HTML Links on Evolution

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 00:55 3/7/2004, you wrote:
>While appearance may be eye candy, it does not add to the value of the 
>text content.
>
>[...]
>
>two words......   security  & efficiency.

<flame>
Two more words: mental myopia.

The very basic premise of "[appearance] does not add to the value of the 
text content" is so wrong, that I'm loath to explain it to you... since you 
probably won't even try to understand a different point of view, let alone 
fully comprehend it.

I find Scott's analogy of color vs. black-and-white TV apropos, and many 
others could be made in that vein. The primary problems (i.e. virii and 
backdoors in IE and OE) are not caused by HTML per se but rather by weak 
and insecure implementations thereof. Thus you are assuming a 
cause-and-effect relationship where such is not really the case. Yes, in 
the majority of cases (Windows users in particular) HTML mail is dangerous. 
But HTML itself is not the root cause of the problem.

However, that is the less-important point. Presentation is always, has 
always been, and will always be one component of the value of anything. 
Given ANY two objects or concepts of equal value in all other respects 
(ceteris paribus, if you will) but where one of the two has better 
presentation, 99.999% of human beings WILL see a difference between the two 
and choose the one with better presentation. (In case you missed it, note 
the "of equal value in all other respects").

I am not saying that good presentation can or will overcome poor value in 
content... although that can and does happen. I am saying that it is 
foolish and blind in the extreme to write off presentation as irrelevant. 
For one example, in oh-so-many of the business email messages that I write, 
I specifically switch to using HTML in order to get properly-indented, 
numbered paragraphs or bulleted lists. I do so in order to include images 
inside my message so that the reader (even that blithering idiot over in 
wherever who can barely turn on the computer) will instantly be able to see 
them and comment. I do so in order to communicate my content more clearly, 
cleanly, and quickly (with better presentation, readers understand more 
quickly and easily... else the whole publishing industry would be vastly 
different). I do it because I make more money when my clients or my bosses 
react favorably to my ideas, and they react better when I present it in a 
more attractive and readable way.

There are valid reasons to use text-only email in some situations. There 
are also lots and lots of valid reasons to use HTML mail in other 
situations. And there is NO reason to state that either choice A or choice 
B is invalid in all cases, other than sheer unrelenting fanaticism.

Anyone who says that HTML email is unfailingly and unequivocally useless 
and dangerous in all situations and for all people is either blind, stupid, 
or totally out of touch with the technological evolution and basic societal 
constructs of the human race.

Sadly, there seem to be a a few of you folks out there somewhere.
</flame>


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz at simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com