|
Post by waldenwriter on Jul 4, 2009 9:45:09 GMT -5
I am trying to figure out how I want the e-mail newsletter I'm going to send out from my writing site to look. Toward this end, I picked up a book yesterday at the library called How to Publish Your Newsletter: A Complete Guide to Print and Electronic Newsletter Publishing. In it, the author (Carol Luers Eyman) says that a text e-mail newsletter is better than a HTML e-mail newsletter, because with a text-only newsletter you can be sure everybody's e-mail programs can read it. But I think a text-only newsletter looks boring. On the other hand, a HTML e-mail newsletter would involve coding a table, which I'm not incredibly good at (I can do it, but it's hard).
So what do you guys think? Is a text-only e-mail newsletter better, or is a HTML e-mail newsletter better?
Also, what about having PDF backups of your newsletter on your site? Is that a good idea? (Eyman suggests this too).
|
|
|
Post by Christian Soldier on Jul 4, 2009 18:12:43 GMT -5
I use text only. Keep in mind that if your reader thinks that plain text is boring, they probably won't read an HTML one either. Plus, the HTML newsletters tend to take away from what your trying to say by either providing too much to focus on, or nothing to focus on as the case may be.
Mind you, that's my opinion. If you want to do an HTML newsletter, go for it. I've been thinking about converting, myself, but I rather like my simple ToaDS, look.
|
|
|
Post by Spokane Flyboy on Jul 5, 2009 4:44:05 GMT -5
I prefer HTML as it allows for cleaner layouts and formating options not available in strict ASCII text (i.e. I use the superscript tags and blockquote tags a lot in sharing scripture verses), but it's nice to have the option of text-only for those still in the dark-ages. With HTML you have access to things like alignment, headers, font sizing, and bold/italic/underline.
|
|
|
Post by waldenwriter on Jul 5, 2009 20:10:52 GMT -5
I agree that HTML makes for a cleaner look. The idea of having a text-only option for those that need it is a good idea. I'd have to figure out how people could let me know which one they want. (I'd have to configure it with my online newsletter list management service, probably).
I've been reading through the newsletter book and a lot of it is common sense (like what to check your articles for) or stuff I remember from being in yearbook in high school (such as terms like "spread" and "bleed," which in publishing mean something different than they do in everyday life). The one issue I have is that it's all well to talk about HTML e-newsletters in the book, but I sure wish the author said something about how to code them. I guess I could figure that out myself though.
There are a couple of e-mail newsletters I receive that have nice, simple layouts. I will probably try to figure out how they did theirs to get some ideas. Word '07 does have some newsletter templates, and I tried playing around with one, but it was for a multi-page newsletter, which for an e-mail newsletter is not what I need.
|
|
|
Post by Spokane Flyboy on Jul 6, 2009 1:40:26 GMT -5
Tables are the safest. Divs are the nicest, but aren't universally accepted. I learned HTML pretty much from trial and error while looking at the examples set by others. The "View Source" option is handy. And so is this: www.w3schools.com/
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Jul 6, 2009 15:14:43 GMT -5
Spokane Flyboy, I just clicked on your link and I just got to say that if it does what I think it will do, then it is certainly a God-send! I was needing help doing my website, and even with a Content Management System it's difficult. Now, I should just go through these tutorials and put down what I need to. I hope they're very detailed. I need and thrive on details.
On the subject: Personally, I like looking at HTML e-mails like what Jeff does, but Text ones let's me read things easier without scrolling up and down and all around, so I'm not sure which way I'll go with things when I start with my own e-mail newsletters. Thanks to S.F., I should be able to figure things out pretty quick I'd say. Thanks!
|
|