HTML by default in KMail
Aurélien Gâteau
aurelien.gateau at canonical.com
Fri Aug 13 11:18:30 BST 2010
On 12/08/2010 02:09, Yuval Levy wrote:
> On August 10, 2010 03:39:58 am Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
>> That's the whole point of choosing good defaults. Trying to provide the
>> best setup out of the box for as much people as possible.
>
> "as much people as possible": text is usable for everybody that likes html,
> but not the other way around. So if the objective is "as much people as
> possible", the default should be text, not html.
No I am not. When you receive messages with only HTML content, or when
the text content is:
If you can't read this email, click here: http://shop.com/newsletter/
Then text is not usable for everybody.
>> Since we do
>> not have hundred of people running KDE in usability labs, we can only
>> guess what the best defaults are, based on our personal experience, on
>> how we see users use our products and on our intuition of what would be
>> best for them (and not necessarily for us, that's the hard part).
>
> Yes, the hard part is to see others' preferences and limitations. And to see
> the consequences of such seemingly small decisions.
>
> Displaying HTML by default triggers a feedback loop: the user will (wrongly)
> assume that HTML mail is readable by every recipient. Worse: the user will
> inevitably engage in bad practices. Have you ever received a mail with "my
> replies in green between your blue lines"? It makes you long for top-posting.
I never received that. But that would not be a problem: my mail client
can display HTML (actually my mail client uses a different color for
quoted text).
That's off-topic anyway, we are talking about displaying messages, not
composing them.
>
>
>>>> If this option is not on then KMail
>>>> is perceived as less powerful than their previous email client.
>>>
>>> Unknowledgeable consumers perceive digital cameras with higher megapixel
>>> count to be more powerful than models with lesser megapixel count.
>>> Experts know better. Commercial interests cater to this misconception
>>> because it's easy and more profitable than educating consumers and
>>> offering them real value.
>>
>> We are not comparing a numeric value here.
>
>
> You were talking *user perception* here. The analogy stands: You claim that
> users *perceive* a mail client w/o HTML enabled by default as less powerful.
> I claim that users *perceive* digital cameras with less pixel count as less
> powerful. The analogy is that both perceptions are wrong.
See my previous example. "With mail client A I can read this message,
with mail client B I can't and must go to a website". Which client is
going to be perceived as "just working"?
>
> The difference between the two cases is that a user buying lesser goods and
> believing they just got the best digital camera does not affect the general
> public. A user who has the impression that HTML is the way to do mail will
> quote wrongly and mess up communication in many other ways.
>
> Having them click, at least once, to see the HTML, will make them aware that
> maybe not everybody can or want to read HTML.
I am afraid this will just make them feel they are using an inferior
product.
>> We are discussing whether we
>> should keep a one-click barrier between the user and the content he
>> wants to access.
>
> You should not put barriers between the user and the content they want to
> access. This applies equally to users who want to access the plain text
> content. A simple solution is to complement the "click here to display the
> HTML" button with a "make this a permanent preference" checkbox.
The users who want to access the plain text can do so by unchecking the
option to display HTML content. I claim (without any numbers to back me
up, that's how bold I am) that more users want to see HTML content than
users who prefers text. I also claim (still without numbers, call this
intuition) users who prefer text are more likely to know how to disable
HTML than the other way.
Aurélien
More information about the kubuntu-devel
mailing list