Blah blah blah. More and more reseach papers are sent in the form of PDF now. Say I run DOS or BeOS and there is no Acrobat reader available for those two operating systems, do I blame Adobe?
So he thought Outlook was sending plain text. Well, clearly it was not. Educate the man. It is neither complex nor did the application hide it.
The receiver cannot read RTF - geez get with it. RTF ias based on ANSI, MS, IBM, Mac character set. RTF is the default format of Textedit. How ubitiquous does it have to get?
So no one is to blame but figginh Microsoft Outlook and their monopoly! Boo. Microsoft. Boo. Everybody revert to text!
Man, that is pathetic.
Sure, I know text just works. Who are you trying to convince?
For you, who have to send text to various sources, be they mainframe or pagers, and you send plan text - well, duh. We do that at work too for automated messages between systems/machine/OS/platform/etc.
For everyone else, e-mails in whatever format (save for large attachements) also works too. So you get hassled by two otherwise intelligent folks and had to spend time to fix it. Big deal. It's part of work and it's about time both of them learn someting new.
Sorry to be harsh but that's the sad truth...
[Before you come back and say why should they learn something new when old ways work... why should one learn how to use touch tone phones instead of rotary, why should one learn not to call African-Americans colored folks, why one should one labels stop releasing albums on 8-tracks or cassettes, when in case of all of the above, the old ways work?]
I'm interested in how you would substantiate the assertion that plain text is inferior to formatted text. There is a common tendency to assume that more-features is preferable to less-features. Yet, is formatted text actually a more expressive, efficient, and concise? Research on the presentation of text has lead to some rather unintuitive conclusions.
The availability of formatting tends to distract writers from their natural thought process. In-line spell checkers exhibit the same phenomenon. For posterity, sometime carefully observe someone using microsoft word to compose a first draft. What researches have found is that availability of spell checking and formatting cause people to stop multiple times, mid-sentence, every sentence, to rework what they have written. If proofing and formatting is done after the first pass of getting the ideas out onto the page, the result is a much higher quality composition.
Research has also been done on the optimal amount of formatting for greatest scanability and reading comprehension. The results here are perhaps less surprising. As the length of a text passage increases, formatting becomes more important, visually and cognitively grouping things in a manner that improves reading comprehension and facilitates quick scanning. However, in shorter passages, formatting usually has the opposite effect, actually distracting the reader, slowing them down, and decreasing comprehension. You see, formatting is almost impossible to ignore, causing readers to consciously and subconsciously try to interpret it?s significance.
Also, as I mentioned in previous posts, formatted email comes from many authors. When reading email it is typical to read many passages of text, each formatted differently and by people who don?t do design work for a living. This leads to huge discrepancies in presentation to the point where reading actually becomes cumbersome.
I?m not a fanatic that is completely opposed to formatted email. However, given the limited utility of such formatting and the trouble it causes, formatted email is not obviously superior to plain text email. Pragmatically, it seems that plain text is simply a more effective communication tool.
There are many technical reasons for why plain text is more convenient. But even without those issues, I still hold that formatting is a distraction which hinders communication for the typical length and scope of email.
So he thought Outlook was sending plain text. Well, clearly it was not. Educate the man. It is neither complex nor did the application hide it.
Why should pasting plain text into a plain text medium in order to send plain text require an education?
Quote:
The receiver cannot read RTF - geez get with it.
Yes, this is exactly the logic I was saying actually held, rather than the argument you used in your last post (that people should accomodate their receiver). In fact, most people get the latest thing and expect everyone else to have it too. MS built their monopoly on that fact.
Quote:
Sure, I know text just works. Who are you trying to convince?
You, apparently.
Quote:
For you, who have to send text to various sources, be they mainframe or pagers, and you send plan text - well, duh. We do that at work too for automated messages between systems/machine/OS/platform/etc.
For everyone else, e-mails in whatever format (save for large attachements) also works too. So you get hassled by two otherwise intelligent folks and had to spend time to fix it. Big deal. It's part of work and it's about time both of them learn someting new.
Yup. Blame the user. The great Microsoftie refrain. Sorry, but I just set my email to send plain text and forget about the whole deal. It's much, much simpler, and I have yet to wish I did things any other way.
I send attachments when they're asked for (or when I ask and they answer affirmatively), which assures that the receiver can handle attachments (and therefore MIME, which works just fine with plain text email) and also whatever format the attached document uses.
(When in doubt, I tend to use RTF or PDF for attachments.)
Quote:
[Before you come back and say why should they learn something new when old ways work... why should one learn how to use touch tone phones instead of rotary, why should one learn not to call African-Americans colored folks, why one should one labels stop releasing albums on 8-tracks or cassettes, when in case of all of the above, the old ways work?]
Because, in those cases, the new ways work better. I have nothing against improvements, as I've already made abundantly clear. However, I don't blindly conflate "new" with "improved."
Somebody should make a poll. My vote goes for plain text. I don't mind receiving RTF email. I hate HTML in email because if there is anything that is automatically downloaded from another server, such as images, the sender can easily track who has opened their email. Good for spammers, bad for email. I have my email set so that I have to double click to open my mail, I don't by default view html images, and I bounce back all spam. I have two fairly old email addresses and I almost never get spam although I used to get it.
Oh yeah? Blame Microsoft. The great Mac fanboy refrain. There, we are even.
Except that I'm not blaming Microsoft. They are responsible for Outlook, true, but I said that they built their monopoly on top of the popular idea that everyone else should cope with the latest gizmo that I just got - you even threw that at me. That attitude isn't MS' fault, they just rode it to their current dominance. So, actually, it's selfishness that I'd blame. MS just flatters and encourages it.
Quote:
You know I am going to hold you to this everytime Apple releases something new right?
Go right ahead. I hold Apple to the same standard I hold anyone else to - if I don't hold them to a higher standard. (For instance, if Dell releases some crap, I don't care, because I expect crap from Dell.)
I've railed against what I consider misfeatures in Mail.app before (such as the fact that remote images are downloaded in HTML email by default - a huge security and privacy hole), and I've more recently been drawn toward a conclusion that Apple did the wrong thing in abandoning the organic shape of the jellybean iMac for the LCD iMac - even though, analytically, the LCD iMac is an improvement in terms of industrial design. And, other improvements notwithstanding, I still think the second edition Indigo iBook and the tangerine iBook are two of the most stunning computers ever made. The newer chiclet iBooks are better in more technical ways, and I like them, but they didn't back the wallop or the tactile, comfortable feel of the first model.
And this holding Apple to higher standard stuff is really just more bias. The same bias that says Dell will release crap. Therefore, even if Dell releases something good, you will just say well, at least it's not crap. This is the same bias that says the previous iMacs are iBook are PERFECT but the new LCD iMac and chiclet iBook are not as PERFECT as before but NEAR-perfect and better technically.
If you want to call this bias higher standard. Sure. Whatever.
3) No Hotmail mail (the httpd plugin is a good first step, but still not perfect)
[/B]
Actually, I think I've came across a plugin for mail that lets you connect to hotmail. You might want to go th version tracker to seatch for it... I'm pretty sure it exist...
Comments
So he thought Outlook was sending plain text. Well, clearly it was not. Educate the man. It is neither complex nor did the application hide it.
The receiver cannot read RTF - geez get with it. RTF ias based on ANSI, MS, IBM, Mac character set. RTF is the default format of Textedit. How ubitiquous does it have to get?
So no one is to blame but figginh Microsoft Outlook and their monopoly! Boo. Microsoft. Boo. Everybody revert to text!
Man, that is pathetic.
Sure, I know text just works. Who are you trying to convince?
For you, who have to send text to various sources, be they mainframe or pagers, and you send plan text - well, duh. We do that at work too for automated messages between systems/machine/OS/platform/etc.
For everyone else, e-mails in whatever format (save for large attachements) also works too. So you get hassled by two otherwise intelligent folks and had to spend time to fix it. Big deal. It's part of work and it's about time both of them learn someting new.
Sorry to be harsh but that's the sad truth...
[Before you come back and say why should they learn something new when old ways work... why should one learn how to use touch tone phones instead of rotary, why should one learn not to call African-Americans colored folks, why one should one labels stop releasing albums on 8-tracks or cassettes, when in case of all of the above, the old ways work?]
I'm interested in how you would substantiate the assertion that plain text is inferior to formatted text. There is a common tendency to assume that more-features is preferable to less-features. Yet, is formatted text actually a more expressive, efficient, and concise? Research on the presentation of text has lead to some rather unintuitive conclusions.
The availability of formatting tends to distract writers from their natural thought process. In-line spell checkers exhibit the same phenomenon. For posterity, sometime carefully observe someone using microsoft word to compose a first draft. What researches have found is that availability of spell checking and formatting cause people to stop multiple times, mid-sentence, every sentence, to rework what they have written. If proofing and formatting is done after the first pass of getting the ideas out onto the page, the result is a much higher quality composition.
Research has also been done on the optimal amount of formatting for greatest scanability and reading comprehension. The results here are perhaps less surprising. As the length of a text passage increases, formatting becomes more important, visually and cognitively grouping things in a manner that improves reading comprehension and facilitates quick scanning. However, in shorter passages, formatting usually has the opposite effect, actually distracting the reader, slowing them down, and decreasing comprehension. You see, formatting is almost impossible to ignore, causing readers to consciously and subconsciously try to interpret it?s significance.
Also, as I mentioned in previous posts, formatted email comes from many authors. When reading email it is typical to read many passages of text, each formatted differently and by people who don?t do design work for a living. This leads to huge discrepancies in presentation to the point where reading actually becomes cumbersome.
I?m not a fanatic that is completely opposed to formatted email. However, given the limited utility of such formatting and the trouble it causes, formatted email is not obviously superior to plain text email. Pragmatically, it seems that plain text is simply a more effective communication tool.
There are many technical reasons for why plain text is more convenient. But even without those issues, I still hold that formatting is a distraction which hinders communication for the typical length and scope of email.
Originally posted by klinux
So he thought Outlook was sending plain text. Well, clearly it was not. Educate the man. It is neither complex nor did the application hide it.
Why should pasting plain text into a plain text medium in order to send plain text require an education?
The receiver cannot read RTF - geez get with it.
Yes, this is exactly the logic I was saying actually held, rather than the argument you used in your last post (that people should accomodate their receiver). In fact, most people get the latest thing and expect everyone else to have it too. MS built their monopoly on that fact.
Sure, I know text just works. Who are you trying to convince?
You, apparently.
For you, who have to send text to various sources, be they mainframe or pagers, and you send plan text - well, duh. We do that at work too for automated messages between systems/machine/OS/platform/etc.
For everyone else, e-mails in whatever format (save for large attachements) also works too. So you get hassled by two otherwise intelligent folks and had to spend time to fix it. Big deal. It's part of work and it's about time both of them learn someting new.
Yup. Blame the user. The great Microsoftie refrain. Sorry, but I just set my email to send plain text and forget about the whole deal. It's much, much simpler, and I have yet to wish I did things any other way.
I send attachments when they're asked for (or when I ask and they answer affirmatively), which assures that the receiver can handle attachments (and therefore MIME, which works just fine with plain text email) and also whatever format the attached document uses.
(When in doubt, I tend to use RTF or PDF for attachments.)
[Before you come back and say why should they learn something new when old ways work... why should one learn how to use touch tone phones instead of rotary, why should one learn not to call African-Americans colored folks, why one should one labels stop releasing albums on 8-tracks or cassettes, when in case of all of the above, the old ways work?]
Because, in those cases, the new ways work better. I have nothing against improvements, as I've already made abundantly clear. However, I don't blindly conflate "new" with "improved."
Originally posted by Amorph
Yup. Blame the user. The great Microsoftie refrain.
Oh yeah? Blame Microsoft. The great Mac fanboy refrain. There, we are even.
Originally posted by Amorph
However, I don't blindly conflate "new" with "improved."
You know I am going to hold you to this everytime Apple releases something new right?
Alexander the Great
Originally posted by klinux
Oh yeah? Blame Microsoft. The great Mac fanboy refrain. There, we are even.
Except that I'm not blaming Microsoft. They are responsible for Outlook, true, but I said that they built their monopoly on top of the popular idea that everyone else should cope with the latest gizmo that I just got - you even threw that at me. That attitude isn't MS' fault, they just rode it to their current dominance. So, actually, it's selfishness that I'd blame. MS just flatters and encourages it.
You know I am going to hold you to this everytime Apple releases something new right?
Go right ahead. I hold Apple to the same standard I hold anyone else to - if I don't hold them to a higher standard. (For instance, if Dell releases some crap, I don't care, because I expect crap from Dell.)
I've railed against what I consider misfeatures in Mail.app before (such as the fact that remote images are downloaded in HTML email by default - a huge security and privacy hole), and I've more recently been drawn toward a conclusion that Apple did the wrong thing in abandoning the organic shape of the jellybean iMac for the LCD iMac - even though, analytically, the LCD iMac is an improvement in terms of industrial design. And, other improvements notwithstanding, I still think the second edition Indigo iBook and the tangerine iBook are two of the most stunning computers ever made. The newer chiclet iBooks are better in more technical ways, and I like them, but they didn't back the wallop or the tactile, comfortable feel of the first model.
So bring it on.
And this holding Apple to higher standard stuff is really just more bias. The same bias that says Dell will release crap. Therefore, even if Dell releases something good, you will just say well, at least it's not crap. This is the same bias that says the previous iMacs are iBook are PERFECT but the new LCD iMac and chiclet iBook are not as PERFECT as before but NEAR-perfect and better technically.
If you want to call this bias higher standard. Sure. Whatever.
Originally posted by ZO
3) No Hotmail mail (the httpd plugin is a good first step, but still not perfect)
[/B]
Actually, I think I've came across a plugin for mail that lets you connect to hotmail. You might want to go th version tracker to seatch for it... I'm pretty sure it exist...