HTML email is bad and should be considered harmful.
Shout out to @sir for all the useful information on useplaintext.email
Thanks for the snark, that was really helpful and cool.
Structural semantics make digital documents easier for machines to read, which can improve accessibility and analysis (e.g. text-to-speech,search, skip to content, et).
It's a trade-off, and I think we'd be wise to avoid black-and-white thinking when discussing those trade-offs.
@christianbundy @jrswab they DO have to be. HTML gives you more than enough rope to hang yourself with, and web designers will and are hanging themselves with it - or rather, are hanging us. Plain text might have infrequent and rare issues like that - easily resolved with sufficient context - but these are _rare_. HTML is a nightmare always and already. It's thousands of times more complex.
Is this an accessibility nightmare?
(The <title> element is optional because it can be inferred from the email subject line.)
If your contention was "most HTML email clients are garbage", I'd agree with you, but you seem to be advocating a much more extreme position without any of the evidence to support your contention.
Maybe a better way of asking: HTML and plaintext are tools, where do you draw the line on which tool is best?
@christianbundy, my example was short to save blog space.
If you would see the HTML emails I get in plain text you would know what I mean.
I got an email from DHL about a shipment and it was so littered with HTML tags that I would be foolish to waste my time trying to find the information they were trying to give me. @sir
By "most of the time" I was referring to when I get HTML emails.
Sure, but that's because you're rendering an HTML email as plaintext. This is why Mutt has mailcap configs, right?
I'd love to discuss where to draw the line on when we should use plaintext vs HTML, but this feels like "my text editor doesn't render SVG files correctly so SVG files are bad" or something silly.
I understand that you like HTML websites and plaintext emails, but *why*? If you prefer plaintext because bad HTML emails exist, then you should also prefer plaintext websites.
Btw, I've already seen:
> "But if plaintext is so good, why is this page written in HTML?"
> This is a reference document, not an email, you twit.
Unfortunately this doesn't clarify the difference to me. They're both digital documents, and it's unclear why "it's a reference document though" moves us from plaintext to HTML.
If I send an email that's meant to be referenced later, am I supposed to use HTML rather than plaintext? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm really confused.
Do forgive me for not verbalizing this very well. I don't mean to say that just because I choose to use a mail client that shows me the source of the HTML that I want it banned.
I'm just advocating that we stop trying to make email do more than it was intended. Email is a messaging service. Complicating it with web elements in beyond it's scope.
It's just my opinion that keeping email to plain text simplifies the service for everyone.
I agree that HTML is a bad fit for messages like "let's have lunch at noon", but emails like "here's what you need to know about your health insurance" are much easier to read with accessibility tools when you can do things like:
- Skim <h1>..<h6> elements
- Skip the footer / email signature
- Read the text of all links (!)
- Read tables by their columns and rows
Plaintext makes these difficult or impossible, and its accessibility doesn't really scale. Shouldn't we use a markup lang?
Yes! We should all use Markup!
It's what I use on my blog and it's very easy to add the necessary bits when composing a message or document.
I believe it would translate very well when an email needs emphasis. The quote syntax is already used in emails anyway.
@christianbundy aw gotcha, I must have misread. Sorry about that.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!