Post 9tk6oxTHw7vReRsSsy by christianbundy@social.coop
(DIR) More posts by christianbundy@social.coop
(DIR) Post #9tjlDd3GnNO2ZL4Alc by jrswab@mastodon.xyz
2020-04-05T15:08:11Z
0 likes, 3 repeats
HTML email is bad and should be considered harmful.https://jrswab.com/blog/you-need-to-stop-using-html-emailShout out to @sir for all the useful information on useplaintext.email#tech #email
(DIR) Post #9tk4x7r313VoGLl1o9 by christianbundy@social.coop
2020-04-05T18:47:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jrswab @sir I use plaintext email a lot, but I'm feeling conflicted -- why should email be plaintext when websites are HTML?Plaintext is great except when it's not, and I'm not sure how to resolve the conflict.
(DIR) Post #9tk4x8tZ9B7XURwYN6 by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-04-05T18:47:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@christianbundy @jrswab websites and email are, as a matter of fact, two different thingsWhy should print books be TeX instead of HTML?
(DIR) Post #9tk6oxTHw7vReRsSsy by christianbundy@social.coop
2020-04-05T19:10:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir @jrswab 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.
(DIR) Post #9tk6viRKDqJl3hBJUu by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-04-05T19:11:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@christianbundy @jrswab in fact, it's often the opposite. Plaintext emails are just the text, and that's pretty easy for a TTS to read. HTML emails are a nightmare for accessibility. And why "skip to content" when there's nothing but content?
(DIR) Post #9tkB8CvX64Wou9WTlQ by christianbundy@social.coop
2020-04-05T19:58:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir @jrswab> Plaintext emails are just the text, and that's pretty easy for a TTS to read.Sure, but it can also be a nightmare because now everyone gets to invent their own markup. Note my <blockquote> above. Also:- What* Do+ Lists> Look⢠Like?Yay, now /everyone/ gets to invent their own *markup standards*. Do you get my point?> HTML emails are a nightmare for accessibility.They can be, but they don't have to be. You seem to paint with very broad strokes and I don't get why.
(DIR) Post #9tkBGrWc2Qfd8MzeyW by sir@cmpwn.com
2020-04-05T20:00:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@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.
(DIR) Post #9tkCn3ACOyleS1QDpo by christianbundy@social.coop
2020-04-05T20:13:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sir @jrswab Is this an accessibility nightmare? <!DOCTYPE html> <p>Hi Drew!</p>(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?