Email newsletters: a badly-written poll

May 31, 2011 10:32

Text-only, or html - which is better?

Graphics in newsletters - good, bad, or neutral?

Do you like newsletters that closely resemble the front page of a news website, with sidebars, lots of links and "teaser" intros, that require you to open a browser page to keep reading?

Are the various graphic elements (dividing lines, sidebars, etc.) helpful or a distraction?

Is "abomination" too strong a word to use when referencing graphics-heavy newsletters?

And why /do/ people seem to think this format is more "professional" than something that is primarily text, or text with only small amounts of html?

ETA: I'm more looking for personal opinions/reactions from the reader's perspective, than explanations for why these things are useful or how to do them well. I think I'd pitch a fit the size of Everest if anyone were to ask me to create one :) but I might pass on some of the comments so far to people who, alas, are wanting to switch a nice simple newsletter to an html-ized one.

Originally posted here: http://hrafn.dreamwidth.org/510095.html. Pick your poison and comment there.

graphic design, irritations, internet

Previous post Next post
Up