[thelist] reasonable expectations for email delivery of HTML

Tim Palac tymartist at gmail.com
Wed Nov 7 13:51:41 CST 2007

And my apologies, I thought Patricia had started this email but turns out it
was Bob.  That was almost messy :)

IM: TymArtist

On Nov 7, 2007 1:50 PM, Tim Palac <tymartist at gmail.com> wrote:

> Patricia,
> Honestly, I'm going to say that based on Usability studies I've seen,
> people respond better when emails are geared differently than websites.  For
> instance, let's say you go to the home page of a website, and you've got
> tons of things in your viewport - banner, navigation, content, footer, etc.
> It's very general, and even the specific pages on the website are prepared
> with the intention of getting you to other places on the site.
> In email, you are generally going for a very specific message - maybe it's
> a sale, special offer, member update, or whatever.  The point is, you want
> them focusing on the message, and not the pretty graphics.  I'd say graphics
> are only useful in making the message have more impact - for instance, a
> header graphic will get them to the message better (I read that a while back
> on MarketingSherpa), but once they're in the message you don't want them
> distracted by other website elements.
> The only emails that look more website-like are the monthly newsletters
> like we have at my company - even then, I limit the content to a single
> column, since the more columnar you get, the less likely people are going to
> focus on something.  I did see a good example today of a two-column email,
> however - the main content had a yellow gradient background, and the right
> side was a black background with white text.  It's a whole different
> ballgame.
> So no, I think if anything things should be headed in the other direction
> - email is for messages, and too complex messages will most likely end up in
> spam anyway!
> On a technical sidenote, it's difficult to duplicate a website in an email
> because it's recommended that you go no wider than 500 pixels with an email,
> whereas most websites are 700px.  Also, there's a lot of CSS issues, so it'd
> pretty much be like redeveloping a website for a new platform!
> Just some thoughts :)
> Tim
> http://www.timpalac.com/blog
> IM: TymArtist
> I will take a look at the article.  Maybe I miscommunicated the thought,
> > though.  I am not asking about opt-in/opt-out.  This works fine.  I have
> > a joomla-based site (although this is not really the issue), this one
> > based upon tables (ouch - not by choice).  It includes fairly simple
> > hover-enhanced navigation with a number of pics, including some linking
> > to the shopping cart.
> >
> > When I use dadamail to send out an html copy of the site/page to
> > subscribers (me at this time) it is displaying surprisingly well to me
> > in both Outlook and Thunderbird, but not well at all for my customer.
> > In my mind it is possibly due to his monitor or perhaps some
> > customizations to Outlook.
> >
> > What I am asking, "Are we at the stage where a customer should expect
> > that we can deliver/mimic his/her website in the body of an email
> > message?"  To me it 'feels' like this is a different ballgame, adds a
> > new set of variables, time/effort to be included in the basic package?
> > Seems more like the 'platinum' version with 'platinum' testing/time.
> >
> > -Bob
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bob Meetin
> > dotted i - Internet Strategies & Solutions
> > www.dottedi.biz
> > 303-926-0167
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > * * Please support the community that supports you.  * *
> > http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
> >
> > For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester
> > and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org
> > Workers of the Web, evolt !
> >
> >

More information about the thelist mailing list