E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 12 (In chronological order)

From: Beranek, Nicholas
Date: Wed, Sep 20 2017 8:52AM
Subject: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
No previous message | Next message →

Hi folks,

We strive to provide our customers with accessible HTML emails that everyone can enjoy. We have also provided plain text emails as an accommodation if the customer requests that format. We'd like to know how many of you opt for plain text emails. Would you mind responding to me directly with your answer? I have noticed many of you will respond with plain text emails that you've composed.

If you'd like to discuss emails within the forum, then feel free to reply to all.

Thank you!

Nick Beranek
Capital One

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.

From: JP Jamous
Date: Wed, Sep 20 2017 9:03AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

Nick,

I personally like HTML e-mails as they have the links, bullets, numbers and other tabular information. However, some e-mails are way too large as far as content, which forces JAWS to take a long time to render the HTML. Those, I prefer them in plain text. If it is going to take my SR almost 2 minutes to respond to me, I am deleting that e-mail.

The other part of HTML e-mails is that they have to be composed properly. I use the Outlook client and it does strip the images out of the e-mail for security reasons. I am fine with that. As long as the link has some alternative text. I never tried it via code myself, but adding aria-label="Check Your Balance" would be better than the Alt attribute as the image would get blocked.

Plain text lacks a lot of that convenience and you want to provide your customers with that convenience. If my bank sends me a plain e-mail, I would not want to copy and paste each URL in it.

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Sep 20 2017 9:14AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

On a more general level, use images in emails for decoraions only. The
Outlook security affects all customers.
I hate the Livingsocial emails because their special coupon code is
displayed in an image (WCAG 1.4.5 violation), eiher the imae is
blocked or does not have alt text, I don't know, but I keep getting an
"exciting coupon code inside" emails with no coupon codes.



On 9/20/17, JP Jamous < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Nick,
>
> I personally like HTML e-mails as they have the links, bullets, numbers and
> other tabular information. However, some e-mails are way too large as far as
> content, which forces JAWS to take a long time to render the HTML. Those, I
> prefer them in plain text. If it is going to take my SR almost 2 minutes to
> respond to me, I am deleting that e-mail.
>
> The other part of HTML e-mails is that they have to be composed properly. I
> use the Outlook client and it does strip the images out of the e-mail for
> security reasons. I am fine with that. As long as the link has some
> alternative text. I never tried it via code myself, but adding
> aria-label="Check Your Balance" would be better than the Alt attribute as
> the image would get blocked.
>
> Plain text lacks a lot of that convenience and you want to provide your
> customers with that convenience. If my bank sends me a plain e-mail, I would
> not want to copy and paste each URL in it.
>
>

From: Beranek, Nicholas
Date: Wed, Sep 20 2017 9:15AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

Thank you, JP; I appreciate the response! That's how I feel, too. I want screen reader users to enjoy the same benefits of scanning headings and links to aid in navigation. Plain text simply does not offer that.

From: Don Mauck
Date: Wed, Sep 20 2017 9:17AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

I agree, HTML is much better for me as well.

From: Jonathan Cohn
Date: Wed, Sep 20 2017 10:31AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

I ingeneral prefer the HTML messages also.

I have three grievances with HTML messages one of which has already been
mentioned. Specifically when graphics are either not labeled or are
improperly labeled.

The other one seems to be particular to the implementation of Gmail on the
web especially when running on one of my Mac OS systems. In these cases if
GMAIL gives the message about graphics / images not being loaded from a
spepecific sender then where there are graphical links I get a long
alphanumeric string spoken.
Also, some e-mail clients are not great with presenting tables to Screen
Readers.


On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:16 AM Don Mauck < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> I agree, HTML is much better for me as well.
>
>

From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Sep 20 2017 10:54AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

We've always provided a plain text and HTML option for the WebAIM
e-mail newsletter subscriptions - https://webaim.org/newsletter/.
10.5% of subscribers have opted for the plain text version.

In general, I think that plain text is only beneficial if the HTML
version doesn't have accessibility implemented. We always send a text
version with the HTML e-mail - and the e-mail client can then present
the text version based on user preference.

For e-mail discussion lists, like this one that rarely necessitate
formatting or images - sending in plain text can provide benefits,
especially when the message is archived online (and doubly especially
if authors properly trim the messages they are replying to).

Jared

From: Mark Robbins
Date: Fri, Sep 22 2017 4:29AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

To follow on from your point Jared, even if accessibility is implemented on
the original HTML some email clients actually strip it out.

For example I know AOL, Yahoo, Outlook.com, Outlook 365 GMX, Web.de and
Alto remove all ARIA attributes and HTML5 semantic tags. I've also seen
other clients edit ID's so things like aria-describedby no longer match up.

I believe some Email Service Providers can also strip out or edit
accessibility before sending but I've not run full tests on those yet.




On 20 September 2017 at 18:54, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> We've always provided a plain text and HTML option for the WebAIM
> e-mail newsletter subscriptions - https://webaim.org/newsletter/.
> 10.5% of subscribers have opted for the plain text version.
>
> In general, I think that plain text is only beneficial if the HTML
> version doesn't have accessibility implemented. We always send a text
> version with the HTML e-mail - and the e-mail client can then present
> the text version based on user preference.
>
> For e-mail discussion lists, like this one that rarely necessitate
> formatting or images - sending in plain text can provide benefits,
> especially when the message is archived online (and doubly especially
> if authors properly trim the messages they are replying to).
>
> Jared
> > > > >

From: mhysnm1964
Date: Sat, Sep 23 2017 10:28PM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

This is a very interesting topic. The bottom line is email programs have not caught up with todays technology with HTMl. I wonder if this is an ATAG issue more than a WCAG or both?

From: Srinivasu Chakravarthula
Date: Mon, Sep 25 2017 2:24AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

I prefer HTML based email but thaose are composed in right way. Reason
being that it will have a structure to navigate. When there are links, we
can just activate and open them in a browser rather than copy pasting URL.
In copy pasting business, when URL is too long, chances are having it
broken are more.

Regards,

Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu/
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://serveominclusion.com

Let's create an inclusive web!

Lead Accessibility Consultant, Informatica


On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 9:58 AM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> This is a very interesting topic. The bottom line is email programs have
> not caught up with todays technology with HTMl. I wonder if this is an ATAG
> issue more than a WCAG or both?
>
>

From: mhysnm1964
Date: Mon, Sep 25 2017 2:31AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | Next message →

I didn't mention in my prior email. I do prefer email. But I hate HTMl emails using table formatting, especially they are nested or non-symmetric layout. As screen readers fail to read them correctly. Tables that use 3 by 3 grids work fine.

From: Beranek, Nicholas
Date: Mon, Sep 25 2017 7:43AM
Subject: Re: Poll: HTML Emails vs. Plain Text Emails
← Previous message | No next message

Thanks, all, for the valuable feedback!

We add role="presentation" to each of our layout tables to reduce noise.

Nick Beranek
Capital One