Do you sign your memos at the top of the page, too?
- brasso, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12Welcome to the Internet DanielMartin! I’m pretty sure HTML in emails never ever has been good for anything else than exploiting Outlook and using images to verify if spam is read or not.
- diversionmary, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Wait till you work in the corporate world.
Not only do you get fancy be-fonted and img'd sigs, you get disclaimers. - resplence, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9You got it.
- nonsecu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Dear New (1994 and later) and clueless Internet User,
Please save your ridiculous, non-standard, broken and (at least in my MUA) unreadable signatures for your inter-office, windows-based email.
There is no reason to confirm your cluelessness with an HTML based sig - it will be apparent from your content alone.
I would tell you to go back to AOL, but I suspect even their demise pre-dates your active participation on the public Internet. - inactive, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4Hmm, HTML in email. Here's one word to sum it up:
Disgusting. - jeriqo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Eye candy.
Why would you need images and css on digg ? heh - changyang1230, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@charlotte_web
Your answer was answered by wiihuck below, I would just elaborate a bit on what he said:
The signature being located at the bottom in a reply message has always been a nuisance to many people, and the "better gmail" extension has an option to move the signature to where it should be. Better gmail extension, by the way, is a great extension which combines some of the best gmail greasemonkey scripts in one place.
Better Gmail extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4866
The standalone "signature float" greasemonkey script:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/3067 - arizonagroove, on 10/17/2007, -5/+8HTML in email is a concept that should have been strangled at birth. Then the people who conceived it should have had their AOL accounts closed to keep them away from the Internet.
- idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5IMO, email clients should support <b>, <i>, <u>, and <a>, and fixed-width font. Any more is superfluous and goes beyond what email is intended to provide.
- rapier, on 10/17/2007, -5/+8Email has always been, and should always be, plain text. This is just another way to piss off people and use more bandwidth.
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -3/+6@jerigo:
"eye candy" is often useless or annoying.
"Why would you need images and css on digg ?"
Images, because they can. CSS is for formatting the page. Neither are needed in email, and can be counterproductive (see image spam).
@folletto:
I never asked about SIGNATURES. I asked about HTML and rich text.
Signatures:
1) this can be done by the email client and does not require HTML. It does not fall into anything I asked.
2) This is what white space is for and it does not require HTML or rich text.
3) Does not require HTML or even rich text.
Rich Mails:
1. MIME and attachments need neither rich text or HTML.
2. I will concede that it may be nice to be able to do this, but it is completely unnecessary for anyone with adult communication skills.
3. This has been done for years before rich text was used in email by means of indentation and line markers.
"In any case, it non-obtrusive and makes an email better to be read. :)"
Unless, of course, one is a text only email client, in which case it clutters the screen horribly.
It is called Electronic Mail. It is a text communication method. One can use MIME to attach files just as one would enclose non-text items in a letter. There is no need for HTML and precious little use for rich text. - folletto, on 10/17/2007, -5/+8Saying "html signatures are bad" is simply an exaggeration. Everything is bad is used badly. Even a sheet of paper. :P
I'm using a clean "HTML" signature since a few months ago, whan I found this tutorial:
http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/archives/2006/03/a_guide_to_css_1.html
It uses a bit of CSS: a border, a font-size, a color, an align. With this in mind, I did a small and nice signature that looks well quite everywhere, and if the client is text-only it displays just text (since the style is CSS). - ManHammer, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10bad idea
- IronChef, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I may get flamed for this but I'm from the old school BBS days when email was read with SLMR, Wildcats OLX, and QWK email readers. And, yes I even used OS/2 back then too. I thought taglines were pretty cool back then. Random tagline generators were all the rage. Perhaps a come back for them would be in order.
- resplence, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3stevemax is right. digg him up and bury me for being everything I dislike in a digger :(
- phlogiston99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3What's with the gay bashing?
- Spr0k3t, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I like to reply to html encoded email messages with the < changed to < and > to > Sometimes I like to be a dick and change all the to &psbn; I'd say 90% of the html based email I receive is spam... so it's extremely easy to filter.
--
This tagline is shareware, send $2.95 in a SASE to receive your key.file to read the original tagline. - changyang1230, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Digg wiihuck up, he's right.
The signature being located at the bottom in a reply message has always been a nuisance to many people, and the "better gmail" extension has an option to move the signature to where it should be. Better gmail extension, by the way, is a great extension which combines some of the best gmail greasemonkey scripts in one place.
Better Gmail extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4866
The standalone "signature float" greasemonkey script:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/3067 - mrgoat, on 10/17/2007, -6/+7Rich email sigs are for utter ***** *****.
Fact. - inactive, on 10/17/2007, -5/+6Can someone explain to me why we need HTML, or even rich text in email?
- tpink, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"IMO, email clients should support , , , and , and fixed-width font. Any more is superfluous and goes beyond what email is intended to provide."
That's what RTF is for (although I don't think RTF natively support hyperlinks, everything else it does). - actionjackson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3What's wrong with some of you? Spammers use HTML, as do people with no sense of elegant, unobtrusive web design. Given.
Spammers also use images. Given.
Therefore, anyone who uses HTML or images in email is an ignorant loser?!
Well, I'll one up you 'tards. Spammers also use....wait for it.....EMAIL! Therefore, any one of you morons who uses email is a flaming idiot! Make sense? Of course not!!
Just because you ignorantly eschew the merits of the time tested and proven benefits of graphic design does not make you any more 1337! - folletto, on 10/17/2007, -4/+5Regarding *well* designed signatures and mails:
Signatures:
1. It is useful to add business related informations automatically.
2. It is useful to separate the body from the signature.
3. It is nice to see well designed signatures because they characterize the writer as the real signatures.
Rich Mails:
1. It is useful to send attachments (it's multipart mime type, the same thing that allows rich mails).
2. It is useful to make semantic annotations (strong, emphasis, links).
3. It is useful to separate different text types in the mails (I usually put the code snippets in Courier)
In any case, it non-obtrusive and makes an email better to be read. :)
Be careful: these are points if you use the 'richness' wisely. Exactly like on the web (well designed website vs bad designed website). :) - folletto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'll add just a technical detail:
"1. MIME and attachments need neither rich text or HTML. "
To support attachments, html, richtext, utf-8, etc, ANY mail requires this command:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; [...]
By RFC:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc1341/7_2_Multipart.html
This little thing splits a single e-mail message into multiple parts. Each part has a MIME type: it could be text/plain, text/html, or any other MIME type.
So, if a mail supports MIME and multipart, it also supports HTML or any other standart type. Each content is in a different part of the e-mail and so it doesn't interfere if you prefer to see text/plain only.
As stated before, a good designed signature is displayed as plain text in the default ascii part.
In the end, anyone could do whatever he or she prefers, without silly religion wars. :) - bryhhh, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1But if you are a good boy and bottom post like you supposed to, the sig will be at the bottom anyway.
- wiihuck, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3i use html for links. if i want to send a link of a book on amazon to my dad, i don't want the link taking up three lines in his email.
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -5/+6Rich text sigs are for the ***** clueless. So is using Gmail for anything important.
- tjarrett, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Can get the same effect by using just greasemonkey and http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/3067
- rgallagher, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
..tbh - Moby22, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@mikes1,
With all due respect to Thomas Gramstad, when he wrote that article he has some valid points, most of which had to do with being considerate to others. The problem is that the article is outdated (written five years ago). E-mail standards have come a long way since then. The reason consideration was needed at the time was because many recipients were running clients that adhered to older standards.
According to current standards, a properly written client should be able to handle various MIME types properly, including throwing out any non-text content if the user desires (Gramstad even makes this point). Thus, blind users and mailing lists can still read HTML-encoded e-mail, as long as it is accompanied by the appropriate plain text body. Of course, this depends on the originating client being smart enough to generate the plain text body when it generates the HTML body, as well as the receiving client being recent enough to comply with current standards.
Most of Gramstad's comments deal with specific technology that is now in minority use, if at all. However, he makes some points that are still valid, such as spam and virus concerns, but these are being dealt with effectively using methods employed by the receiving clients. Even his concern about allowing the user to control the look of the e-mail can be resolved with current technology such such as user-defined style sheets, or again by simply discarding the HTML content body in favour of the plain text one.
There are still problems with HTML-formatted e-mail, but they are constantly being reduced as application developers improve their e-mail clients. In my opinion, e-mail will be an eternal thorn in the Internet's side. The truth is that the concept of e-mail (a public address to which anyone can send content) is inherently flawed, which is to say that by nature it invites abuse - in a similar system, junk mail invades your physical post mailbox, even after all these years. Our emerging technologies for counteracting malicious code and spammy messages are on the right path to minimizing the problem, but no technology can solve it completely, even by replacing the current ARPA-generation of standards. The question is, how do we cope with these problems on the social level, rather than the technical one? Perhaps we shun e-mail entirely for an invitation-only system (not unlike current IM technology, which even allows for offline messaging and message archiving these days). Only time will tell. - wiihuck, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3why do i get dugg down for answering a question? the guy who replied first -- and has been dugg up -- obviously didn't understand the question, but i get the opposite treatment? this place is backwards.
- grawity, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1wiihuck: tinyurl.com
- AxsDeny, on 10/17/2007, -6/+6If you can't convey what you want in plain text email, then you are a poor communicator.
I haven't heard a good argument for why HTML (or RTF) is necessary at all in email. Colored text is uneccessary. If you need images in an email, add them as attachments, not inline decoration. -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is