MVDM

wrote on January 12, 2007 3:54 PM

....

jaw - floor.... Where is the frick'n sense in this? Is it 'cuz they didn't employ people who can understand CSS?? WTF??!!

Chris Harrison

wrote on January 12, 2007 4:08 PM

You're not the only one ticked by this decision. I'm still in disbelief over this decision. Something definitely needs to be done. We can't sit idly by while Microsoft screws this up! I wrote something brief on my site that addresses more about how I feel... (http://cdharrison.com/index.php/2007/01/10/open-letter-to-microsoft/)

We need to let the Office Team know how we feel!!!!

Waxibo

wrote on January 12, 2007 4:40 PM

What a moronic decision. it's up there with finding WMD in Iraq.
Everyone knows it's total BS but we're powerless to do anything.
Spitefulness or laziness? Maybe both.

Andrew Swinn

wrote on January 12, 2007 6:11 PM

My first thought was that Microsoft were putting another crazy idea out there to annoy us all. But after a second I kind of thought this might be good as I dislike HTML emails. If the client that has the majority share disables the ability to have multimedia presentations filling up my inbox, then I think this has some good points. I know it is possible for people to create really nice looking pages with very little size overhead, but alas most people abuse it and create overweight messages.

However on the other side of the coin, I dislike most Microsoft products and this decision is rising to prominence one of the worst features of any Microsoft product ever made!

Dave Greiner

wrote on January 12, 2007 9:06 PM

I kind of thought this might be good as I dislike HTML emails

Andrew, just to clarify, this doesn't do anything to stop HTML emails, it simply means many of the emails you receive will be mangled and difficult to read. This will only add to your frustration.

Craig Killick

wrote on January 12, 2007 9:06 PM

You would have thought that as these technologies and marketing techniques come of age, so would the technology.

Unfortunately Microsoft are big enough (for now) to do what they want. Whilst the other big boys, Google and Apple, innovate and keep pushing forward, Microsoft are living on old glories.

The sad thing is it will push people away. Especially the more tech savvie, who in turn sell the products for companies like Microsoft through word-of-mouth and, with blogs and social media outlets so much more in use, that word will spread that much quicker.

Steve Tucker

wrote on January 12, 2007 9:29 PM

"Bad" doesn't describe this. "Incomprehensible" isnt even quite there.

Though somehow Microsoft's decisions always make me laugh...

Kimberley Grey

wrote on January 12, 2007 9:41 PM

Oh, for crying out loud! I'm not even an email designer and this has got me bashing my head against my desk!

Come on Microsoft, stop being such a pain in the neck.

edu

wrote on January 12, 2007 9:43 PM

Why you don't just move to Thunderbird & Firefox?
We are enjoying tabbed browsing, real web 2.0, inteligent spam filters, and a large etcetera since years.

Please, show your disappointment to Microsoft by moving out from their crappy software :)

Patrick S

wrote on January 12, 2007 10:02 PM

Hey there... I guess this is attrubuted to Vista's. IE has been split from the windows shell thus meaning that if IE is not installed on the computer Internet Explorer cannot render the HTML. See when you are in XP if you type in a url in Explorer it will go to the page "inplace" however if you open up Vista and try to put in the URL windows will open up your default browser to open the page. :)

Regards,
Patrick S

Ian

wrote on January 12, 2007 10:57 PM

Well, that's ruined my day (and probably year). I've spent a long time encouraging clients to embrace email as a valuable brand building channel. Now it seems all I can offer them is a very plain, basic design. I expect performance across the board to drop off badly. We need someone to either come up with a great set of hacks, or for MS to realize the error of their ways and patch it up.

Luc Pestille

wrote on January 12, 2007 11:08 PM

Absolutely incredulous decision by MS - what next, the blink tag being validated as strict by the W3C? It's taken years to get to the stage where I can template something in a very short amount of time because I know what will and won't work, but soon I'll have to go back to the stone ages. It's ridiculous, and I hope OE2007 dies as soon as it can, or everyone switches to ThunderBird.

Johnny

wrote on January 12, 2007 11:13 PM

David,

When you tried to come with reasons about why Microsoft goes this way I think you forgot to mention "Reason 4: to kill their competition".

Microsoft knows they can't compete in CSS and standards so they, knowing most of the cake is theirs, step back to their solution.

Mind you, they might plan to come with a service like "Microsoft Newsletters Service" where they will offer their "way" of doing things which are the way that Outlook will support best.

Just my thought.

Bob Mc Adoo

wrote on January 12, 2007 11:15 PM

Patrick - I don't think the core of the problem is Vista. Sure, XP "browser in the shell" was a quick solution to the fact that outlook and word share the same libraries and you use Ms Word to compose and edit email messages. The real problem is the html rendering engine of MS Word.

Ed

wrote on January 12, 2007 11:55 PM

What the hell is Microsoft playing at?!? This is crazy... they bang on about IE7 being more standards-compliant than ever.... and then they decide to use the Word rendering engine for Outlook?!?!

I can't believe that Microsoft want to make all our lives hell

Marcus Taylor

wrote on January 13, 2007 12:05 AM

WTF! We may as well all resort back to plain text again... who made that decision?

I guess a company that decides that nine options to switch off a computer is good idea, thinks that ditching CSS standards is a good idea too. The beast is getting old and doddery and is becoming incontinent.

How many geeks does it take to switch of a compter?

Hadge

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:17 AM

Its like all of Baldrick's cunning plans rolled into one :|
.eshot {position:in the toilet; float:"like lead";}

Tee

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:32 AM

Screw 'em.

I'll continue to design to standards, and I'll explain to any clients that the problem lies with their choice of software. I've already got 95% of my client base on Firefox / Thunderbird anyway.

Incidentally - there's no reason why MS can't tie the MSHTML engine into Outlook, the same way that Mozilla have linked Gecko to Thunderbird (for example, you don't need Firefox installed to run Thunderbird). They are just lazy.

I really think this will badly affect their dominance in regards to browser / email software.

Chris

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:44 AM

I'm sure that security considerations are the main reason. I think the Office-team is relatively independent from the IE-team and that they don't want IEs security problems any longer.
Apart from this whole Outlook issue writing HTML for mails is -- depending on the target-audience -- always a pain in the ass. Just think of thousands of web-mailers, historic software installations in corporate environments and so on...

Jake Rutter

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:08 AM

Where is the official release for this? This is crazy!

Alan

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:19 AM

Why? My guess is someone saw a security issue or future opportunity and needed to stop either IE7 or Vista(?) being hurt and so made this mad, sad move.

They have done wonders (by their previous standards) with IE7 from IE6 but sadly it's seems the weird, fragmented approach they portray sometimes has repeated, but this time with bigger ramifications.

J T

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:21 AM

Okay, my boss (we are all email designers) is flying off the handle on this one. He's comparing this one to Netscape 4....even worse! We had changed the way we did things here, including implementing more CSS, divs, etc. That's out the window now.

Someone should start a petition, requesting the reconstruct of such a barbaric idea. What ever happened to moving forward with technology??

G@Leh

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:48 AM

Stunned, I have despised MS for years, and am weaning myself off of Office. I realize the hard and fast behind this tho, our customers that we are trying to reach out to are still using this garbage.

handsome rob

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:00 AM

I'm surprised they're not using Safari to render the emails, since they rip off and botch everything else Apple does.

CP _ Denver

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:02 AM

Whatever. No biggie. The world should be using Google products anyways. Go Gmail!

David Ross

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:27 AM

Is there anything we can do to stop this from happening? Can we write or complain or do something, anything to reverse their decision? This is ridiculous but I'm not shocked. I FUCKING hate microsoft. Sorry for curse but I absolutely hate them.

Peter

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:38 AM

Be happy you dont use Lotus Notes. Their rendering is more then 5 years back

Anna

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:38 AM

This truely makes me want to cry. What the fuck!

What can we do?

Bubby

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:39 AM

So let me guess - this will allow all of those poor people in small business to go back to MS Word to create their email newsletters (or Outlook to send them) after we took all the time explaining why that was a bad idea. Nice. I'd venture to agree with another post here - Microsoft is going to really get into the email marketing game. They are jumping in heaviuly into CRM - it actually makes sense to allow users to build and deploy emails from their suite in the not to distant future. Will this hit guys like Campaign Monitor hard?

Anon_user

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:42 AM

Why is this such a big deal? HTML emails are far more dangerous and very annoying anyway. Go back to plain text for emails and use webpages to be creative.

Sank

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:44 AM

I like it. I've gotten emails from clients using the background images just b/c they look "pretty" and it ends up destroying the message formatting when I try to reply. Also, it's less junk taking up bandwidth. If you need graphical pretty things sent to specific people, find another way.

Gary

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:45 AM

Hate to be a spoiler, but I long for the days when my email didn't look like a webpage.

Email should be fast and efficient.

Graphical email is not.

As for what you can do to "stop this", probably the only thing you are going to be able to do is either buy the majority share in Microsoft or get hired on the Outlook development team and advance to a high enough position as to be able to make the decisions about the direction of the software.

Rich Black

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:46 AM

I'm no fan of using the Word rendering engine, but the real problem lies in the overuse of HTML mail. Anyone who doesn't use Outlook already has problems similar to the ones this switch will cause, and there are only two ways to ensure perfect rendering; Use plain text for emails, and use PDFs for pizazz.

Adam

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:47 AM

I'm almost positive it has to do with the whole Anti-Trust issue. The answer that would make the most sense to me would be the word rendering engine is part of Office. IE is not and therefore instigate the issue that people are being forced to upgrade and use IE versus alternatives. I think its a step in the right direction but i believe that it has hindered the users experiance because of it. Only time will tell if they stick to their guns and give some resolution on it.

I was a beta tester of Office 2007 and i actually thoroughly enjoyed the software. When i went back to 2003 when switching jobs i actually became less efficient. Also i never even noticed the issue and i'm betting others wont either.

Sam Liddicott

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:52 AM

"No Frames"

Find a way to generate a belittling message that only shows when word is rendering the email.

Let it explain that Word is below par, well out of date etc, and suggest alternatives.

MS may hate their customers to be repeatedly told that their email client is not good enough.

Pete

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:52 AM

I cannot comprehend why MS refuses to comply with well-established standards. Normally, I wouldn't be too concerned, but I send e-mails regularly and it's already hard enough getting mail to render evenly across e-mail clients (even with minimal css/html). This is just plain stupid. Thanks for the thorough explanation, though!

CB

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:53 AM

I think this is a great move. I'm sick and tired of html email and hopefully this will reduce the number of people that think its cool to put html, background images, and all that other crap in an email.

ICTerify

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:56 AM

Currently using Vista and Office 2007 and I do not see these problems problems. I even make HTML based newsletters an I have do do not changes to the way i create them. It looks like FUD to me.

Fred Johnsen

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:58 AM

stop crying... BUY A MAC!!!

Defiant1

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:59 AM

I don't want a browser rendering my emails. I want text emails. I'd be content if all pictures were attachments. Go back another 5 years Microsoft.

Defiant1

Nick Schmidt

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:00 AM

outlook sucks anyway.. well at least on my computer here at work...
outlook is sooooo slow

Scot

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:05 AM

Hey, maybe now we can get email back to what it's supposed to be. Text-based. HTML email has always been problematic and you've never been really sure about what the other person would see depending on their email client.

dave

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:07 AM

I absolutely, positively never, ever use Outlook, except when I'm forced to at some jobsite. So I could really care less what email rendered within that idiotic program looks like.

Email to Outlook users should, from now on, be considered text only by default. If someone complains, there's a solution: quit using Outlook.

Mike Silverstein

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:07 AM

Let's talk a little bit about spamminess, and why HTML might not be the way to go in email.

We run SpamAssassin, a requirement when each email account averages 150+ spam messages per day.

HTML is already suspicious and gets -10 -- -40 if HTML only. Since -50 is quarantine, your beautifully crafted HTML only message is precariously close to deletion already.

Email containing .gif receive no score - they are automatically quarantined. Quarantine is more or less a death sentence for your email as there is so much spam in the quarantine, your message becomes hard to spot as legit. Nobody bothers to look in there unless an expected message is not received.

HTML links are automatically -10. All links are examined and compared to a database and if present, deleted.

There are dozens of other rules, most not HTML-related. But a regular-expression database match between words in your message might mean deletion - "stick" being too close to "stock" might dock you that final 10 points and quarantine.

These are default rules. Some ISP's might turn them up if they are really getting bombarded.

Due to past abuse by marketers, text might actually be your best bet at getting your message through.

david

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:08 AM

For years we were left with IE hacks to webpages so the design would look the same as it did in clean code on the rest of the browsers. The promise of IE7 to be hack free you'd think they'd import the rendering engine from IE7 into Outlook but instead are bringing Word's rendering engine into the program. Yep, that's innovation, I'm soo excited, I so look forward to this, (sarcasm). I work for a very large advertising agency, and we produce alot of html email. It's been frustrating that we cant' use CSS as much as we'd like because of email clients like Hotmail that seems to ignore or strip the code. But now we have to deal with Outlook 2007's rendering engine of Word, possibly one of the worst ever developed. ;(

No one in our IT or interactive groups are thrilled by this horrible decision from Microsoft. ;(

bub

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:11 AM

its not about weather we should have html emails or not - its about choice, not being able to choose is the problem

Bryan

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:12 AM

1. Email should be text only.
2. Email should be text only.
3. Though everyone complains about Microsoft, they will under absolutely no circumstances even consider trying any other product, so this is what we get. We're at the mercy of the beast.

@@wasibo

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:14 AM

You're funny!

On topic tho, this is a lame move by ms. They want to slow development & keep their monopolies. Hey monopo'lies' good one, I'm nearly funny too.

WTL

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:16 AM

After some thought, I believe what Microsoft is thinking is that because Outlook will now use Word's rendering engine, they will get people to *compose* emails in Word, so to get them formatted the way that they want, further locking people in to Office.

kw

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:20 AM

Great.

All those network managers who have spent so much time convincing employees to not open unknown word documents are now going to find they have no choice. (As the despised and vulnerable word engine will BE the email rendering engine.)

This cracks this virus attack vector WIDE open!

I whole heartedly agree that emails should be plain text, and hate when they have HTML and image content. This development only confirms my feelings on the matter.

Want me to see your pretty pictures? Don't waste my bandwidth. Send me a plain text url, and if I feel like it, I'll cut and paste it into my browser of choice.

Otherwise, just stay the hell out of my inbox.

Justin

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:22 AM

Is it possible that Word 2007's rendering engine has been updated to support things like CSS... haven't heard anything about it but doesnt this seem possible?

Android

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:26 AM

...just stop using Outlook

Josh Williams

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:26 AM

This is un-freaking-believable. Wow. And just like that we're all screwed.

Justin - Too funny!

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:27 AM

Too funny... Justin, your comment was not posted as I was typing mine, hope people realize we are two different people.

Lenny

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:28 AM

Lets all all just get thunder bird and forget about microsoft.

Rob

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:29 AM

You forget one important thing: you opinion is meaningless. MS has made their decision, and that's it. Serial monopolists are likely to come out with gems like this.

Jim

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:34 AM

I suppose we can thank all the idiots that don't want windows to ship with IE for this.

kitsimons

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:40 AM

Looks like it'll be a decent year for Thunderbird take-up then...

chris furniss

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:43 AM

I agree that Emails are supposed to be quick and simple text, and that HTML email really really sucks. Unfortunately, clients LOVE html email and most of the time it is very hard to convince them that their emails should look different than a landing page. In fact, I bet most "regular" users think that there is no difference between email and the internet. They couldn't care less, they just want something pretty.

When I make HTML emails (usually under protest) I always code them for the lowest common denomenator. Tables and inline CSS. Cause we have idiots like the people at Microsoft always doing things like this to crap everything up.

aeb

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:43 AM

I like html emails only when the amount of html is limited - some font colors, some information structured in a table, etc.

I for one welcome this change.

gb

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:44 AM

Yet another reason I can laugh at those who laugh at me when I say I still do primarily table layouts. While I see the power of CSS, I don't see how anyone can say it is the new "standard." When finally becomes a legit standard, great, I'll switch.

JB

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:45 AM

Who are all these cavemen craving text email? Don't you have Geico commercials to be in?

[kbox]

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:47 AM

Demon there is nothing wrong with HTML email.

But if the problem was with HTML email then why use an antiquated rendering engine to render that HTML in a poor way?

Just use linux people!

John Marstall

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:48 AM

HTML email isn't just for spam and marketing campaigns. Try organizing tabular data in ASCII, or soliciting responses to be fed to an automated system (think Netflix).

And even if you thing HTML email should go, the answer is not to replace the HTML renderer with one years out-of-date. The answer would be to remove support for HTML entirely.

Mind-boggling.

Robert D

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:51 AM

Not that this has not already been stated but, personally I force all email recieved via outllok to be formatted as plain text. However I think the option should be there for folks to recieve html formatted messages in all of there glory. At work if I had my way I would force enterprise wide text only emails.

HTML is made for a browser not my inbox but that is just my 2 cents.

Me

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:51 AM

Buy a Mac and you won't have this problem!

Chris

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:00 AM

Dear Microsoft,

You will get more flies with honey than you will with vinegar.

mb

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:01 AM

So how many of you actually use Outlook at home? And if you do... why? Outlook is packaged as a corporate client... and as a corporate customer, we don't allow HTML mail. So what is the problem? If you MS haters actually looked around, and maybe attended a free office presentation (yes MS has office software launches and other presentations for free), you may actually see that 95% of the user base WANTED it this way. So stop crying, use your open source app or whatever you want. You can CHOOSE not to use the software. And yes, there are other packages out there so none of that shit argument either!

Sean

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:02 AM

Saying emails should be only text is like saying emails should not be used for marketing purposes. Like that's going to happen.

Romeyn

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:04 AM

Yay! E-mail is for TEXT.

You want to make a web page? Make a web page and post it to a WEB SERVER and E-mail the link.

Nick

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:11 AM

If you don't like something in an open source software, you (or a programmer you hire) can change it to your liking. You can't do that with proprietary software. If this was to happen in Thunderbird, there would be a fork with a fix available within a day. This is why I choose Free software (that's Free as in Freedom).

Kendra

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:13 AM

I'm completely discouraged because I just started putting together html e-mails and now I have to be cautious about this?! Microsoft is a joke let's all switch to Macs!

Tom

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:14 AM

HTML > /dev/null

Ray

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:14 AM

Folks it is simple stop using Microsoft and switch to Linux ,, Microsoft has been telling you all how to do your work for years it is time to shut them down once and for all and get rid of there crap OS's and programs

we use Firefax here and have noe problems

mav

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:16 AM

Word has a crapload of exploits available for it too.

I figure this is all about making it easier for people to take Word documents and turn them into emails. It increases Office lock-in.

And as far as everyone who has suggested changing e-mail clients, well, that's not really possible in an enterprise environment - most large companies are locked into the Exchange/Outlook combination and would require something as good or better to come along before they would ever consider migrating. (Believe me, the number of network admins that dream about this happening is not small, but so far nobody else has released anything that really competes with the functionality of Outlook + Exchange.)

Me, I can only hope this decreases the number of people sending crappy HTML emails, because I am utterly sick of Outlook locking up and taking 30-40 seconds to load all the associated crap from the Exchange server for a message I'm just going to delete anyway.

someone

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:16 AM

Why not give it up and go back to good old basic text only messages. They don't waste server space with images & all the html code, you don't have to worry about the rendering, plus it definitely removes the IE security problems.

Larry

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:17 AM

I agree with the text based email only. If I want to see pretty pictures and layouts, I can load up Firefox. It's called including a "hires" link inside of your email people. I hate getting 30 emails a day that are HTML and image ridden, and don't even display correctly. I don't use Outlook, I use Thunderbird.

Microsoft has always been retarded when it comes to things like this.

Maybe this is where Thunderbird overthrows Outlook for non-work users?

John

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:24 AM

The EU has told MS they should not bundle technologies, and MS has been fined hundreds of millions of dollars for non compliance. So if HTML e-mail is of value to the recipient (and based on this discussion, that's debateable) then the door is open for competitors. At this point, the trend of this discussion seems to be that while this decision an affront to those who professionally design HTML e-mail for others, it is viewed as somewhat positive by those who simply consume e-mail.

I think there has been an opportunity for a while to develop forms technologies using HTML e-mail, that has been ignored in favor of proprietary technologies such as Acrobat. It's a pity that there was not more widespread respect for the platform, rather than it becoming a launchpad and primary vector for unwanted spam.

M$ Hater

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:29 AM

And I thought Linux would bring M$'s demise. I think Ballmer & Co. have the task well in hand.

Don't have to worry about an iceberg, the ship already has a hole.

Torgie

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:29 AM

"I think this is a great move. I'm sick and tired of html email and hopefully this will reduce the number of people that think its cool to put html, background images, and all that other crap in an email."

Wow, I can smell the viral marketting from here. I have been researching this topic, maybe a half-dozen of these blogs, and right around Jan. 13, 6am, the comments sections get inundated with the same rhetoric : "Email is for text, if you want to get all creative, use webpages!"

Honestly? Really? I swear I've seen exact copies and pastes from one blog to the other as I read up on this issue. "Viral Marketting" - it's sick.

Michael Young

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:30 AM

Poor decision? Absolutely. I'd much rather they strip out html altogether and revert all email to plaintext (html email is the debbil), but this middle ground hack job just annoys me, as does incompetence in general.

whiny

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:32 AM

awww everyone keep whining about how much they hate MS. Guess what people, they are not stupid I'm sure something will come about to fix this... Hasn't anyone learned that yet?

Simple Solution

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:33 AM

Render your whole layout and content as a .jpg Heh heh.

Captain Obvious

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:33 AM

Those who use Microsoft products deserve the lousy performance, security and heinous lock-in that they deserve.

In my view, only the abysmally clueless use Outlook in any incarnation.

If your corporate standard demands it, let the IT department pay the toll in man-hours and hair pulling. It's overhead, and Microsoft is making you pay it. If the PHBs specify such a terrible platform, they should be made to bear the brunt of the cost in dollars and pain.

Funny, I don't have these problems on OS X and Linux. What is it that I know, which you don't?

marc

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:33 AM

@torgie: first, i don't think you understand what viral marketing is.

Second, have you considered that this might be a digg/etc. effect? E.g., I was linked to this page from digg and left my HTML-mail hatred comment. If this site links to any other blogs discussing the same thing I would probably also chime in there about my profound hatred for HTML mail.

I imagine that there are two communities commenting here. One is the designer community that reads these blogs on a general basis, and probably is concerned about the negative effects on their design efforts. The other community has been brought here from Digg/etc. and is mostly techy-type people who hate HTML mail.

A different Tom

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:36 AM

Weirdly enough, the only HTML email that I look forward to is my monthly here's-some-news-and-cool-links from MSDN.

Tom

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:36 AM

P.S.: Sounds to me like the first real improvement in Outlook ever!!!

Mal

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:39 AM

Seems like a good thing to me. I dislike HTML email profusely and forcing spammers / marketers to start producing 'lite' HTML newsletters is a step in the right direction - they'll have to change if they have any common sense.

Emails should be text only, if you want send extra stuff then either link to a website or add it as an attachment.

Michael

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:40 AM

PS. I'm not a part of some pervasive anti-html email conspiracy, nor involved in any way with a group performing viral marketing to achieve such goals.

;)

Brian

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:43 AM

This is the best news I've heard from MS in a long time. Using IE in any form has always been a major security hole. The fact that a user had to use it, just to use Outlook, only made that worse. This is a great step forward, and also neccessary for their anti-trust issues.

Why do you assume that someone should have to have IE installed to view your ads? Personally I don't want "webpages" in my inbox. Send me a nicely formatted LETTER, fine, but if you want me to see a CSS formatted webpage... include a link. Corporately I user Opera and Firefox, as well as Outlook. I love the fact that now IE won't be sneaking in through Outlook.

Gene

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:45 AM

It's funny that there's so many HTML email haters that read & respond on a blog about HTML email... I bet you bash it here but take money to build them don't you...

As for M$, this is a lame move, just like every lame move they've made the past 10 years. They can only copy other innovations and days of them innovating are long gone. What do you expect?

I've always said that you should design your HTML emails as old school as possible, I know tables & in-line styles suck, but you almost have to use those techniques all the time now anyways, so your cover the bases, don't you?

Mav7469

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:47 AM

You know that there is a version called Outlook 2003, right??? All of your information is from a blogger. How can you be so stupid. I suppose you believe that the licensing in Microsoft Vista can not be transfered to another computer as well. You are an idiot. The reason that the rendering is now done in Word 2007 and not Internet Explorer is because it is required by LAW. That is right. This is what you get from the DOJ going after Microsoft as a monopoly. Microsoft Outlook can no longer assume that Internet Explorer is even loaded on a machine. That is number one.
Number two is that Microsoft has upgraded the HTML and CSS rendering to Microsoft word to "mimic" Internet Explorer. This way, Microsoft Office can be considered a "separate and different stand alone" product.
Maybe you should do a little more homework if you want to be considered a journalist instead of a one-sided blogger.

mk

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:47 AM

just curious, i keep seeing all these 'email is just for text' messages but ummm where is that written? At one time all a web page contained was some text and maybe a .gif image or two. Were you upset when more graphics and formatting were added to webpages also?

BrettFromTibet

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:49 AM

To hell with Microsoft! As a web developer who cries in trying to make things
work in IE... I say they are the worst software company in the history of the world.

They day they file for bankruptcy I will joyfully celebrate.

JUST SAY NO to WORD / IE / Outlook / Windows!

Only the designers / developers have the power to stop this.

NO MORE IE / Outlook hacks!

John Gladden

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:55 AM

Blame the right people here.

The SPAMMERS, NUKERS, and SCRIPT KIDDIES that constantly assault people's inboxes.

It's so easy to bash Microsoft and call for their demise. Might as well down all the power stations in the world too, because of their "negative environmental impact".

Use your head. If you're bored enough to have to point a finger at someone and blame them for all your problems, at least have the common sense to make sure you're pointing at the right person.

Ernie Oporto

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:58 AM

Don't care. Don't use Outlook.

mshater

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:59 AM

Microsoft? Do something stupid? That's unpossible..

Webjedi

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:59 AM

I have used Outlook 2007 for a few months and noticed nothing strange in my emails. And I must say I support the "no background image in table" as that's the way all my spam images arrive now adays. I guess if I was an "email" designer I'd be upset by any limitation set on me - but as an end user I've noticed no issues.

Jordan

wrote on January 13, 2007 7:00 AM

It's just another Microsoft Suicide Note (MSN). If they wish to continue doing this, people will stop using their products. They aren't complying with establish standards, and that will lead to the adoption of other products to fill the gaps they've created for themselves.

senIxon

wrote on January 13, 2007 7:13 AM

Try Downloading Images, click the text at the top... "Click here to download. To help protect your privacy... "

Still looks odd?

Aen Tan

wrote on January 13, 2007 7:18 AM

I design emails from time to time and I have to say I'm frightened by this news.
My already deep hate for microsoft retards just got deeper.

This should be let known to all others.

I hope the world start using Apple Mail by buying Macs or other better email clients like Thunderbird for the PC.

Ridiculous!!!

Lalalalala

wrote on January 13, 2007 7:22 AM

I know what you can all do. You can just shut up and wear it. Microsoft has an email monopoly to support you know? You can't very well expect them to sit back and just watch as open source exchange replacements are being developed. The obvious solution is to make the client as proprietary as inhumanely possible. I say three cheers for the master.

Lalalalala

wrote on January 13, 2007 7:26 AM

Ooh, they could rename it I-email for ironic effect.

cc

wrote on January 13, 2007 7:30 AM

Just like my Magic 8-ball used to say:

Outlook not so good

Xman

wrote on January 13, 2007 7:40 AM

I use outlook - it's fine. Particularly because it lets me delete all mail that has HTML in it automatically.

Plain text or I won't look at it.

Albert

wrote on January 13, 2007 7:42 AM

If you have to create your email to support a wide range of clients, including webmail, you wind up using a lot less than what Microsoft supports. GMail, Yahoo and Hotmail all have different requirements from application-based email clients, since they actually rewrite (mangle?) your HTML/CSS for presentation purposes.

It's really not that bad, people. Just use some common sense and test the hell out of it. And always remember to include a text-based version for the Luddites who are scared of moving past 1992.

Vince

wrote on January 13, 2007 7:58 AM

Then stick with Outlook 2000. You don't need to use 2007 if it sucks.

relativ

wrote on January 13, 2007 8:04 AM

Another option is to use the awesome email program, Foxmail. It uses IE to render and has tons of other great features.. easy to backup.. you can just move the whole folder to another system and fire it up... all your mail is there.

It has its origins in China, but is fully functional in English.

Get the English version here..

http://goodfreesoftware.netfirms.com/foxmail/foxmail.htm

rel.

Biff

wrote on January 13, 2007 8:11 AM

Dave, umm...
You will still get HTML, just crappier HTML! why would you applaud this?

Dave M.

wrote on January 13, 2007 8:12 AM

Others have stated it here. However, I'm going to ask if you have seen Leopards support for Mail.app?

Background graphics, HTML stationary, etc... Looks like Microsoft is trying to distance itself from Apple by stepping backwards instead of forwards. :)

Mike

wrote on January 13, 2007 8:21 AM

We do both text and html emails at my work for Fortune 500 companies. Were pretty strict on what the guts of our emails have. Everything is HTML 4. Full table based designs *no CSS* because so many email programs strip it out.

We have a hard enough time developing websites for IE6 and IE7. And now we have to deal with a Word based rendering engine for Outlook 2007 emails! Why even bother allowing html then?!?! You've effectively crippled any layout that needs to have text on top of a background! Doh! Didn't think about that did ya?!?!

Vidar

wrote on January 13, 2007 8:38 AM

Wow, this is brilliant!

Now that the poor IE developers have finally plugged "all" (*cough*) the security holes in their HTML engine, Outlook switches to the much less tested Word engine. Brilliant. I envision a horde of new exploits, worms and trojans popping up in no time. Time to buy anti-virus company shares?

coolsax

wrote on January 13, 2007 8:41 AM

Funny to hear all these platitudes like:
"Email is for text" & "HTML is for webpages"
Who made those rules or limitations. Think about it, e-mail (or electronic mail) is just another way of sending information. If you want to compare it to regular snail mail, even snail mail includes differents fonts of text, different background and images for logos and such. Email used to be just text because that was all the medium could provide at the time. Times have changed. HTML is a markup language for (guess what) text. Why not use it for rendering text in emails. Seems only natural. Why should it be limited to the "the web".
All this is beside the point anyway. This step isn't getting rid of HTML emails, it just makes it so you are forced to use antiquated means of creating them that are poorly structured and slower to render. It also means that these poorly designed HTML emails will be more widespread.
Just a though.

Nick

wrote on January 13, 2007 8:53 AM

"I'd also love to know how float and position impacts the security of an email in any way."

Spammers use floating text to obfuscate words to avoid spam filters, so it is a security feature. I'm no Microsoft fan but I'm glad they've done this... who needs all that fancy html in an email anyway... no-one except spammers and advertisers. I agree with Nate above that text and basic html is fine for sending someone an email.

Windows Hater

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:03 AM

Microsoft Sucks!

Justin Beasley

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:13 AM

As a webmaster in charge of maintaining our large e-mail list, this is a crippling blow to us. Microsoft has to understand this, because I just checked all of their e-mails that they send me and even they won't render correctly in Outlook 2007!

Someone needs to start a petition to get them to change it.

And regardless of whether or not you like HTML e-mail, when a user opts-in to a mailing and chooses to recieve that mailing via a produced HTML e-mail, we as web professionals are required to deliver a good product. If the user opts-in to a plaintext mailing, then we are to still deliver the best overall layout that we can in the best interest of our users.

Being unable to render decent HTML e-mails will cripple our field . . . and regardless of what Microsoft says about security, I would trust the IE7 engine more than the Word engine any day. The IE7 engine is more frequently updated, better tested, and more highly critisized by outside security firms--making it a much better choice in that area.

Tom Chi

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:13 AM

I worked on Outlook 2007 when I was at Microsoft, and I can answer some of your questions. Older versions of Outlook supported a variety of editing/rendering/viewing technologies for the composing and reading of email. In Outlook 2007 this was consolidated to use the Word engine as you have noted. Given the timing of the releases and the way that IT departments deploy Office, it wouldn't be feasible to automatically move people to the more secure IE7 at the point that Office is deployed. It would create too large a barrier to entry to have to make both changes at once.

In terms of security and stability, IE6 did have a host of unsavory interactions with Outlook. IE-related components appeared often as a source of Outlook instability, and a good number of IE-centered vulnerabilities transferred over to the product as well (despite significant anti-phishing and beacon-blocking efforts).

Anyhow, I know that doesn't fix any of the issues you listed, but at least it gives you background as to why this path was taken. Clearly the team doesn't "hate" its customers, but in software as in many things, there are trade-offs to make (especially for products that have 10 years of legacy). Perhaps this trade-off was a mistake. Regardless, thanks for your writeup.

Kylie Manders

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:15 AM

I have never noticed this problem and have been using Office 2007 for 6 months!

Dude I think you are confused!

Thomas in Tasmania

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:16 AM

WoW! Yes, you are right!

Why should anybody have the choice to create and broadcast standards compliant HTML-based email to their online community or audience?

Yes, lets all give thanks for Outlook 2007. . . another "Anti-Innovation" brought to you by MS.

Hmmmm . . . . I wonder how the iPhone's (or whatever name the lawyers give it) hand-held MUA will compare to MS's "new" flagship desktop mail client in terms of embracing standards and delivering a powerful and satisfying experience for both users and designers?

Errrr. . . . can't wait for that "Zune-phone", eh?

Ian Pitts

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:26 AM

Wow... what a bunch of DIGG trolls here. I guess you all read your email the command line in Unix as well?

The fact remains that for legitimate businesses, HTML emails just perform better with the highly interactive and profoundly visual computer user base of today.

Spammers will continue to send their huge image containing text about the latest penny-stock and it will work just fine in Outlook 2007. Sadly, those of us wanting to communicate with our customers and prospects as efficiently as possible will no longer be able to have our emails render correctly most of the time...

Ryan

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:27 AM

When I'm sending email LETTERS I like to have everything in plane text.

But when I'm receiving marketing emails, my Amazon update/suggestion email for example I want an easy to read and quick to view layout. It's far easier to read an email such as the amazon suggestion email in styled HTML format then it is to scroll through plane text trying to figure out what the heck they're saying.

The simple fact is plane text is good for email letters, html is good for email marketing. If spammers use use html/css to get their stuff to you then it's the spam blocker that needs improving no the html removing.

It appears many people here are to ignorant to understand this.

*sigh*

Ted

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:31 AM

I agree with you Jeff. basic HTML is fine.

CSS is an abomination. Just use Bitmap graphics if you want pixel perfect graphics. CSS is 'cheap tricks'. Just make an image, you don't need 'smoothed text' just anti-alias the text in your image.

Images work fine, just no more junk. I'm loving this.

Bubby

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:31 AM

Anyone want to start a quick voting system for each post here? Simple - Post the posters name and put "Designer/Marketer" or "IT" to identify them.

Point is - there are two camps - almost ALWAYS will be. Stop the black and white and realize we both need to co-exist.

penduin

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:32 AM

Never underestimate the counterproductiveness of Microsoft. I personally don't like or use HTML in my email but honestly, this is just stupid. If they're that scared about inheriting IE's insecurity, maybe they should, I don't know, try to make IE more secure? And, "consistency"? Are they joking?

...Why does everyone use Microsoft's crap, again? It never fails to baffle me. Supporting their platforms is the bane of existence for programmers and publishers everywhere. Add up all the time everybody's wasted with workarounds and other nonsense because of Microsoft's incompetence and you'd have enough man-years to switch an enormous number of people away from those platforms and onto something that's actually useful.

Frank

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:35 AM

It's because of moves like this that I will continue to proclaim that Microsoft sucks. They're a member of the W3C, but they only support bits and pieces of accepted HTML and CSS standards. It's bad enough they they make up their own HTML/CSS rules for IE. I'd rather they didn't support HTML at all than "slightly" support it like this.

RZ

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:35 AM

Yes, it wil help stop HTML email.

The worse HTML email support gets, the less people will use it.

Frank

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:42 AM

Google, if you're listening, the time is now. Kill Microsoft now. Do it for the people.

Grayson Stebbins

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:45 AM

I'm relatively confident Microsoft has mostly good intentions. I really think they just. don't. get it. It's sad, looking down on MS land – they live in their own world.

lel

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:51 AM

Continue using CSS. Information and presentation should be separated anyway (see csszengarden). If anything, the outlook2007-screenshot above shows that even if it doesn't understand one bit of the CSS-design it is still readable.

(according to firebug, I get a JS-error for every keystroke)

Porter

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:52 AM

For consumers who want only plain-text email, configure your email client to do that. Hoping that this will mean less HTML email is a hope that will never be fulfilled - HTML emails sells products, thus it's here to stay. We're not going to start seeing text-only TV commercials. Besides, some commercials we like, same with HTML email. Depends on the quality and relevance.

This just seems lazy by MS. If this is for anti-trust reasons, geez, use an open source rendering engine in Outlook. You'll make friends.

For those who say HTML does not belong in HTML, I say you're wrong. HTML is a language meant to create well-structured *documents*. Emails are documents every bit as much as a web site is. Someone sending HTML that is inappropriate for the email medium (i.e. "a fully-functional web site") does not mean all good (i.e. modern, standards-compliant) email should be punished. Bad solution (actually, a non-solution) to a real problem. Seems the real solution would be that ol' marketplace thing: if you don't like the email... unsubscribe.

Robert

wrote on January 13, 2007 9:57 AM

I hate to have to say this, but I would ban HTML email completely if I was given the chance.

Having managed a few email systems, all I can say is that HTML mail is more trouble than it's worth. Thunderbird handles HTML much better, and importantly - more safely. However, whilst Outlook remains the dominant email client, I would avoid HTML mail at all costs.

Blake

wrote on January 13, 2007 10:06 AM

I agree with Robert. I despise HTML emails, they just create problems. If you can't do it with text, do it in an attachment.

jhn

wrote on January 13, 2007 10:08 AM

I'm not sure that Word's HTML engine is worse. It might mangle some stuff pretty badly but IE has always been bad at CSS. It mangles the Acid test. Word might display some other content better than IE.

Ryan

wrote on January 13, 2007 10:10 AM

Living in the past and not progressing is evil, if you want that then stop using teh interweb!

html looked shit in it's early years and had people proclaiming all sites should be plane text only (since that is what HTML was designed for)...would we have what we have today if morons like that got their way? html emails suck because spam blockers are substandard and email clients such as Outlook are usless.

Zal

wrote on January 13, 2007 10:14 AM

I stopped using IE6 a year ago, making FireFox my default browser.
At least for the last 3 months I using almost exclusively Opera.
It's much more superior to both FF and IE. Not only the browser is a few generations ahead of the rest, but the nicely integrated email client is superior and pleasure to use.
I encourage everybody to use Opera. You'll be glad.

Now, if you want a secure email solution, forget about OE,Outlook,Thunderbird...
PocoMail is the answer. Like Opera, it's a few generation ahead of all the rest.
It's not free though, but $40 to pay, it's a tiny price to have peace of mind and enjoy the effectiveness of this program with tons of features.
Another good one, free, Pegasus, which is also much more superior than Outlook and thunderbird.

KW

wrote on January 13, 2007 10:25 AM

My problem with HTML emails:

They are an unsolicited use of my bandwidth. They tie up my down pipe, they fill my inbox to overflowing and cause me to miss important emails. And I have no choice. The email comes to my address, down my pipe and into my inbox before I can say "Ni!".

I cannot stop it from being delivered. I can only delete it after the fact. After it has used my pipe. After it has landed on my drive.

I should be able to CHARGE such emailers a fee. I'd be RICH!

There may be some legitimate senders of HTML emails out there, but for every legitimate sender, there are 10 illegitimate senders who think I want to buy Viagra, or enlarge my breasts or genitals, or am a stocks day trader, or am gullible enough to fall for nigerian bank fraud schemes.

If email were plain text I'd still get all of those. But they wouldn't be accompanied by 100K of .jpgs apiece.

Ben

wrote on January 13, 2007 10:31 AM

Who at microsoft can we email our complaints to about this, to convince them to revert back to using IE as the outlook rendering engine?

Bart

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:09 AM

Yeah, well.. at least Office 2007 has significant usability changes... But it's really unbelievable then even some very vital parts of CSS v1 are missing. I'm sure someone will find a patch (perhaps write a virus? =) to adjust Outlook '07 back to IE bahaviour.

jyhm

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:14 AM

I think one really needs to ditch microsoft products all together. Caveat I say this as I am trying to reinstall Office 2004 (it's Dead). But, I really don't need it that much, and I only use Entourage. I have other email apps that are just fine. I never use IE I hate it! I stick with Firefox.

get_thunderbird

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:23 AM

There are a lot of Ms alternatives:

Openoffice.org
Firefox
Thunderbird
GNU/Linux

So, we might as well stop using Ms completely.

LC

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:24 AM

For those who want only text emails :

As a website designer, I frequently send emails describing the websites I develop with snippets of screens in them. It makes it far easier if the user has the image of the screen next to the descriptive text, rather than a "look at this attachment", which has probably been blocked by their corporate firewall anyway.

I like HTML mails, I rarely read any text-only mails. Call me boring.

I hate the spam mails but are we going to stay back in the days of GOPHER and stick to text only web as well?

MS are cutting their own throat with this. I personally don't like firefox, I find it clumsy and cumbersome, but hey. each to their own. Well it looks like I'll stick to XP and Outlook 2003 myself, it does all I and my customers need it to do.

"Shall I upgrade to Vista" they ask. What's the point ...
"Shall I upgrade Office" they ask. No.

Standarshy

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:31 AM

Yay, this is good news for me. It will just push more people to adopting Mozilla's thunderbird. Unless people are too stupid to figure it out.

If people do really mind this and switch to Thunderbird, I'm sure that Microsoft will do something. Remember the browser wars?

Andrew

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:35 AM

The point isn't that HTML emails are good/bad/fine. The point is that limited support for them is bad either way.

Leckie

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:46 AM

This must be because of anti trust issues, there is no way microsoft would intentionally throw themselves in the shitter like this... is there?

Montoya

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:50 AM

The comments in this thread are horrendous. Something like 100 or so of "HTML emails suck!" and another 50 of "you guys suck, get a real job!"

I can't believe everyone is complaining about spam and phishing e-mails... Campain Monitor doesn't send spam ever, they are a legitimate business. If you want to complain about spammers, do it somewhere else!

Also, the idea of going back to the dark ages of plain-text e-mails just because HTML opens up the opportunity for exploits is a bit backwards. We should be finding ways to stop spam so we can enjoy HTML e-mail without the risks. It's the difference between being poor so no one can rob you or locking up your stuff so no one can rob you.

As was mentioned earlier, this move from Microsoft does not end HTML e-mails, just makes them more cluttered, more bandwidth-heavy and more difficult to use. It may prevent some exploits that spammers use to trick users, but spammers will still find other ways to trick users... this move by Microsoft is not a good solution.

Atanas Entchev

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:54 AM

Pine still works... ;)

matthew smith

wrote on January 13, 2007 12:09 PM

David.
I wish I could have been there to help you pick up things off the floor. I would have taken you to get a beer and we could co-miserate together. Thank you for an intelligent and helpful critique. I know many who would have simply ranted.

If you have not already read through Transcending CSS by Andy Clarke, I suggest it. It details issues about allowing the reality that using products like what Microsoft is pouring into the industry could begin to be seen as a limited product rather than limiting the industry.

Perhaps we need to do a better job of encouraging more and more people about the alternatives, albeit an extremely uphill battle. If you drive a fiesta (outlook), you'll likely not go very far, very fast. Alternatively, if you drive a Jetta (mail osx, firebird, etc) you'll enjoy your driving experience a whole lot more, and you might enjoy it enough to go for a drive in the country (get creative with html emails).

Best of luck...

Alistair Holt

wrote on January 13, 2007 12:13 PM

Microsoft's actions are just absolutely ridiculous. I will be persuading everyone I know not to use Outlook.

Down with Microsoft!

Dimitris

wrote on January 13, 2007 12:13 PM

Well, apart from many of the reasons already noted, this Microsoft approach serves well yet another purpose. Breaking community standards is what this company has been doing for decades in order to establish their monopoly on the market. Now they are suggesting that in order to view a non plain ascii email you need their MS Word engine. This means less choices for people: "You want to do a job? Do it the MS way that only MS products offer!". Got the point?

Someone already said (quite correctly if this is true) that since IE is splitting from the windows shell, you need another way of displaying html. Well, it seems that their office suite is just replacing IE...

So, since most people use and trust Microsoft products they must be satisfied with what they get (i am referring to sane people). If not, they would have moved from MS years ago (as i did). No reason to complain then. You like MS products/tactics, cool, go ahead and use their software. If you complain you must show this to MS by stop paying them. Simple as that.

Omar

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:01 PM

I am not sure what I missed here. I have been using outlook 2007 for a month and I can send and receive HTML e-mails with no problem.
it is a supported feature in Outlook 2007. where did this news come from???

Check out the outlook site:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HP012329961033.aspx?pid=CH100776981033

Archee

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:03 PM

Personally I liked HTML mailing. (it was first introduced by Natscape) The possible reason for not fully supportong HTML is to make way for MS WORD.DOC format mailing in the next step. This will be quite handy to answer mails in, but others systems and mail softwares will be ruled out, as reverse engineering (of .DOC file format) is illegal in most countries. (very bad monopoly!!!!)
However I think MS producst are well organized, and less troublesome to use then linux.

Sam Hiser

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:24 PM

David-

This is a good get!

Maybe the reason is non-obvious unless you've been fighting in the trenches for a while against Microsoft's file format standardization initiative.

The reason for putting Word in Outlook is because they are losing control of their binary documents formats. ODF is doing well and they believe that by introducing the XML-based format ("Microsoft Office Open XML") in Office2007 that their control of users' data as well as their upgrade decisions are slipping. Old habits die hard and they have still found many ways to make this XML implementation a non-standard through binary carry-forward and a lot of proprietary and legal strategic dependicies & FUD.

They're decision clearly is to shift the control-points of the business processes away from Office and into e-mail and Sharepoint.

Have a great weekend!

Axel in Montreal

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:28 PM

I just cannot wait for Google to come with an alternative OS. Google makes excellent products: Picasa, World, toolbar, etc. they have the resources and the brain, but then Google can be quite weird and implement alternatives whose only merit is being different (to wit, no sorting in GMail).

Pliz pliz Googie, get an OS out, and deliver us from evil, amen!

Paula

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:31 PM

If I wanted to see plain text, I'd still use a typewriter with Courier font and plain white paper to send letters to my friends. Thank God we've evolved since then...

I prefer a little style and flair in the e-mails I receive -- most plain text e-mails are ugly and easy to ignore. I work for a nonprofit advocacy group with several HTML e-newsletters (no, not everyone who uses them is a spammer), and the better the design, the more opens we have, the more compliments we receive, and the more money we raise. Is that such a terrible thing?

Dan Forster

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:31 PM

If you think this is a good move, please read the following carefully. Please.

It comes down to the web as a medium, and email as a medium.

A move towards open standards led us to CSS, which was a key player in starting a revolution in content-centricity and usability on the web. Great design.

If a decent fraction of the market end up going with Outlook 2007, which is likely to happen, Microsoft has single-handedly crushed any chance of innovation in email as a medium.

That means more crappy HTML emails, made by non-designers, coming your way.

This is the worst decision Microsoft has ever made.

Nick

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:36 PM

How many people over their life have purchased the same make of car due to habit? Then if that car maker were to downgrade the engine or remove features that you rely on.....you'd likely go and buy a car from a different car maker wouldn't you? The same SHOULD be said for software!...but its not.

People really need to consider that Microsoft is kicking everyone in the guts......there are alternatives!

Jeffrey

wrote on January 13, 2007 1:54 PM

Are most of the complainers on this list e-mail marketers? What a bunch of cry babies. Bush is getting ready to invade Iran and Syria (if he hasn't already) and you're acting like the world has imploded over this HTML issue. Grow the fuck up.

asdf

wrote on January 13, 2007 2:17 PM

Taking out IE from Outlook IS A GOOD THING!! IE has been the most bug ridden piece of software MS has ever released, tons of viruses and worms have propagated by email thanks to its flaws. This move will ultimately make outlook much more secure. I can't believe there are actually people complaining.

Ulf Dahlen

wrote on January 13, 2007 2:26 PM

I welcome this. I'm constantly encouraing people to stop using Microsoft products; this gives me yet another good sales pitch!

Jakk

wrote on January 13, 2007 2:28 PM

Why stil waste your time complaint on this company.

Switch to a MAC and you'll never have any problem again.

APPLE RULE!

Perk

wrote on January 13, 2007 2:50 PM

Frankly, I'd rather my email be text. Anything SENT to me needs to be consistently readable be it in pine, Thunderbird, or on my three year old cell phone. I couldn't care less about Cascading Style Sheets or even HTML.

If I actually want rich content pushed to me I'll darn well subscribe to the RSS feed and click on the link, and let it render where it's supposed to render - in my browser.

Ryan

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:04 PM

We should all head over to the MS Outlook 12 Blog http://blogs.msdn.com/willkennedy/ and let them know what we think!

raeinbow

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:09 PM

Very interesting and quite passionate responses.
I know at work people are pretty stuck using Outlook, but why people bother with it at home is beyond me. I'm not much of a email junkie.
If it isn't online webmail, forget it.
I like yahoo and hotmail because it doesn't just download onto my computer. I don't get the whole "email program" thing. I am, apparently, a dunce. Only recently have I come to the realization that people actually "save" their old email. Why?

The HTML email format argument is silly. I know plain text email is a very viable option. However, for everyone screaming it is the only way to go and that HTML-email is evil... well, you're being being stupid.

HTML email makes LINKS possible. I don't want to paste and copy links, I want to right-click and open it in a new window. (yahoo lets me just click it). And images are necessary. Grandma wants pictures. If you can't see why people need HTML emails, then, it tells the rest of us you are a lonely person with no family. Boo hoo for you. Get off the soapbox and get over it.
As for any spammers who may have posted, stop it. Everyone hates you.
What would be cool is if there was an option like CraigsList uses, where it indicates there is a "pic" in the message.

talya

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:14 PM

UGGGH!

We just got the email marketing side of our business going this summer and now it's all down the toilet as the industry changes again. What a waste -- so much for industry standard.

FatHed

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:23 PM

I like text, html email just means fluff for the sake of fluff.

Viv

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:28 PM

Once again, Microsoft has screwed us web developers over with their misuse of power. I thought headaches like box model issues and stuff like that would finally star fading away and they come up with this.... sigh

Ike

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:33 PM

I can't believe the puffed up opinions in here. A crowd of Luddites, with pitchforks.

I am fairly new at crafting HTML e-mails. It is strictly for an internal corporate audience. We can't post the stuff on a public web server, because there is proprietary information involved.

I've done usability testing and gathered feedback, and I have found that overwhelmingly I get more clickthroughs on key newsletter items in my HTML e-mails than in plain text or pdf files.

Of course, I fully expect to be shouted down by little script-kiddies and their holier-than-thou attitudes. Just know that I deal with an audience that is completely internal, and completely opt-in. And now I will have to push important information to them in ways that are less effective.

rend

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:33 PM

Is this done to coerce folks to buy the latest version of word/office?

Jean

wrote on January 13, 2007 3:41 PM

For me this all comes down to choice. Yes we all dislike spam...but to have plain text or pretty graphics should still be YOUR CHOICE! You want plain text...tell the email client you only want plain text. I happen to enjoy my "graphical" newsletters because this is what I choose to do to stay up on the things I need to be able to go over in a glance. Stylizing the email helps.

What I see is Microsoft again removing any chance at the user being able to decide what he/she wants. I hate that more.

After 20 years of the Microsoft PC (and the frustration of limitations, security, and let's not even mention the $$$$...bought a MAC 4 months ago. Thanks Apple, at least you know the user can think for themselves, and are confident enough to understand choice not exclusion.

Sprocket999

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:00 PM

Wow. What a stunner. We do a fair bit of this for our clients (who wish to engage other business clients direct -- sorry text loving '60s hippies & retro grouches, this doesn't include you!) as an addition to our advertising and site design. I guess the only good news is we use tables and light css. I will need to see how badly our work falls apart in this 2007 environment.

Anonymous

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:01 PM

This is why i hate microsoft!
I switched to mac 5 years ago and havn't looked back

Sprocket999

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:05 PM

Yup, MS sux alright. Major-time.

mattman1624

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:12 PM

Have never used Outlook, and I've never seen the use for it. I just deal with my email on Earthlink's server.

Paula

wrote on January 13, 2007 4:20 PM

If I wanted to see plain text, I'd still use a typewriter with Courier font and plain white paper to send letters to my friends. Thank God we've evolved since then...

I prefer a little style and flair in the e-mails I receive -- most plain text e-mails are ugly and easy to ignore. I work for a nonprofit advocacy group with several HTML e-newsletters (no, not everyone who uses them is a spammer), and the better the design, the more opens we have, the more compliments we receive, and the more money we raise. Is that such a terrible thing?

David

wrote on January 13, 2007 5:02 PM

one thing you people are forgetting is that we are all computer neerds and geeks responding to this, the average joe , beyond spam enjoys emails with images in them. I can tell you every time my wife opens an email from target or viccky secrect or lan bryant and run out the door with a coupon =)

if you dont like html emails configure your client not to show them or switch to something else. other wise stay on topic, this isnat a debate whether you like html emails or not, its a fact of a choice being eliminated, and for what...

Nick Hebb

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:01 PM

This is incomprehensible. I send out a newsletter discussing business diagramming (flow charts, value stream maps, etc.). While I can appreciate that some people like plain text emails, when visitors subscribe to my newsletter it's pretty well understood that the subject will be graphical.

Rajiv

wrote on January 13, 2007 6:21 PM

Read this
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/93346/93346.html?Ad=1

Darren

wrote on January 13, 2007 10:43 PM

Someone said that Microsoft aren't stupid! Well if they're so clever why the hell did they do this in the first place?!

Hopefully this will result in a downward turn for MS, here's to Apple, Mozilla and all the other forward thinking companies!

sili

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:08 PM

OK, that's bad. But who does use HTML mails? I know there are much out there... An email is a message, text. If any you just need the simplest formatting. Do you really use float and other in *mails*?

Personally, I hate HTML mails.

chris

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:32 PM

Microsoft Products: Just Say No!

Bill NZ

wrote on January 13, 2007 11:53 PM

I have to say, 90% of the comments on here just don't get what this article was about. Most of the comments on here come from 2 erroneous assumptions:

1. HTML email = spam and that all "email designers" are spammers.

2. "If you don't like it, use (place favourite OSS mail client here)"

The first statement is wrong because, let face it, spammers don't care if the email get mangled by the email client, as most of them just include a single image and link now. This is real "spam" and spam is UNSOLICITED commercial email. I am an "email designer" and it's a real job, with a real purpose. Think about things like ebay alerts. If you want to be alerted when a particular item appears, it would be nice to have the posted image there, so you could see if it was worth going to ebay to vote on. And the "use PDF" solution is even worse, as a PDF attachement is a much larger filesize, meaning more bandwidth costs for both the sender and reciever, plus longer download times for the email client.

The company I work for only deal with reputable companies, and we state that we will only send emails to people who requested them. If they want to spam, then they can find someone else to do it. Also, for all our emails we send out, we offer the choice of HTML or plain text. Only around 5% ever opt for plain text only emails.

This brings me to the second fallacy that "you should just switch, MS sucks anyway". Well, that's not gonna help us. We send out quite a few corporate emails, and our clients don't care that MS is screwing us up. They just want the email to look the same as it always has. And that means me and everyone in my business sector have to work that much harder to meet the requirements of our job. Also, as mentioned a few times, this isn't going to stop HTML emails. It just means that the HTML emails will look like dog turd. And we are the ones who have to deal with it, not MS. Personally, I think they just hate designers because historically designers have used Apple products. It's a "screw the Apple crowd" mentality. That would explain the state of IE for the past 10 years. And just when things got better for us in one area, they screw us in another.

By the way, HTML email isn't the primary vector for viruses in email. It's attachments. And you can have a virus filled attachment just as easily in plain text. Also, it's easier to embed malicious code into Word than it is into HTML. So, as far as I know, MS just made the virus writer's job easier.

And if it were for security reasons, IE supposedly just got more secure. Does MS not trust themselves?

And the "antitrust" thing doesn't hold either. It's easy to have just the rendering engine as part of the email client, and not have to "assume" its on the computer. You don't need firefox installed on your computer for Thunderbird to work, do you? And you could make it even more secure by not allowing ActiveX and scripting on this stripped down version. This would make more sense for both security AND aesthetics.

Unfortunately, most of the comments on here are from narrow minded people who think that the way they want things is the best and only way and anyone who thinks different is an idiot. To me, all the "text only email" comments sound like they should all go and work for MS and make sure that choice and freedom in computing is totally taken out of the "ignorant masses" hands.

bob

wrote on January 14, 2007 1:24 AM

that does it..i'm gettin a mac, and telling my nana to do the same...

Sprocket999

wrote on January 14, 2007 2:08 AM

Nothing. Use it. This is about how it will impact the design business. Re-read "Bill NZ" above.

Andreas

wrote on January 14, 2007 2:39 AM

I don't understand the problem. In my opinion html mails are very bad style. What is so bad about plain-text mails? They are readable everywhere, are more secure and less annoying.

Use plaintext and standards-compatible mail clients, then you'll have less problems!

AndyC_

wrote on January 14, 2007 3:22 AM

Your html mail will already look awful in Outlook 2003 SP2 anyway because of all the anti-phishing protection and will likely get flagged heavily by anti-spam filters.

Html was an awful way to do rich text email in the first place and its time to find a better solution.

Devin

wrote on January 14, 2007 3:24 AM

It's just another strike against Microsoft. It seems like their tactic is to throw as much crap against the wall and see what sticks. This is shocking news for me, and it certainly can't be helpful for CM in any way.

Keep trucking guys, let us know how we can adjust.

Dennis

wrote on January 14, 2007 3:59 AM

Andrew, just to clarify, this doesn't do anything to stop HTML emails, it simply means many of the emails you receive will be mangled and difficult to read. This will only add to your frustration.

Dave, well some people such as myself and I assume the person who made this comment, won't even read an HTML e-mail. I'll stop being frustrated when people stop sending HTML e-mail at all.

Sean

wrote on January 14, 2007 4:32 AM

I've created a facebook group for generation y. Join it here. Perhaps the design community can rise up with Campaign Monitor's message.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2228820591

Wes

wrote on January 14, 2007 5:01 AM

Windows Live Desktop Mail client renders the templates perfectly fine

Wes

wrote on January 14, 2007 5:04 AM

The online version of Windows Live Mail also seems to render the sample templates perfectly fine.

J

wrote on January 14, 2007 5:37 AM

Following on Bill NZ's post: All of you who are saying "HTML emails suck, just use text": Why are you reading a web site called Campaign Monitor? Do you even know what this site is for?

dave

wrote on January 14, 2007 5:43 AM

hmmm...

<!--[if gte mso 12]>As Microsoft Outlook 2007 is unable to display HTML emails correctly, we suggest that you
<a href="www.companyhome.com/newsletters/latest.htm">read the enhanced version online</a>.
<br><br>We recommend you use <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/">Mozilla Thunderbird</a> to view emails safely and easily.
<![endif]-->

Chris

wrote on January 14, 2007 5:51 AM

Phew! What to make of all this? So Outlook 2007 uses Word to render HTML emails instead of IE but Word is not as good at rendering HTML as IE. Hmm...

I can understand why many developers using this forum will be upset by this but Microsoft professes to *love* developers so it puzzles me that they would do something which risks the wrath of the developer community without good reason.

Reading the previous comments, I wonder whether it has anything to do with the EU ruling that required MS to unbundle IE from Windows. (Hope I'm getting my facts right here - you remember the EU ruling). Given that Outlook is the dominant e-mail client on Windows PCs and since Office is the dominant personal productivity suite on Windows, if Outlook depends on IE to render an HTML email, then the anti-trust people might cry foul and say that this tantamount to forcing Windows users to use IE and therefore gives IE an unfair advantage over other browsers.

*Bill NZ* comments above that this should not have stopped MS from using the IE rendering engine in Outlook 2007 but I’m not a technical bod and so cannot comment on the validity of this argument.

It's a while since I've read such a strong set of reactions as those expressed in this thread. Microsoft will have to address the concerns expressed here which will undoubtedly resurface in their own forums and until they do (if they haven't already done so), I for one will reserve judgement on this issue.

katherine

wrote on January 14, 2007 7:57 AM

I remember in 1993. I was at OSU. I made a page with images and got hatemail from some freak who said I should be shot, that images dont belong on the internet--that the internet was for diseminating information, text only no images.

I thought he was behind the times and time proved me right. Saying email is for text only is as backwards as saying the internet is for text only.

Where I work, we marketing with email, so we dont kill trees by flooding snail mail with paper. We used to do "text only" and then we decided to dress it up. Our surveys, and our bottom dollar showed us that the more "graphical" it was, the more our customers were interested in what we had to offer.

I say boycott Microsoft. and the real reason they did this? because Apple is coming out with a mail program that will let the average user send images and more to friends and family. MS thinks they dominate and they are so afraid of apple getting ahead of them, that instead of trying to catch up..they'd rather send the land of communication back to the dark ages.

I for one, am glad its not 1993. How boring all that grey was.

Rob

wrote on January 14, 2007 8:34 AM

>> Ryan
>> wrote on January 13, 2007 9:27 AM

>> When I'm sending email LETTERS I like to have everything in plane text.
>> ...to scroll through plane text trying to figure out what the heck they're saying.
>> The simple fact is plane text is good for email letters, html is good for email

"plane text" - that would be ema