[HN Gopher] Show HN: Mail Studio - IDE for designing responsive ... ___________________________________________________________________ Show HN: Mail Studio - IDE for designing responsive emails Author : martinaglv Score : 312 points Date : 2021-04-01 12:26 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (mailstudio.app) (TXT) w3m dump (mailstudio.app) | williesleg wrote: | Finally some hacker news and not political bullshit on my hacker | news website. | miga wrote: | Best of the Fool's Day. Next we need IDE for designing DMCA | notices. | supermatt wrote: | Very nice, however: | | > The designs that you create in Mail Studio are compatible with | everything from iOS Mail to Outlook 2007 | | and | | > If you like writing code, you will love Mail Studio's CSS | editor. You get autocomplete, support for CSS variables (custom | props) and media queries. | | are mutually exclusive. | sensanaty wrote: | Way I interpret it is that that you write down your markup/CSS, | and the app spits out compliant HTML that _will_ render | properly regardless of email client. | | Might be wrong, though. | hunter2_ wrote: | Sounds like a bit like Emogrifier [0] or other "inliners" but | media queries seem a bit suspect. | | [0] https://www.myintervals.com/emogrifier.php | qwerty456127 wrote: | Is there even a standard for rich email? | | For me it feels like we need one and it should say e-mail must be | UTF-8 Markdown. | ddevault wrote: | HTML emails are a blight on the internet. If you send me this | crap, I will mark it as spam. | | https://useplaintext.email | bitmapbrother wrote: | We've now reached the intersection of Photoshop and Email. | cies wrote: | MJML deserves a mention. We use it, together with mustache, to | let users create their own mailings from some building blocks we | offer. | | Works quite well! | 1123581321 wrote: | MJML is great. We've developed a few hundred emails with it at | this point and trained non-developers quite successfully. They | use the MJML-provided editor or the Visual Studio plugin, and | their visual Git tool of choice to make it easy to share | components. | robertlacok wrote: | I love MJML. Though the output delivers on the promise only 95% | of times (I had to bend it a bit because of Gmail on iPhones), | the experience for me as a developer is 100x better than | working with visual builders. | | I was able to recreate our purchased template in like 15 | minutes, now it's much easier to edit. | spicybright wrote: | 95% is an excellent number compared with hand crafted | templates. I'm going to look into this, thank you for the | suggestion! | ericcholis wrote: | Curious, is this an in internal product? | leetrout wrote: | No | | https://mjml.io/ | bowlingx wrote: | We use mjml as well, together with nunjucks. It's awesome :). | No more HTML wrestling for all the different clients. | lyptt wrote: | MJML is insanely cool. I've just switched over to it and saved | myself a ton of pain in creating consistent HTML emails. | nlh wrote: | Huge fan of MJML! I've been using it to send out my [shameless | plug]weekly nerd-focused newsletter (see bio)[/shameless plug] | and I've got a nice workflow going with it. | | I'm using a workflow of Pug (nice and short syntax to save on | keystrokes) -> MJML (via Pug mixins) -> HTML. | | MJML has a really nice Visual Studio Code plugin that has live | reload on edit, so it's all a super nice locally-hosted way to | develop rich text emails. | | Happy to answer any questions or share my workflow/code with | anyone. Still refining it but it's a nice system and has gotten | my time to build and send a newsletter down from many hours to | several hours :) | 52-6F-62 wrote: | I haven't worked with it, but others on my team have used it to | support high-visibility magazine newsletters, etc. Works great. | iamacyborg wrote: | There's also Parcel which is a dedicated email code editor. | | https://www.useparcel.com | patrickserrano wrote: | Any chance you could share some more details around how you | integrated mustache with MJML? I did a project almost 3 years | ago now where we used MJML and Handlebars, but I was never | happy with the end result and have been thinking about going | back and taking another stab. | | Did MJML add any support for templating engines as part of the | rendering process? That didn't seem to be an option when I did | the original process so we had a 2 pass solution (MJML -> HTML | w/Handlebars -> HTML). | cies wrote: | The solution we have is quite complex, as it also includes a | builder where client can drag-drop blocks to create template | (with text variables) for mailings. | | Mustache is used for color/font substitutions and also for | text variable (like $recipient_name) substitutions. | | So: JSON representation of an email -> HTML+Mustache -> | HTML+Mustache (only variables) -> HTML | | For (live during email building) previews we skip the last | step and show the Mustache syntax. | crixlet wrote: | which builder are you using? i hav ea similar mjml + | mustache setup, and am using blocksedit.com for client | drag/drop. would love to see your setup! | cies wrote: | In house developed builder in Reacts + Typescipt + JSON | schema, we buildt is to be part of our SaaS offering to | our clients. | andrei_says_ wrote: | As someone who has been through the creation and maintenance of | an in house email design system and builder, I'll leave this link | here: | https://litmus.com/community/discussions/4990-outlook-2016-1... | | It is the latest of many issues we're facing caused by the | despicable lack of consistency, especially in Microsoft's email | clients. | | As for an email designing software, what my organization needed | was a set of predesigned components with predefined variations - | to form a somewhat flexible but disciplined email design system. | | A design studio wouldn't really work for us- the same way a | website CMS should not allow complete freedom to its editors. | Design decisions should be separate from content decisions. | prepend wrote: | This is desktop software, why is there a monthly fee? | | I occasionally want to send "nice looking" emails but get asked | by lots of comms people about it. Recommending a monthly fee | service is a non starter, but buying some software is pretty easy | to decide. "Should I pay once? Or pay forever?" | | Is there anything in the functionality that takes advantage of | SaaS? Other than updates and whatnot? | | Of course the price/value computation is up to y'all and your | customers but office365 only costs $10/month. Seems tough to | value authoring email as higher value than cloud productivity | suite. | | It would be nice if there was a way people like me could use | since our competition is an outlook template but still scale up | to people who may do this all the time and be willing to pay | $20+/month. | alpaca128 wrote: | I don't get it either. I mean yes, I understand that making | people pay regularly is nicer for daily users(sometimes) and | the developer. But it completely cuts out the users who are | willing to pay for products that go beyond "demo version" or | "Spyware As A Service" but don't get paid for using it. | | In many cases it would be absolutely possible to offer a middle | tier that lacks some advanced features but also doesn't greet | me with a "Get the Pro version now!"..."Sure you don't want to | pay cloud storage for the 2 files you create per month?" | | Or offer the full product for a one-year subscription but | limited to one year of updates unless I pay again. | prepend wrote: | > cloud storage for the 2 files you create per month? | | This is particularly frustrating because I already pay for | cloud storage and don't want another cloud store. I liked the | old days when companies would layer on top of Dropbox instead | of trying to sell me a "value not upsell." | | I liked the old ynab where my desktop and phone pushed files | to Dropbox. When they switched to saas with their own storage | they sucked so much I stopped using them. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Because if it's a one time fee, there will be no recurring | income and the developer will have to stop development. | | The alternative is to do what older desktop apps did: release a | new paid version / upgrade, often with a load of fluff added or | a redesign to try and sell that an upgrade is worthwhile to the | customers. | incrudible wrote: | > Because if it's a one time fee, there will be no recurring | income and the developer will have to stop development. | | Here's a crazy idea in 2020: That's totally fine. There's a | point where adding more features becomes a negative ROI. | That's when you know you need to move on solving a _different | problem_. That 's the alternative. | ncallaway wrote: | The problem in 2021 (and 2022 and 2023, etc) is that the | app will break over time. | | OS updates will break a small piece of functionality. | Critical security vulnerabilities will be discovered that | need to be patched. If the developer abandons the | application because it isn't earning new revenue, the | application will eventually degrade over time. | | I don't have a good answer here, because I also don't like | the SASS billing model for desktop software, but I | recognize that a "one-time purchase" rarely actually | terminates the relationship at the time of purchase. People | expect ongoing bug-fixes, and security patches even for | desktop software. | incrudible wrote: | In my experience, Windows applications very rarely break, | Mac OS apps only break with major changes, and Linux | isn't worth supporting in the first place. Setting aside | a little bit of money to keep the app working and patched | is possible. Charging for the occasional update to make | that happen is acceptable too, especially with Apple | users. | GordonS wrote: | > Because if it's a one time fee, there will be no recurring | income | | That doesn't have to be true - a lot of desktop software uses | a perpetual license plus optional annual maintenance. It's | pretty much the standard for non-SaaS apps. | passivate wrote: | Agreed, selling non-subscription desktop software in a retail | segment is crazy crazy hard. Not to mention that people want | everything for free these days, so even SaaS is super-hard | for desktop s/w. | | I used to be pretty anti-sub, but I just don't see any | alternative and I do want talented devs to continue working | on their passions. | prepend wrote: | > Because if it's a one time fee, there will be no recurring | income and the developer will have to stop development. | | I've bought software for decades and reality disagrees with | you. | | There's software that I've bought as a one time fee years ago | that still releases small maintenance patches. I don't want | to run your business for you, but there's typically multiple | products and the work developing new paid major updates or | other products allows for some small amount of maintenance. | | A really niche product called Moneydance has done this well, | I think, and I've used them since 2009. I think I've paid | $50-100 once or twice but would never pay a monthly fee. It's | software that runs on my desktop. | | It's certainly possible, but some companies think they make | more money with monthly subs. And they might. | GordonS wrote: | I agree with this - for desktop software, a perpetual license | and optional annual maintenance is the expected model. | Moreover, this seems to me to be a tool you'd use _once_ to | create a _template_ , and then your content gets slotted | dynamically into. | | As some pricing feedback, I'd personally prefer to pay | something like $75-85 as a one-time fee, with $20-30 optional | maintenance to get access to the latest version and continued | support - $20/month is _way_ too high; yes, creating nice | emails that work across clients is a PITA, but there are some | very popular OSS templates out there that work great. | PaulHoule wrote: | It works for Adobe. | onion2k wrote: | It's what Adobe does. That's not the same as saying it works | for them, and it _definitely_ isn 't the same as saying it's | the optimal pricing model for them. You have no way of | knowing whether they'd make more or less money by moving to a | different strategy. Copying what someone does without | understanding how it works for them or why they did it is | literally the definition of cargo cult behaviour. That's | usually a bad idea. | nsp wrote: | Adobe made a very successful switch from one off payments | to SaaS for their creative suite, there's a pretty clear | before and after to look at. | https://producthabits.com/adobe-95-billion-saas-company/ | munk-a wrote: | Photoshop is a legendary piece of software when it comes | to things of a visual nature, so legendary that they | essentially had an annual subscription to use it since | there were frequent new releases that a lot of folks felt | compelled to grab to keep with the curb. | | I think they tend to get a little too much credit for the | subscription switch since their users were already being | abused in such a manner. Office to Office360 is the one | that's always astounded me. Very few people upgraded | office outside of getting a new machine and most | businesses tried to pin all of their users to a | particular version of office (it was more important that | everyone used the same version rather than everyone using | the latest version) and, additionally, people weren't | actually used to "paying" for microsoft stuff with actual | cash. Generally the software you got from MSFT was | bundled into the system when you purchased it, and while | your money certainly ended up in MSFT's pockets you | didn't directly interact with them. | prepend wrote: | I use my pirated copy of photoshop5 (I think) from 20 years | ago for my infrequent uses of photoshop. But I have friends | who use photoshop every day and pay their monthly fee, and | are pretty happy. | mschuster91 wrote: | > This is desktop software, why is there a monthly fee? | | Because keeping track with the _boatload_ of variety that email | clients have and their updates is hard. You have MS Outlook in | three different flavors (Windows, OS X, Android), Thunderbird | on three major platforms (Windows, OS X, Linux), the various | Android clients (Gmail, Samsung 's custom thing they IIRC | ditched for Googlemail somewhere over the last years, the | custom clients by various mail providers like web.de and | other), Apple Mail, iOS Mail on iPhones of various sizes and | iPads of various sizes, the web clients every major provider | has, I have _no idea_ what Lotus Notes and Blackberry are | offering these days... and then you have the hardcore nerds and | privacy activists who have html mail turned off entirely and | use commandline clients. | | And literally _every single client variation_ has a different | subset of features they support or don 't support, with the | addition of spam filters and virus scanners randomly breaking | things by injecting HTML somewhere in the message. | | And then you also want your email to be forward-able without | Outlook taking half a minute to think about each character. | | Email is hard, cross-platform emailing is a _nightmare_ and | keeping up with all the stuff I just mentioned takes a massive | amount of time to develop and to regression-test. | | (In case it isn't obvious, I occasionally have to dabble in | this area, and I hate it with a passion) | ihuman wrote: | It free for non-commercial use, so it only costs money if the | emails will make you money. https://mailstudio.app/pricing | prepend wrote: | I would use it in a commercial setting, but the emails don't | make me money. So I don't think this license is ok for me. | | Specifically, every once in a while I send out product | updates to groups of people inside my org. | D13Fd wrote: | Honestly I have no problem with monthly fees for software you | use every day, or frequently, for professional use. I'm fine | paying monthly for things like Adobe Creative Cloud, Microsoft | Office, and 1Password. Those are all desktop apps, albeit with | a cloud component that I mostly don't use. I easily get my | money back 10x over (likely more) based on the income I | generate with the apps. | | The pricing here seems targeted at media folks who do e-mail | creation for a living. Assuming it works well, it's likely a | bargain for them as well. But I have to imagine that market is | rather small. | bdathi wrote: | Adobe is shitty. | | I only get lightroom in a abo which would be fine if the | minimum time would be a month but it is a year. | | Best if both worlds for Adobe non for the consumer | krsdcbl wrote: | If you work with a broad range of their softwares | (ps/ai/ae/premiere power user here) the subscription system | is awesome. Ends up being cheaper than buying it used to be | & much less upfront costs for the business. | | They could do better on many aspects but it's nowhere near | "shitty". | omnimus wrote: | Hello Adobe marketing team. | | Adobe replaced 600usd a piece software for 80usd | subscription. The reason for it was because most people | use like two pieces and upgraded once in 5+ years. Why? | Because there are essentially no new features that have | any value. Especially in print industry its basically | ransom thanks to adobe's complete monopoly. | | Btw it's not even monthly subscription. You can only get | 1year contract that you pay of month by month. If you | decide stop after two months you gotta pay rest of that | 960usd. Lovely. | munk-a wrote: | I would say this - 1Password has taken a real dive in | quality. If the software was a single upfront cost I'd just | shrug it off but the fact that my company is paying to | sustain development that's actually ruined the UX for me is | quite frustrating. | | (Hey 1Password, don't have your "App" open as a little window | in the corner of the screen for password entry that instantly | closes as soon as I alt-tab anywhere. It takes too many ms | for you to render a blank window with a text box to keep my | focus on you so I'm going to context switch while you're | loading all the libraries you need to support your text box | entry form) | bitlevel wrote: | Consider Bitwarden as a replacement. | jacurtis wrote: | Like anything, this is a matter of perspective. The right team | would find value in it. I used to manage a marketing team at a | large e-commerce company and we spent tens of thousands a month | in email design fees. We rotated through a group of freelancers | to design emails. Even an email that was simply following one | of our "tried-and-true" templates still would cost us $400 - | $500 or so for a single email. That is just updating message | content on an existing email. | | So when you think about this for $20 a month. It's a no-brainer | in that scenario. We already have on-staff copywriters, | marketing devs, social media managers, and so on that could | have taken over some of the emails using this. | | I might still out-source major custom email designs for huge | promotions and stuff. But we could easily handle smaller flash | sale and other simple emails internally, using a tool like | this. So $20 could be justified even if it saved us from | outsourcing one email a month. | | For the average blogger, $20 a month could still be worth it if | it they have a decent email lists and are converting profit | from that list. | | If you are just running a personal blog and want to send out | fun emails to your list of 100 people, it probably isn't worth | it. But most ESPs also have WYSIWYG designers that would be | "good enough". If you are somewhat-technical then a tool like | MJML would probably offer even more than the above tool offers, | while being free. | | I don't think Microsoft365 is a fair comparison. One is a mass- | market product, the other is a niche indie product. $20/mo | isn't for everyone. But at $240 a year, that's less than the | cost of out-sourcing a single email every year. So if you can | make 1 email a month from it, then you are clearly coming out | far ahead. | pc86 wrote: | $500 to update the content of an email is downright robbery. | Unless it's not actually "updating content" but is changing | what side the images are on, tweaks layouts, adding a graph | that wasn't there before, etc. | jacurtis wrote: | $500 would include a few images or something. But it | definitely wasn't a crazy amount of work. Swapping out text | and messaging probably came in closer to the $300 mark. We | mostly were paying for expertise of email developers that | we trusted. | | We rotated through a team of freelancers that specialize in | email development. All the freelancers we worked with did | email development full-time. They didn't make websites, | they didn't do SEO, they just knew email inside and out. | They specialize in email, and we paid a premium to them for | that expertise. This is important because you want the | emails to work on all platforms. So while it might seem | easy to just swap out text, it can sometimes cause layout | issues (email is very finicky) and we didn't want any of | those glitches negatively effecting the brand. The emails | generated tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of | dollars of revenue per email on average. So no one batted | an eye at $500 to make the email. You are paying for the | right person to do the job, not micro-analyzing their | hours. | | We made a lot more money from those emails than the | freelancers made by making the emails. So you also want to | make them happy, because good email developers are a dying | breed. They are hard to find. | | I should say that part of process was testing the emails. | We ran email device and litmus tests for every email that | had to be done as part of the development process. So when | I got the finished email from the freelancer, they always | submitted a link to a full litmus test result page which | showed the email presented in about 30 different device, | resolution, and email client combinations. That's what was | required for me to approve the email and for the freelancer | to get paid. | | So the freelancer wasn't just swapping text, but testing | the email for us and making any fixes so it worked | consistently. They would also add variables for things like | %%firstname%% or whatever. We would also run "conditional | emails" several times a month that were customized to a | customer's location (for example New York customers got a | different email than California customers) or some other | segment. But conditional emails were more advanced and | would run closer to the $2,000 mark. Again, conditional | emails out-performed blast emails (uncustomized), so they | would consistently bring in 6-figure revenues on those days | from the email, so no one thought twice about the $2,000 | bill from the email developer. | cosmie wrote: | I've executed my own email programs for small projects | before, and had the same reaction when I started working at | an agency and saw how much we charged for that type of | work. | | Interestingly enough, it's actually not as padded as it | seems. While the update itself may only take an hour or so | of time, there's a few hours of communication/procedural | overhead baked into these things: | | - Receive a project brief - Align with client on the | contents of the brief - Provide estimate and get sign off | (potentially before the brief, if this is repeat work for | an existing client) - Do actual work - Client review of | work - Revisions. Usually incredibly minor nitpicking, but | virtually always requested. - Final client review and | acceptance | | Whether the work takes 30 minutes or 30 hours, that | procedural overhead is standard in BigCo marketing | departments, and creates a price floor of about $500 since | even the tiniest requests end up taking several hours of | total effort (communication/procedural stuff + actual | work). If you're engaging an agency instead of a | freelancer, that floor jumps to about $1,000 as the entire | process gets facilitated by an account manager + PM, so you | have to add in a couple hours of their time as well for the | procedural/communication overhead. | | --- | | Not to say that's a particularly efficient process, or that | it should be that way. But figured I'd share that | perspective, since I initially reacted the same way you did | when I saw those estimates for stuff that should have taken | a trivially small amount of time to accomplish. | zwaps wrote: | I receive a lot of newsletters and communiques, some of which I | even signed up for. | | So, I don't know what designers use to receive e-mail, but here | in the non-designer / non-linux world, Outlook is pretty popular. | Now, Outlook - at least all configurations I have seen, has | pictures via HTML disabled. I have sampled a few IT departments | only, of course, but I feel like this is probably a pretty common | policy. | | So let me tell you: | | Your picture banners, your "rounded corner buttons", your main | engagement centerpiece that's just a picture ... it all ends up | being one of those nice 90's type beveled empty box we remember | from surfing with IE and ISDN. | | This may be a shock, but it really doesn't make your important | newsletter look any better. So, if you are not specifically going | for nostalgic "bad modem connection" look and feel, maybe ease | off the HTML pictures a bit, okay? | dijit wrote: | I always assumed this was intentionally done this way so that | people click the "display external content" warning and | inadvertently activate the tracking pixels. | WrathOfJay wrote: | IIRC, that was the exact argument for disabling image loading | when it was first introduced. | | The responsible thing for services like gmail and o365 to do | would be to eat the resource costs and just open ALL external | content within a privacy sandbox, thereby polluting the data. | Then you can re-enable displaying of images for everyone and | the experience for designers and end users gets better. | GoblinSlayer wrote: | Here we have a newsletter which is wholly one big raster | screenshot without any fancy html and no trace of text. | zwaps wrote: | Heh, I get those. | | It comes to me as an empty bevel box and an unsubscribe link. | | That's what I call succinct! | arendtio wrote: | To be precise: it is not like pictures are disable, but instead | 'external resources' are disabled. So if you embed the picture | into the e-mail it will be shown. For small pictures that is | quite reasonable. | hunter2_ wrote: | Ding ding ding. As a sender, the upside is that virtually all | GUI users will see the images without prompts or | placeholders; the downside is that you don't get a read | receipt. As a (GUI user) recipient, the upside is that you | will see the images without prompts or placeholders while | preserving your privacy; the downside is that you hit your | storage quota way sooner. | | Technically, embedded images are a lot like attachments, but | mail clients are smart enough not to display the little has- | attachment paper clip download widget because the MIME | headers for the image will say "Content-disposition: inline" | instead of "Content-disposition: attachment". Then the HTML | img element references it using the cid: scheme instead of | the https: scheme or similar. Anyway, the experience is | great. | | I suspect Mail Studio doesn't offer this because its MO is | that "Designs are exported as standard HTML and can be | imported in your email marketing platform of choice." This | embedded image technique would require that Mail Studio | export (or send) the entire multipart MIME message, not just | the HTML part. | mohsen1 wrote: | Earlier in my career I decided to go around this by rendering | photos in HTML Tables! | | http://azimi.me/img2html/ | colechristensen wrote: | People who use gmail/gsuite get html emails, the images are | proxied by google. People using gmail are a huge chunk of the | market. | uberswe wrote: | I did not know that images get proxied. Either way, I use | gmail with images turned off by default and I rarely enable | images for specific senders. | Humdeee wrote: | Interesting. I've always thought that images within emails | would also serve as a read receipt to the server that sent | them when enabled or shown. Would this still apply? Google | providing a proxy for this could totally pollute this data | (which could be a good thing!). | ncallaway wrote: | My understanding is that is exactly why Google provides a | proxy for that. | tomschwiha wrote: | Last time I checked Google is proxying the external | ressources right in the moment when the email is opened, | so it just protects the IP address. | hunter2_ wrote: | Someone tested [0] and the result agrees with you. And | this Gmail help article [1] elaborates on the scope of | protection, which is equivalent to "IP address and HTTP | headers": | | > Google scans images for signs of suspicious content | before you receive them. | | > These scans make images safer because: | | > - Senders can't use image loading to get information | about your computer or location. | | > - Senders can't use the image to set or read cookies in | your browser. | | > - Gmail checks the images for known harmful software. | Sometimes, senders may know whether you've opened an | email that has an image. Gmail scans every message for | suspicious content. If Gmail thinks that a sender or | message is suspicious, images aren't shown and you'll be | asked if you want to see the images.". | | ### | | Personally, I think this is quite silly, because I | routinely disclose my IP address and HTTP headers without | considering it particularly sensitive, but I don't want | senders to know that their their email messages have been | opened. | | [0] https://blog.filippo.io/how-the-new-gmail-image- | proxy-works-... | | [1] https://support.google.com/mail/answer/145919?hl=en- | GB | signal11 wrote: | > I've always thought that images within emails would also | serve as a read receipt to the server that sent them when | enabled or shown | | Yes, that's exactly what happens. Proxying the image only | hides the user's IP address. If the images in the email | load from external resources like | https://example.com/fetch-resource?id=something_unique | GMail has no way of knowing if something_unique uniquely | identifies a user. | | This is why disabling images is helpful. Of course Gmail | also lets you enable images per sender, and you may find | that quite acceptable for sites you have a relationship | with (e.g. a shopping site which already knows your IP | address and is sending you delivery notifications). | lucideer wrote: | Outlook is probably the most common desktop client, but I think | most people (even in corporate settings) are using webmail | these days; either Google Apps Suite or Office 365. The former | at least displays images by default (Google re-hosts them and | rewrites the email source). Not sure if MS does the same. | zwaps wrote: | It probably depends on the industry. | | Some of the biggest companies in Europe use Outlook the | desktop client, with said external resources disabled. | | May differ in technically more advanced countries, of course. | extra88 wrote: | Outlook for Web does have something similar now they call | "Outlook service" that loads images through the service under | their Privacy and data settings. I think it defaults to | "Always use" and the alternative is "Don't use." It sounds | like it definitely protects your home IP address from being | exposed, it might not prevent a tracking pixel working as | read receipt if it doesn't fetch the image until you open the | message. | | My messages still don't load remote images and are topped | with "Some content in this message has been blocked because | the sender isn't in your Safe senders list" followed by a | link to add the sender's address to the trusted list and | another link to show blocked content in this particular | message. | | I have Apple's Mail desktop and mobile apps set to not load | remote content but I think the default is for them to load. | skipnup wrote: | In the many companies I've seen in Germany not a single | person used outlook OWA except for when outlook had problems | starting up.. | Aeolun wrote: | Webmail is actually better thN the desktop client, but I have | to remember to keep it in the background. | | A desktop client with a thin wrapper around the websinterface | would be best. | IceWreck wrote: | Still kinda useless, because most users still block (and should | block) remote content including images by default. | | I'm tired of companies(and users) sending emails with trackers to | check if someone has read your email or not. | yoz-y wrote: | Do most users block images? I doubt it (but I have no data). | I'd assume that most users use web clients, and very few if any | web clients block images by default. | jerrygoyal wrote: | trocker chrome extension is built for those who want to keep | images and avoid pixel tracking. | rmason wrote: | Noticed that the video borrows New York Columbo family capo's, | Michael Franzese, theme music from his YouTube channel. | | https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+franzes... | xbar wrote: | I fantasize about using this for one or two of the (many) emails | I send per day. | selfishgene wrote: | Best open source alternative? | trutannus wrote: | Isn't this just Bootstrap Studio, but with less features? The UI | is identical. | deadbyte wrote: | Same company: Zine EOOD | clarge1120 wrote: | I'm watching to see if this takes off, and how the developer | does. It's already at the top of HN, so that's a great start. | | The developer has positioned this as a much needed solution to an | age-old problem: how to make Outlook-compatible email look great. | But $19 per month for a specialized HTML editor is expensive to | say the least. | cafed00d wrote: | I wonder who the target consumer for this would be. I mean, I get | that the target users are probably marketing departments / | communications people across the world's companies. | | But genuinely curious who's the end-customer who reads these | emails. | | Email is a strange technology that is only used for _reading | words_ more than anything else -- office work, receipts, | itineraries, bills etc etc. Even the best newsletters, imo, tend | to be word-heavy than imagery (such as Candor or Levels.fyi or | Chairman Mom). | | Would be cool if a Mail IDE had a way to tell if the email I'm | writing is _engaging_ enough simply by the words alone. Some day | perhaps. | smilbandit wrote: | Any thoughts on integrations with Litmus or Emails on Acid? | inetknght wrote: | Any HTML email that arrives to my inbox is usually marked as spam | and phishing. | | Emails need to be clear and concise. HTML facilitates far too | much hidden shit. | andylynch wrote: | As someone who lies in Excel, Outlook and too many different | chat apps I think it's far too useful to have proper formatted | text in communications - Even very simple things like | highlighting, tables, screenshots just don't work or are | unclear if you limit yourself to plain text. | | Marketing emails can be annoying but that's what the | unsubscribe button is for ;) | nonameiguess wrote: | Cynically, the unsubscribe button is so phishing operations | spamming every possible permutation of {<plausible name>, | <separator>}@<popular_service>.com can confirm they hit a | real email address and spam it out to all the various | constant contact subscribers that pay them for leads. | inetknght wrote: | Proper formatted text in communications is fine -- include it | as a separate attachment that's not automatically loaded and | displayed _instead of_ plain text. | D13Fd wrote: | Interesting take given that they are used by millions of people | every day. | twobitshifter wrote: | For security plain text is best. US Federal Government | Recommendation is to disable html: | | "Organizations should ensure that they have disabled HTML from | being used in emails, as well as disabling links. Everything | should be forced to plain text. This will reduce the likelihood | of potentially dangerous scripts or links being sent in the | body of the email, and also will reduce the likelihood of a | user just clicking something without thinking about it. With | plain text, the user would have to go through the process of | either typing in the link or copying and pasting. This | additional step will allow the user an extra opportunity for | thought and analysis before clicking on the link." | | https://theconversation.com/the-only-safe-email-is-text-only... | | That said theres another post on the front page about an Apple | mail zero click exploit involving attachments so even plain | text can't dodge everything. | cpursley wrote: | This perspective is just as silly as turning off JavaScript in | browsers. | inetknght wrote: | Funny enough... I turn off javascript in browsers. | zwaps wrote: | Why is turning off javascript silly? | | Not that I personally disable all JS in my browser, but I'd | say if your website can not be displayed without Javascript, | then it is silly. | rhines wrote: | At one point I might have agreed with you, but after | working on a few sites of my own I found that Javascript | just enables a vastly better user experience. No need to | refresh the page every time the user does something like | liking a post or sending a comment, can load content more | seamlessly with pre-loading or lazy loading, enables | expandable menu bars to maximize space for content when the | menu's not in use, things can be loaded faster and with | less data usage if you send page diffs instead of full | pages of markup, etc. | | Javascript's terrible when it's used to generate pages from | bloated frameworks that create 5000 DOM elements, add | listeners to everything, load a dozen external scripts, and | so on, but it's really valuable when used to actually | improve the user experience. | zwaps wrote: | Like you can probably guess, people tend to disable JS | not because it can technically enable a good user | experience. | | Rather, they do so because it enables a majority of | websites, and this includes big names like news websites, | to create an absolutely horrible user experience - even | if, or seemingly because, the content profits in no way | from JS. | | If you have ever tried to surf on an older laptop | recently, you will get what I mean. | arendtio wrote: | I was pleasantly surprised to see that there is a Linux version | available :-) | geniium wrote: | Bring me Dreamweaver back | ct520 wrote: | Pingendo is that you? | jonsully wrote: | This looks really neat. I've spent _way_ too long on custom HTML | for email signatures and email content without any tooling.. just | an editor, some inline styles and a whole lot of pain. Looking | forward to trying it out. No idea how y'all were able to figure | out how to compile the dev-written code down to email-compliance | for renderers as far back as you have, but kudos if it all works | well. I could never get over how many different renderers and | versions there are in the wild. Email is a TOUGH place for | styling and it seems like Litmus just dominates everything else | in the marketplace. | saos wrote: | Its very ninche tbh. I think more needs to be done to empower | marketers who don't really care about HTML. | | I know the web and email and different but its just crazy how | slow email is. Its still 10 years behind stuck using <table> | layouts. Just insane. | | Microsoft for starters should stop with actionable emails and | start supportingbasic semantic HTML and CSS3 in all their | clients. | hedora wrote: | 100% of carefully formatted HTML email is spam. There's no | client side demand for better spam renderers. | | The only reason web browsers are on the surveillance capitalism | treadmill is that people are essentially forced to continually | upgrade to the newest, shiniest version, since stuff like | banking and shopping break otherwise. | | If anything, I want my email client to support less of HTML. I | already have images (and, I hope, javascript -- better check) | disabled. Nuking custom fonts would be nice too. | | If this breaks the rendering of a message, 99% of the time, | that's a feature, not a bug. | | Heck, I wish there was an open, simplified HTML news renderer | where there is no JavaScript or tracking, and publishers target | it directly (I pay for access to a closed app like this, but it | is a walled garden.) | bandie91 wrote: | i would appreciate if they only could send meaningful plain text | messages BESIDES the text/html bloat they send, not garbage. or | do not add text/plain at all. | | i often ancounter emails with multipart/alternative containing | text/html and text/plain too but the plain part is | | 1) the HTML source, or | | 2) exists but empty, or in the best case | | 3) something like "see the html part", or in the worst case | | 4) a seemingly valid text but actually an earlier version of that | in the html, or | | 4/b) valid text but with template variables not substituted with | actual data. | megous wrote: | 3) is funny because I have preference to view text/plain if | it's present, and this just breaks it for the sender | | For webapps I develop I make sure text/plain part is actually | nice, not just passable. It's good for me too, because I can | query the emails sent by the app from a database, and just see | their content, and not the convoluted bloated garbage that mjml | and friends spit out. | stefanvdw1 wrote: | I've been using Bootstrap Studio[1] for a while now from the same | company and I have to say I'm very satisfied. Updates are | frequent, support is responsive and it's easy to use. | | Of course tools like this aren't necessary to work with Bootstrap | or create emails, but it has saved me a lot of time which is | valuable in itself. | | 1. https://bootstrapstudio.io | comeonseriously wrote: | I don't mean to be harsh but that video is awful. You're moving | the screencast around while I'm trying to watch what is happening | on the screen. And for no reason other than to just move the | screencast around. | blahyawnblah wrote: | I've been using Zurb's Foundation email stuff. Works great. | smalltalks wrote: | The developer is super smart , it's Bootstrap Studio[0] rebranded | as something new. | | I remember Michael Seibel talking about YC company "launching | multiple times" because you shouldn't be stopping until you find | your product market fit. | | This time it's seems like the right shot , but the pricing is | quite high for what is it... | | [0]https://bootstrapstudio.io/ | ihaveajob wrote: | I had your same intuition and went on to find out more. They | also produced https://epicbootstrap.com which is probably a | nice way to get some SEO juice. Good for them. | Mooty wrote: | Is this GrapesJS ;) ? | AlphaGeekZulu wrote: | No. | | On the other hand: if there is still any living person out there | voluntarily displaying HTML mail as such, they probably want to | suffer. So, ok. | | I won't see any of it anyways. HTML-designed mails go straight to | my bin... | bellyfullofbac wrote: | HTML in email is legacy hell. I wonder if someone wants to create | a new MIME-type like text/html+css, and clients who want can | implement it. | | In theory you could have representations of the message like | video/mpeg4 and text/plain, and depending on the client | capabilities and configuration, the receiver could watch a video | or read plain text. The information content of the 2 (or more) | don't even have to be the same! Found this out when trying to | parse text out of emails into a CRM system, another system sent | information in the HTML part, but an empty plaintext part. | sensanaty wrote: | Emails are pretty simple once you realize you just have to | stick to HTML <table>. Forget everything you know about the | last 20 years of webdev improvements, like the ability to | center something painlessly via flexbox, and you're good to go! | iamacyborg wrote: | Who needs flexbox when you can simply use <center>! | | /s | dubcanada wrote: | I guess that's sort of what AMP is. | Ashanmaril wrote: | I didn't even know that was a thing until the other day where | I saw someone post on Twitter that they got an email that had | basically a web storefront within the email. It was selling | some product and it had a color selector and cart, the whole | thing. I assume the checkout process would kick you to their | actual website but it's still kinda crazy. | iamacyborg wrote: | HTML in email is relatively uncomplicated once you understand | the main limitations. The bigger challenge I find is setting | the right expectation for what one can do in email, vs what | certain stakeholders want to include in an email. | koolba wrote: | If they go that route I hope they explicitly ban non-inline | content. | | I've seen some hilarious plaintext content. One of the best was | the raw template with the {{ customerName }} place holders. | smilbandit wrote: | Outlook on Windows is such a pain in the ass. Who ever thought | using Word to render HTML emails was a good idea should be pink | bellied. | D13Fd wrote: | It boggles my mind that Microsoft hasn't updated the Outlook | desktop app to use the rendering engine from Edge rather than | the 10+-year-old IE engine. That would resolve so many e-mail | rendering issues. I imagine it must be due to security | concerns. | meehow wrote: | Outlook comes with MS Office, so it's must render HTML with | MS Word. Super logical ;) | vxNsr wrote: | Yea it's bec you can send emails directly from word which I | do all the time. | guitarbill wrote: | I imagine it has less to do with security, and more with | backward-incompatible changes. | martinaglv wrote: | Hey! I am one of Mail Studio's authors. Will be happy to answer | any questions. | mobilio wrote: | Mnogo dobre Martin! | | Daje si go drapnah. | | Imash li telefon? | JimDabell wrote: | Your features page says this: | | > Email Previews | | > Quickly preview your design on real devices or share it with | your team by sending it as an email message. | | But when I read the documentation, it seems like you just | assume the user has a Litmus account. Is that correct? | | Given your paid plans start at $19.99/mo, I think it would be | wise to be upfront about the fact that you need a $99/mo Litmus | account for this feature to work. Mail client compatibility is | the most complex and difficult thing to get right with HTML | email design. If you need an external service to get this | right, this needs to be clearer. Right now it seems you're | selling Litmus as if it's your own functionality then expecting | your customers to then go and pay much more to Litmus to | actually get that functionality. | martinaglv wrote: | Apologies for any confusion that this line might have caused. | | > Quickly preview your design on real devices or share it | with your team by sending it as an email message. | | This refers to the ability to send the design you are working | on as an email message. When I wrote it I didn't even | consider that it might be interpreted to state that we offer | device testing. We don't. You can choose to send to a real | device, or Litmus, or a colleague. But we don't offer testing | on real devices. | | Still Mail Studio takes a lot of care to generate code that | works cross-device so if you stick to visual editing (without | writing custom HTML or CSS), your designs should work well | everywhere even if you forgo real device testing. | rkagerer wrote: | When I read "Email Designer IDE", the first question that | came to mind is whether it can show me renders of my email | draft in all the popular clients (various versions of | Outlook, web-based platforms like GMail, etc). When I found | out it doesn't do that I simply stopped reading. | arkitaip wrote: | Electron or React Native? Why? | | Are you planning to support seamless integration with ESP so | that the entire lifecycle from design to sending emails is | supported? | martinaglv wrote: | The application is built on Electron. I think that visual | editors like Mail Studio are one of the cases where this | choice makes sense, since you are editing a live HTML page. | You would need some a webview regardless of platform, but | Electron makes the implementation easier. | | At the moment, we support ESP syncing, which create/update a | template on the linked platform. You can then use it as the | basis of a campaign. | dnh44 wrote: | It looks really useful and the rationale behind using | Electron makes sense, but I really dislike using non-native | macOS apps. Still, I suppose it's better than not being | able to run it at all. Good luck with the project! | D13Fd wrote: | Honestly using VS Code and Teams every day has convinced | me that Electron apps are a net good. It's incredibly | convenient that both of those apps work essentially | identically on Mac & PC, and the Mac OS apps maintain | feature parity with the PC versions. | | This is such a nice change, after years and years of | bizarro-world Mac apps that have slowly become out-of- | date, weird, or slow compared to the PC versions (ahem, | Microsoft Office). | | Yes, there is a ton of overhead, but this feels like the | way of the (near) future for cross-platform software. I'd | love to see cross-platform Electron-based versions of | apps like OmniOutliner, which is an incredible program | that is held back by the lack of a PC version, meaning | you can't share outlines or use it professionally. | ponytech wrote: | Why not a web app then? | dnh44 wrote: | This is just a guess but if it were a web app then they'd | have to support multiple browsers. | tgv wrote: | But they have to support multiple mail clients anyway: | macOS Mail is based on Webkit, Thunderbird on Gecko | (Firefox), I guess it's Blink for many Android clients, | and then there's a hundred versions of Outlook. | iudqnolq wrote: | If you spend all your time making the output work cross- | platform, I could definitely see not wanting to go on to | spend a lot of time working on making the editor cross- | platform. It's the same kind of tedium, but without much | possibility for code-sharing. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Do you help users ensure your emails degrade gracefully when | remote images aren't loaded or HTML email is disabled? | martinaglv wrote: | Designs created in Mail Studio behave pretty much the same | way as regular emails do if images are disabled. You should | add alt text to your images and plan your design so that a | missing graphic doesn't cause problems. Still, we're at | version 1.0 so I imagine we can do more about this. | | The app handles the HTML part of the email, while the | plaintext is entered by the user when preparing their | campaign. We won't be of much help there. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | As a suggestion, you might consider recommending where | missing alt text is, especially on call to action buttons, | and perhaps providing a preview of what the email looks | like with remote images disabled. | | Good mail providers will block remote images by default, | and that's a trend I'd expect to become more prevalent over | time. | jonsully wrote: | Also interested in this question | howmayiannoyyou wrote: | Words of advice. Most businesses are using in-browser email | composers (eg. Mailchimp) to create content rich messages. As | nice as it may be to have the additional feature set, I suspect | the push back on your pricing is going to kill your project. | Highly recommend you rethink your revenue model. At most I | would pay $7/month for this. If you want additional recurring | charges you will have to integrate with my sender(s) and fit | painlessly into my weekly marketing flow. Great idea, dangerous | territory from a business perspective. | mxuribe wrote: | @martinaglv Sorry if this is a silly question: my day job is at | a non-profit, would that be considered commercial or non- | commercial use? Your tool seems very neat, so I would like to | ensure compliance with your licensing/pricing. Thanks! | martinaglv wrote: | It will be better to reach out to our support so we can | better evaluate the case. | kleiba wrote: | You have been tempted by the dark side. But it might not be too | late to turn around and walk away. | maydemir wrote: | I've been looking for something like this for a very long time. | | Can it be integrated with systems such as SendGrid? or will it be | integrated in the future? | twobitshifter wrote: | I'm not sure I'd go with the IDE angle, even if it meets the | definition. Looks like you support css and html, but an IDE | really makes you think of software for primarily writing code and | you're trying to appeal to non-coders. This is a wysiwyg editor | like Adobe Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver is now $20.99 a month, and | also supports newsletters. You have added features specific to | email services, but I think a lower price might be needed. | signal11 wrote: | An email user's viewpoint: pretty emails formatted like web pages | (e.g., like what GOG.com sends) may provide a sense of | accomplishment to the designer, and their employer a warm, fuzzy, | Brand-CompliantTM feeling -- but as a user I kind of like emails | that are just... messages. With hyperlinks if it's appropriate. | Images aren't always a great idea -- lots of clients block them | by default. | | Why not have just text in paragraphs with hyperlinks? It'd force | you to write good copy, sure, but also it's more likely it'll get | read. | | A complex layout often detracts from your message. Especially now | with web-based clients implementing 'dark mode' and darkening | your layouts, meaning you have less control over what the end- | user sees. | | (Apologies if this is off-topic. I don't mean to denigrate the | work designers do, I just feel it's more appropriate on the | actual web rather than in email.) | woodruffw wrote: | I'm definitely not the intended audience for these emails, but | as anecdata: whenever I get a flashy HTML email, a breaker | trips in my brain and I immediately switch to "hunt for the | unsubscribe button" mode. It's a good thing that I can't | unsubscribe from my power company's alert emails, because I | would have. | tootie wrote: | You're not the average consumer probably. That or you don't | even realize how a well-deaigned email can grab your attention. | Nextgrid wrote: | I don't like the argument about not being the "average | consumer". Just because you're smarter at detecting & | filtering out marketer's bullshit doesn't make it okay to | keep perpetuating the problem because others aren't. | | If you deem the behavior nefarious or annoying it's not fair | to justify inflicting it on someone else because they're not | savvy enough to recognize/filter it. | tootie wrote: | It does though. Email marketing is all about crafting a | message that gets the highest conversion rate and the rates | are already pretty low. So if a blinking gif annoys most of | your users, but the response rate goes from 3% to 4% it's a | win for the sender. | alpaca128 wrote: | You're probably not a user of the average PC and internet | connection out there. On low-tier equipment well-designed can | turn very quickly into utterly frustrating. | | But you are right about the last part...when the user's UI | locks up for a few seconds your email is certain to grab | their attention. Just not in the way your carefully designed | newsletter was intended to be remembered, though. | | Plain text mails work better in every possible situation and | are guaranteed to be formatted in a readable way. Meanwhile | your average marketing newsletter is almost guaranteed to not | be displayed in the correct manner as most decent email | clients will just outright block any image content by | default, and if your designer had the bright idea to also | embed all text in images so their carefully selected font | looks nice everywhere, well, I can't see anything without | manually enabling pictures and then waiting 5+ seconds to see | what the email is even about. And why would I do that? | Cederfjard wrote: | Not to be overly cynical, but are people with low-tier | equipment the ones that marketers usually care about? | | It's not really about what "works best" for the average | recipient, because these emails are not sent out of the | goodness of the senders' hearts. If data show that fancy | HTML emails translate into more paying customers, then | that's what drives these decisions. | | It's of course possible that this is not the case, however | to be convinced of that I'd like to see the stats rather | than speculation based on individual people's subjective | experience. And naturally it can depend on the product and | target demographics, too. | munk-a wrote: | > Not to be overly cynical, but are people with low-tier | equipment the ones that marketers usually care about? | | Yes - they generally are. Sure the newest SV ETL pipeline | might be catered towards folks with up-to-date hardware, | but most marketing is directed toward having a large | reach and you'll find that the distribution of gullible | people is pretty even society wide - and so those low | performance having folk actually do compose a fair chunk | of the intended audience. | angry-tempest wrote: | Great points but email is the easiest thing to A/B test in the | world. If you were correct, somebody would have figured it out | by now. | boffinism wrote: | They did: https://www.litmus.com/blog/the-results-are-in-a-b- | testing-h... | adkadskhj wrote: | Heh, even further than that, they're broken right out of the | gate for some people - like me. I don't display any images in | my emails. I don't want them using that to track my view of the | content. Yea some email providers work around this, but some | don't - i have it fully disabled. | | Most emails i view these days look like garbage. | heroic wrote: | Almost always, for such emails, you are not the audience. We've | done multiple tests to check which emails perform better for | our customers, and always ones with a lot more visual imagery, | heavily HTMLized emails work better than just text and links. | | Our understanding for this has been that people are not very | email savvy, and for them the visual imagery works more like | story telling. | amitheonlyone wrote: | I don't completely agree with your opinion. It's true that | emails that are crowded with styled elements are not ideal. But | I feel that there is a sweet spot where you have nicely | formatted and designed emails that look and communicate pretty | well. | mrtksn wrote: | Don't think transactional e-mail like "your order has been | dispatched", imagine "You are invited to our annual | conference", "We miss you, here is a %50 discount coupon for | your next order!", "You have been accepted to our beta program" | or "Unfortunately your application has been rejected" kind of | e-mails. | | When there's an e-mail about something special(in a sense that | it's not happening all the time), I tend find it suspicious if | it is not well formatted. If it's going to make me happy, | better be formatted happy and if it is going to make me sad | better looks like making me sad was taken seriously. | krsdcbl wrote: | I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Personally I | very much share your purist view here, BUT i also find barely | formatted plain text marketing emails highly suspicious and | tend to filter them out as scam subconsciously. | | Don't overload your communication, that is right. But also | don't neglect your design and branding. | | It's easy to think plain text is better when coming from a | technical background with probably well maintained inbox, but | your average customer has likely an inbox overflowing with | marketing stuff already and will need visual hooks, proper | presentation and coherence in appearance to decide if something | is trustworthy and worth being read. | onion2k wrote: | You're talking about optimization. In your opinion emails with | fancy layout and "on-brand" design will get a lower level of | engagement than plain text with well-written copy. You may well | be right (in a lot of cases.) | | But you don't _know_ that. | | It's a guess based on your biases and assumptions. This is why | it's critically important to measure things when you optimize | them. Believing that you should engage with your customers in a | way that you like because "they're just like me, so they'll | like what I like" is an easy way to kill your messaging dead. | Optimization of something like email is a matter of constantly | measuring, refining, and measuring again. | buro9 wrote: | What I do know from measuring my marketing and transactional | emails is that the least possible formatting results in the | lowest probability that I end up in the spam folder. | | The hypothesis I had here (unverified) is that using a tool | to produce email makes your email look like spam produced by | that tool (by other people). My hypothesis more specifically | is that spam detection software weighs similarity in the | structure equally to similarity in content. | | My HTML emails have since been modified to be absolutely | minimal HTML as hints to the layout and nothing else. They | are more like plain text emails that have been polished with | just the lightest sprinkle of HTML and CSS but nothing more. | | The result of keeping things simple is that my deliverability | is over 99% and the open rate also phenomenally high. | andrei_says_ wrote: | Are you aware of any studies verifying this hypothesis? | Would be very useful in my team's roadmap. | citrin_ru wrote: | Spammers sometimes (often enough to bother) are trying to | fool spam filters by adding invisible or hard to see text | copied from ham messages (e. g. it allows to bypass | Bayes). To counter this spamfilters are trying detect and | penalize invisible text in HTML emails e. g. <span | style="font-size: 0px;">....</span>, display:none, text | with the same color as background, e. t. c. | | Running something like headless browser (Chrome) to parse | HTML emails would require too much resources so spam | filters use either simple ad-hock HTML parsers or just | regexps. If you use complex HTML markup, e. g. lots of | nested div/span tags, different CSS styles on different | levels and global <style> block on top of all, they can | be confused and will detect invisible text in a message | where all text is visible (when CSS/HTML is rendered in | Google Chrome; who knows how it would look in different | mail clients). | | If you use clean and simple HTML, there will be no | leftovers like <span style="font-size: 0px;"> and you | will not confuse spam filters. | andrei_says_ wrote: | Ironically <span style="font-size: 0px;"> is a must for | spacing tables if you want outlook compatibility. | citrin_ru wrote: | Ironically this technique was used in phishing for MS | Office 365 credentials (users of which often use MS | Outlook): https://www.avanan.com/blog/zerofont-phishing- | attack | | Rendering in Outlooks changes from time to time - it is | worth to check if this workaround is still required. | aarondia wrote: | When I receive an html email, I default to thinking there | is nothing of value in it, and I don't read it. I use email | as a more formal text messaging, or often group text | messaging, system. Marketing newsletters, etc are just a | clutter. But I do get a lot of them, so maybe they work for | others. | linsomniac wrote: | As someone who spent a very long time in a text-only mail | client, on purpose, and then switched to Thunderbird and set | it to the "show the text version if at all possible" mode, | I'll say that I've become ambivalent about it. | | Now actually appreciate being able to scan emails based on | the 10,000 ft view. Sometimes, images can convey a lot in a | glance, the overall graphical layout can convey a lot too. | contravariant wrote: | Normally you'd think the burden of proof would be on the side | requesting considerable resources and infrastructure to send | something that doesn't render properly under the most basic | privacy settings and cannot be displayed text-only (like in | notifications). | passivate wrote: | Normally I would agree with this sentiment, but what kind | of proof are you looking for here? We're not discussing | logical absolutes or claims of absolute fact! We're | discussing peoples preferences - what they like and/or | expect an engaging email to look like. This area is highly | subjective and contextual (culture, region, age, demo, | etc). Neither your nor OPs experiences invalidate each | other. Both of you can be correct at the same time. | | Personally, I've seen engagement metrics increase when | marketing added more "fluff" to their emails. Its no | different than those obnoxious thumbnails people use on YT | - it works - maybe accidentally, but it does, for now. That | may change at any time in the future, just like what people | like to see in emails/magazines/brochures is bound to | change in the future. | contravariant wrote: | Sure if you just prefer if your emails look a certain way | then there's no point in discussing proof, just do the | thing you like. | | However if the discussion is whether you should just send | plaintext emails or use a complicated and/or expensive | tool to send out fancy emails then the more time/money | consuming side has more to prove. | | Given that the first few replies I got were essentially | "Well I assume somebody checked this", I'm not sure the | assumption that fancier emails are necessarily better has | been questioned enough. | | I'm also reminded of several articles where online | marketing itself turned out to be _nowhere_ near as | effective as people think. [1,2] | | [1]: https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com- | bubble-is-h... [2]: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465873 | passivate wrote: | >However if the discussion is whether you should just | send plaintext emails or use a complicated and/or | expensive tool to send out fancy emails then the more | time/money consuming side has more to prove. | | I am curious, how many plaintext emails do you receive as | a percentage? I don't receive any so maybe my opinion is | colored by that fact. | | >Given that the first few replies I got were essentially | "Well I assume somebody checked this", I'm not sure the | assumption that fancier emails are necessarily better has | been questioned enough. | | I'm 100% with you that conventional wisdom should attract | scrutiny from time to time, and I don't mean to | discourage that. My only point was that there is nothing | to "prove" here. Marketing styles/trends/methods are not | linked so neatly and linearly that we can test individual | elements by scientific method. There are far too many | variables. I think it is natural that each company wants | to be able to choose the font, add graphics to make the | email attractive, add tracking pixels to measure | performance, etc. Its sort of become the default. So | maybe the question really is what do you stand to gain by | removing all that? | | >I'm also reminded of several articles where online | marketing itself turned out to be nowhere near as | effective as people think. [1,2] | | Heh, maybe marketing was never as effective as people | claimed, its that now we have the tools & metrics to | detect just how bad it is. :) | anamexis wrote: | I would assume that side has, in fact, established that | proof. | TrueDuality wrote: | I'm also going to make a pretty big assumption, which is | that a lot of people using mailing tools that give them | stats such as MailChimp do not think about how privacy | settings affect their metrics. If I have images disabled | by default I will almost certainly never show up in an | "opened" metric. | | Images off by default is becoming more common. | hedora wrote: | They certainly haven't proven its efficacy to the people | whose resources are being consumed. | contravariant wrote: | It's a common assumption, but also a dangerous assumption | when the people who you assume have established the proof | are the same people who stand to profit a from it being | proven. | anamexis wrote: | I'm not sure I follow - if marketers proved that plain | text emails are more profitable, they would use plain | text emails. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-01 23:01 UTC)