In <email@example.com>, Camaleón wrote: >On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:42:37 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> In <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Camaleón wrote: >(...) > >>>If you are concerned about that "usability problem" then ask the users >>>what would they prefer and what would be more confortable for them. Do >>>not make the error of just think for them. >>> >> Studies and experience have shown time and time again that users *don't >> know* what they want. Henry Ford once said: "If I asked my customers >> what they wanted, they would have said 'A faster horse.'" It is an >> unfortunate truth, but usability problems are not solved by soliciting >> user input. > >Sorry but I have to disagree. Well, then you are wrong. There a more than a decade of studies showing you are wrong. I'll let you find them yourself. Users didn't want UNIX or C when it was invented. Users didn't want the GUI when it was invented. >>>You are not losing audience by using html e-mails. >>> >> Yes you are. There is a non-zero number of people on *this* mailing >> list that simply discard mails containing an HTML part. > >Again, that is a _personal_ decision, not a technical one. I have nothing >against personal views... just they're personal. My point still stands. If you use HTML mail, you will lose readers. This is a bad thing. >Any e-mail client out there can handle html formatting, so if someone >rejects e-mails formatted in that way is not because their MUA cannot >manage them. There are a number of client out there that, absent some custom configuration, render the "raw" HTML code. This is virtually unreadable for most people, especially considering the poor quality HTML produced by most -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.