Outlook 2003 E-mail Templates

[Ulysses]

Hi all,

Can anyone shed some light on how they create html e-mails for Outlook 2003 clients!?

I've been using signatures up until now, which I believe is best for non-tech-savvy clients, as they just set the signature template up for all outgoing e-mail, and Outlook takes care of whether the recipient recieves the htm, rtf, or txt templated e-mail.

Now, just recently, I noticed that using stationary gives tighter html control. For example, you can add a banner/logo at the top of the e-mail at 100% width, where as with a signature, Outlook 2003 decides to add a white padding around the e-mail design, and two divs at the top of the page (making the signature act like a footer). But however, stationary in outlook has no rtf or txt variant.

So, I'm thinking I'll create a header for the stationary, and include the body and footer as a signature. But, would the signature retain multi-part compliance? or would it be lost completely?

I'd really appreciate views and advice on making html e-mails for non-tech-savvy clients. Thanks.

[Big Perm-dizzle]

good question - I am now wondering the same!!!

someone help this guy!!!!

www.hirethisdesigner.com (http://www.hirethisdesigner.com) - portfolio
www.conceptprint.com (http://www.conceptprint.com) - the company I work for

[Ulysses]

For anyone that's interested, I'm temporarily sticking to signatures. I've used absolute css positioning for the top of the design, to hide the double div spacing when the client composes a message in Outlook 2003, using the signature. Although hotmail (and possibly other e-mail clients) will recieve the message with double div spacing at the top ... at least the client can compose the e-mail without it.

I've also used right: -20px to remove the vertical scrollbar that appears in my design, and html, body: margin,height: 0px. Ugly work-around (especially as the body,html is stripped and as good as useless in numerous e-mail clients - notably web-mail clients), but other e-mail clients I tested display the design as intended (hotmail, lycos, outlook - not extensive, but I am just learning), and my client gets a nice tight signature to compose from.

Other than that, I've just had to test test test test test (though still no closer to a workable 'check list').

If, in the meantime, someone has experience with multi-part compliance with Outlook signatures/stationary, please share your experience. It would be very much appreciated.

[Ryan8720]

I hate HTML email. Too bad you have to make them.

http://www.edgewebdesign.org/images/misc/ryan_shadowmetal.gif (http://www.edgewebdesign.org)

http://www.spreadfirefox.com/community/images/affiliates/Buttons/80x15/white_1.gif (http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=30444&t=82')

[Ulysses]

Maybe it is just luck, but I have won clients with html-formatted e-mail correspondance ... perhaps I shouldn't promote it in the first place, but if it gets me work (and impresses clients), then it is undoubtedly serving it's purpose, and putting food on my table.

Aside from that, I often agree with the benefits of non-html e-mail. But, I don't see print designers, fashion designers, architects, or car designers, promoting the public and clients alike to stick with black and white as a sole means to; improve profit/costing margins, make photocopying better, or to make the product more resiliant to long-term colour-dilution. Likewise, I don't see people buying smaller TVs to reduce their electric bill or to save money over larger models, or sending letters to friends and family instead of picking up a phone to save money either ... this just doesn't happen, whether it has benefits or not. Media and products alike, start as a means to meet a practical purpose, but then technoloigical developments allow for additional purposes ... e-mail is no different ... plain-text is newspaper, and people are now reading news articles on their colour PDA, without the fear of getting print residue on their hands, or worrying about how to read a double-page article on a busy underground.

Change 'as they say' is inevitable.

[Ryan8720]

Some valid points, but the security risks and the fact that almost every mail client displays differently make HTML emails a pain in the ass.

http://www.edgewebdesign.org/images/misc/ryan_shadowmetal.gif (http://www.edgewebdesign.org)

http://www.spreadfirefox.com/community/images/affiliates/Buttons/80x15/white_1.gif (http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=30444&t=82')

[Ulysses]

'pain in the ass' ... tell me about it, Ryan.

I did notice though, that plain-text has a downside too (aside from basic and often-ulegible formatting, especially when people customize their viewing fonts) ... if a long url is inserted, it more often than not, is converted to a 'incomplete' href in most e-mail clients due to the 84 character wrapper. I find this more annoying than large html e-mails to be honest ... especially if there are lots of links to various dynamic pages.

I do have the advantage though, that my clients (so far - touch wood) used html e-mail prior to me developing their e-mail templates anyways ... so their client/recipient base is no different. I'm just tidying up a medium that they have decided is best for them. With new clients though ... there will always be a need to test the water first, to determine when/if to use html e-mail.

[Ulysses]

Does anyone know of a plain-text only e-mail client?

I'm trying to test if multi-part works from Outlook composed signatures and stationery, as I'm finding that setting plain-text options in all the e-mail clients I have tested (Pegasus, Eudora, Outlook, Hotmail, Lycos), actually reads the html ... they just convert it to plain-text, and thus disregard the plain-text version from the multi-part message all together as a result. This just leads me to conclude that multi-part is overwhelmingly useless. Perhaps this is the real reason why so many people insist that e-mails be sent in plain-text format!?

If someone has some actual knowledge on this issue, it would be most welcome. Finding coherent information on this is proving very difficult so far.

Thanks.

P.S.
I've noticed in Outlook, that when I reply to an rtf formatted e-mail I've recieved for example, that Outlook automatically assigns my rtf signature to my message. Is this perhaps the true extent to which multi-part's serves it's purpose? to determine what format to 'reply to a message' within an e-mail client?

Post Edited (Ulysses) : 12/11/2004 11:57:25 AM GMT

[Ryan8720]

Have you tried going into options and setting it to plain text only. I think most clients now can recieve both, but some users just turn off the HTML email option.

Another client to check would be Thunderbird.

http://www.edgewebdesign.org/images/misc/ryan_shadowmetal.gif (http://www.edgewebdesign.org)

http://www.spreadfirefox.com/community/images/affiliates/Buttons/80x15/white_1.gif (http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=30444&t=82')

[Ulysses]

Thanks Ryan,

Maybe it's just me not doing something right, but the clients I've tried (Firebird included) seem to only allow Outgoing mail to be html or plain-text. Incoming options to do this don't seem to exist ... except Outlook as I can tell, which allows all mail to be read as plain-text - but as I mentioned, Outlook actually converts incoming html into plain-text ... it doesn't actually open the plain-text version of the message.

If you happen to know of a client that allows you to choose incoming mail formats, or how to do so in either Pegasus, Eudora, Firebirds, or Outlook ... I'd very much appreciate it.

[DavidLieb]

The easiest way is to use outlook express, which allows you to directly insert html, without messing with stationary & signatures. You can send the email to your clients, who can save it and fwd it to whomever they want.

I’ve explored all kinds of methods for the students in my web design course, and this one seems to be the easiest.

David Lieberman
Academy of Web Design, Video Course (http://www.awdsf.com)
Add Web Design to your Skills!

[Ulysses]

My clients tend to use Outlook ... and they also like the convenience of having their messages auto-formatted, to include their contact details etc - even I myself couldn't be bothered to manually insert my details with every message I compose or reply to, and large companies certainly don't have the time to do so. That is the main benefit of setting up signatures templates for all your outgoing mail ... but you are absolutely right David ... Outlook Express does allow more control over the format of outgoing html ... typical Microsoft isn't it!?

For the moment, I'm creating strictly formatted signatures, and embedding a plain-text message in the top body for e-mail clients that convert incoming html messages to plain-text (most people who have a client, that don't want to recieve html). It's curtious for outgoing e-mail, where by the client can make a note of what clients/customers wish to receive plain-text message after there initial html e-mail.

My present client is happy with this ... and the e-mails work fine with all the client tests we've done both at our side, and the clients side. There isn't much more that can be done to make everyone as happy.

[Benjamin]

I've just tried doing this, to see what happens.
I made a normal HTML file, with the css styles embedded in the header, and saved it to the directory where Outlook 2003 stores its stationery.

I tried to make the banner using the background-image property of [b], set to repeat: no-repeat. But Outlook ignored the 'no-repeat' command. How exactly do you make your banners? Put them in a separate <div>?

http://www.jackfruitdesign.com/
Om Namah Shivaya

[Ulysses]

First rule ... although you can apply body styles, it is only recommended for composing purposes in Outlook (to keep everything looking and working nicely for the client). Make sure your design is still tight without relying on body styling, because some e-mail clients will over-write yours, or remove your html, head, and body tags altogether.

Second rule ... well tip really, is to use a div or table to act as your body (a kind of fallback for holding your main design together). I personally use tables and inline styles - although tables make the html larger, they provide a more compliant message, less suseptable to e-mail client manipulation (we don't want our nice design to be dismantled by some would-be AI e-mail client would we!?).

Third ... test test test. We all design a particular way, so try what construction works best for you in as many e-mail clients as you can get your hands on.

As for background-image ... I've never used it in a html e-mail template, Benjamin. I like my designs to use as little resources as possible, especially when some e-mail clients attach any images that are referenced by absolute urls to the message. It's down to personal and client choice though at the end of the day though isn't it ...

[Benjamin]

Thanks. So it looks like inline styles on actual HTML elements is the way to go for me.

On a slightly different matter, if you're going to do a mailshot type email to a bunch of customers, and you want to look really good, is it better to just provide a link to a webpage on an external server to avoid all these image problems? I guess it depends what email clients the customers tend to use.

http://www.jackfruitdesign.com/
Om Namah Shivaya

[Ulysses]

I've not done mailshots myself Benjamin ... I've only done newsletters, and signatures. But if I were to do a mailshot, it'd most likely be from a maillist which stores people's format preference ... thus you only need to send either a html or plain-text message.

The real pain in the 'black hole' is signatures, because clients will be sending their messages out to both known recipients (who could previously declare their preferred format for receiving e-mail - if any) and anonymous/new recipeients (whom have yet to state their preference, if any).

As you mention ... a plain-text message with a link to a html version is very usable for mailshots and such like, but even then, it is no good for recipients who's e-mail client strips href tags, and requires the url to be copied and pasted - yes, some people wouldn't even know how to do that, that is where html (at least hrefs) are an advantage over plain-text. No format is suitable for EVERYONE, not even plain-text. This - as I'm sure you can imagine - doesn't make it any easier for us.