Mel wrote: >At the foundation of contemporary >computer technology is the digital >graphic communication< machine.
OK. But that is not an argument for HTML email. That's what a web page is for. >Snail mail composed on a typewriter is virtually non-existent because >such communication is merely verbal and the graphic encoding potential of >the page is a missed opportunity to communicate more effectively. No. Lack of graphics is NOT what killed the typewriter. The reason is that (1) it takes too long to use a typewriter, (2) you don't have a copy of what you've typed, (3) it's much too difficult to correct mistakes, (4) there is no spell checker, (5) there is only one thing you can do with a typewriter, (6) a letter costs $0.50 to send; email costs nothing, (7) etc. >For eMail, the ballooning data transfer over the net is due to mail >attachments... and if we can attach images, why not go ahead and >show< >them in the composition window (instead of just listing them). A much better solution is to provide a link in the email message. If the recipient doesn't care to see or save the images, she merely deletes the message. Attaching HTML/images delays communication; it does not enhance it, because a single click will show everything anyway. In short, a simple link trumps HTML display every time. RH
