Hi
On Monday 16 June 2014 at 2:13:56 PM, in <mid:1523550743.20140616201...@thebat.net>, Thomas Fernandez wrote: > That either depends of the line of work you are in, or > the century you live in. And on what you are comfortable with aesthetically, and your preferred method of working. > No, please do not send me attachments unless really > necessary. On the contrary: if it is necessary to use fancy formatting to get the message across, please think of a simpler way to say it in words. Or put it in an attachment. > I was talking about the recipient of the message. You hadn't said whether you meant more efficient for the sender or for the recipient, so I covered the sender, the recipient who reads email in plaintext, and the recipient who reads email in HTML. > I > receive 200-300 emails in my business emails a day, and > having to open attachments for things that could be in > the preview pane is highly inefficient. I guess it depends on what proportion of the emails you would have to do this for, and on how long it takes to open the attachment. And how much slower your MUA displays messages in HTML than in plaintext. (At work I have to use Outlook, and the speed difference is noticeable.) > I perfectly understand "attached kindly find the table > as an Excel file" when it consists of only two rows and > two columns. Obviously, a very small table like that would sensibly just be included in the plaintext of the email. If it was big enough to justify being an excel spreadsheet, I want it attached: my preview pane would not cope with it anyway. And if the data is to be used rather than just seen, I find an attached spreadsheet more efficient than a table that needs to be copied from an email body. > Those mouse-clicks, and waiting for the application to > open, waste hours in a work day. I find opening an attachment is usually a very short wait, because I don't tend to receive many different types of attachment. So for most of the day the application is already open. And the odd one that takes longer gives the chance to sip my coffee. (-; >> One or two clicks and the recipient can be reading the >> table in their HTML viewer. No efficiency gain or loss >> between opening an attached table with a couple of >> clicks versus switching to HTML viewer with a couple >> of clicks. > It is a big efficiency loss. To open an attached table: a couple of clicks. To switch to HTML viewer: a couple of clicks. To me, that looks like no difference. > I wonder how many emails you receive per day, Typically 100-150. > and how often these have an > attachment that could easily be inserted into the body > of the message. Only a handful contain attachments that it would be acceptable to insert into message bodies. About half of the emails actually contain attachments, but most of the attachments are needed intact as documents for audit. > There is a *huge* difference in > efficiency, and that is my point. Horses for courses. I find plaintext messages, with attachments where necessary, to be much more efficient. >> It also makes your inserts appear more important, as >> the reader who clicks to open them is likely to pay >> attention than the reader who casts there eye over >> them when reading the body of an email. > Sure. Please do not try to make yourself important by > making me waste my time having to open attachments. I did not mean it makes the sender look important. It does not; it just makes the attached information appear more significant compared to the rest of that message. > To make myself clear: I do not wish to receive messages > in different fonts or fancy colour, or with animated > GIFs. Glad to hear it. But a lot of those who use HTML in email can't seem to resist garish colours or fonts from time to time. > However, HTML makes sense in business, depending > on what business you are in. I stand by my assertion that, for me, only a very few emails benefit from using HTML. I typically need to switch to the HTML viewer only about once in five or six weeks - usually to find content that could have been presented perfectly well in plaintext, meaning that there was no benefit to using HTML. Some businesses like HTML because they can include company logos or use corporate templates. Some businesses even make use of HTML email in a way that "adds value" in the form of increased efficiency. Others seem to use it just because they can, and with no clear idea why they are using HTML there is a frequently-realised danger of style overwhelming the message. -- Best regards MFPA mailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net Of course it's a good idea - it's mine! Using The Bat! v4.0.38 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 3 ________________________________________________ Current version is 6.1.8 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
