Why is the rendering engine in Outlook so bad?
in [Outlook]
|
Prev: Two Computers on the same network using the one email address!
Next: e-mail with link to folder on network drive
From: Matt on 10 May 2010 07:45 I'm a web developer currently building an HTML email for a client. I just wanted to say that Outlook has ruined my day again. So now, once again I'm trying to figure out how I justify to a client the hours I have spent trying to get simple, standards-compliant code to display correctly in Outlook. I have a feature request: a Microsoft hosted page containing an official apology about the rendering engine in Outlook that I can direct my clients to, to save me spending yet more of my time explaining why Outlook is so annoying and expensive to develop for. Thank You
From: Diane Poremsky [MVP] on 10 May 2010 08:36 Matt;145426 Wrote: > I'm a web developer currently building an HTML email for a client. > > I just wanted to say that Outlook has ruined my day again. So now, > once > again I'm trying to figure out how I justify to a client the hours I > have > spent trying to get simple, standards-compliant code to display > correctly in > Outlook. > > I have a feature request: a Microsoft hosted page containing an > official > apology about the rendering engine in Outlook that I can direct my > clients > to, to save me spending yet more of my time explaining why Outlook is > so > annoying and expensive to develop for. > > Thank You Every bulk email i get looks fine, so it can't be all that hard to do. Email is not simply "web pages viewed in a browser" and should never be treated as if they are. Don't over program/over design the message and it will look fine. Simple *is* better in email. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa338201.aspx for information on CSS support and other information. -- Diane Poremsky [MVP] Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook] Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/ Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com http://forums.slipstick.com
From: VanguardLH on 10 May 2010 14:55 Matt wrote: > I'm a web developer currently building an HTML email for a client. > > I just wanted to say that Outlook has ruined my day again. So now, once > again I'm trying to figure out how I justify to a client the hours I have > spent trying to get simple, standards-compliant code to display correctly in > Outlook. Outlook is an e-mail client, not a web browser. Don't expect ANY e-mail client to render your HTML e-mails exactly as you see them. With HTML, you can *never* guarantee the recipient will see the content exactly the same as you see it. Besides, most of what you can do in HTML will get blocked by the vast majority of e-mail clients, anyway, like any scripting, animation, etc. Gee, you claim to be a "developer" and you don't know this? If you want your users to open your message in a web browser then either put the page online somewhere and give a link to to the recipient so they end up opening their web browser to see that page, or attach your web page as an ..html attachment so it opens in their web browser. If you want the rendering support of a web browser then USE A WEB BROWSER to view the content! A screwdriver can be used as a hammer but it wasn't designed for that purpose. Don't expect a screwdriver to work well as a hammer. > I have a feature request: a Microsoft hosted page containing an official > apology about the rendering engine in Outlook that I can direct my clients > to, to save me spending yet more of my time explaining why Outlook is so > annoying and expensive to develop for. Create your own web page for YOUR apology to your ignorant users. Of course, the time it takes you to tell them the URL to your apology page would take just as much time as stating "E-mail clients are NOT web browsers."
From: Matt on 10 May 2010 15:13 Roady, Thanks for the response. I honestly didn't think the antiquated word HTML rendering engine could be defended! It is a genuine shame the fact that "Other mail clients are not much better" is used to justify Outlook's shortcomings. So what if they are not much better*? Why not make the most popular email client the best? *(with a few exceptions - apple mail and thunderbird are particularly good). I'd rather not spend too much time documenting the shortcomings of Outlook's rendering engine as they are hugely documented across the internet, highlights include: http://www.email-standards.org/clients/ http://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/ (showing how outlook CSS support has got *worse* since 2003?!) http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/post/2393/microsoft-takes-email-design-b/ Diane, Thanks for the reply. However please don't patronise me. I don't send 'bulk emails' and I do my very best not to 'over-design' anything. My clients ask me to me to produce newsletters for their subscribers that are visually compelling and engaging or at the very least have professional standard of simple typography, spacing and alignment (all of which Outlook make hard to achieve). I have been designing and developing using HTML (and CSS) for eleven years and generally speaking you're right - it is not "all that hard to do". It only becomes hard when working around the quirks and bugs present in Microsoft products, in particular (and somewhat famously) Internet Explorer 6/7 and when writing HTML emails: Outlook 2007 (and now 2010). While I agree of course that "email is not simply web pages viewed in a browser" the reality is that like it or not, HTML email is here to stay. My thoughts are somewhat close to those documented here: (please take the time to read if you haven't already - there really are some legitimate points) http://www.email-standards.org/why/ http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/post/2468/why-we-need-web-standards-supp-1/ I also agree that "simple is better" - this is true of almost everything. But can you remind me again what is that is wrong with giving developers the tools and the ability to innovate and push new ideas and methods? To be honest, as usual it looks like I may as well get used to it. The fact that Outlook 2010 uses the same antiquated rendering engine (originally designed for a word processor?) means I will be unfortunately using these ancient methods of building emails for some time to come..
From: Matt on 10 May 2010 15:19
Roady, Thanks for the response. I honestly didn't think the antiquated word HTML rendering engine could be defended! It is a genuine shame the fact that "Other mail clients are not much better" is used to justify Outlook's shortcomings. Of the clients with any decent market share, they may not be much better, but they *are* better. And besides, so what if they are not much better?* Why not make the most popular email client the best? *(with a few exceptions - apple mail and thunderbird are particularly good, Gmail particularly bad). I'd rather not spend too much time documenting the shortcomings of Outlook's rendering engine as they are hugely documented across the internet, highlights include: http://www.email-standards.org/clients/ http://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/ (showing how outlook CSS support has got *worse* since 2003?!) http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/post/2393/microsoft-takes-email-design-b/ Diane, Thanks for the reply. However please don't patronise me. I don't send 'bulk emails' and I do my very best not to 'over-design' anything. My clients ask me to me to produce newsletters for their subscribers that are visually compelling and engaging or at the very least have professional standard of simple typography, spacing and alignment (all of which Outlook make hard to achieve). I have been designing and developing using HTML (and CSS) for eleven years and generally speaking you're right - it is not "all that hard to do". It only becomes hard when working around the quirks and bugs present in Microsoft products, in particular (and somewhat famously) Internet Explorer 6/7 and when writing HTML emails: Outlook 2007 (and now 2010). While I agree of course that "email is not simply web pages viewed in a browser" the reality is that like it or not, HTML email is here to stay. My thoughts are somewhat close to those documented here: (please take the time to read if you haven't already - there really are some legitimate points) http://www.email-standards.org/why/ http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/post/2468/why-we-need-web-standards-supp-1/ I also agree that "simple is better" - this is true of almost everything. But can you remind me again what is that is wrong with giving developers the tools and the ability to innovate and push new ideas and methods? To be honest, as usual it looks like I may as well get used to it. The fact that Outlook 2010 uses the same antiquated rendering engine (originally designed for a word processor?) means I will be unfortunately using these ancient methods of building emails for some time to come.. |