The Email Standards Project

Many years ago the Web Standards Project (or WASP) fought the fine fight to pressure browser manufacturers into complying with some sort of standard version of HTML. Prior to that we almost had to build separate sites for Netscape and Internet Explorer - it was horrible.

We have come so far with browsers, but unfortunately most email clients are, well, a long way behind. If you have ever tested an HTML email in a few different clients you'll know the frustration.
Yesterday's launch of the Email Standards Project hopes to remedy this situation. Some people love it, some hate it, but HTML email is here to stay. And if we could have the proper standards support in email clients then it's probably fair to say that a lot of those opposed would change their mind.

We have a long way to go, but at least now we have a vehicle!

Using Radio Buttons to Combat Form Spam

There has been a lot of talk lately (and rightly so) about the disadvantages of using captcha to stop comment spam.

I'm not a big fan. They're often hard to read even for someone with reasonably normal vision.

"Is that a zero or the letter O?"

"Upper case C or lower case c?"

Others have suggested some sort of simple logic question, like asking "What's 1+1" and having the user enter a '2' in a text box.

That might be better, but it also requires some thought.

So I noticed that on Slideshare they prefix a captcha device with the question, "Are you human?"

And it got me thinking, can bots deal with radio buttons? Can we ask a question like this?

[syntax,human_form.htm,html4strict]



I must admit I haven't done any research, but I'm thinking:

1. If a bot doesn't understand radio buttons it will skip the question and fail


2. If it does understand radio buttons, it will probably choose the first option and fail


3. It's an extremely simple question for a human to answer and should be completely accessible.

Point 2 is probably the most contentious. I'm making a big assumption there.

Has anyone else tried this? Can anyone spot any obvious disadvantages?

Really Bad Powerpoint

I was at a meeting recently where a teacher gave a presentation about some stuff the school was involved in. And, of course, she used Powerpoint.

Very badly.

I'm sure you have all seen it. Several paragraphs of text per slide. Cheesy animations (and different animations for each block of text). The "handouts" get handed to you as the presentation commences, so you and up reading the handouts during the presentation. And then you feel a little guilty, so you start listening to the presentation, only to find it contains exactly what's on the handouts anyway - nothing more.

Yikes - if this is what teachers do then I'm really sorry for my kids.

It reminded my of an eBook by Seth Godin called Really Bad Powerpoint. (Links to a PDF file.) Well worth a read if you ever have to give a presentation.

And then today I read a comparison between the presentation styles of Uncle Steve and Uncle Bill. (Jobs and Gates if you're not sure.) Which reminded me of Seth's eBook again - especially if you look at the comparisons between the 2 sets of slides used in the example.

Now, I know public speaking is hard - and I'm trying not to be too critical of the teacher here. But please! Put some more thought into your presentations!!!

A Blatent Grab At A Freebie

Well, day one of Web Directions South 07 is over. And they announced that they would be giving away some prizes to anyone who blogged about it overnight.

I've had a few beers and am not in the right frame of mind to write anything deep and meaningful - I'm just submitting this post on the odd chance I might get a freebie tomorrow!

Well, you never know...

2Clix Lawsuit Dropped

Just a quick follow up to a previous post - the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the lawsuit has been dropped.

I think this is the most important lesson:

"Ironically, the negative word of mouth and worldwide media coverage criticising 2Clix for trying to silence its critics seems to have damaged the firm's reputation far more than the forum threads that were the subject of the lawsuit.

We Just Have to Work With What We Have

Roger Johansson recently posted a bit of a rant about how much he hates HTML email. He also wrote how if anyone thinks otherwise they're weird/wrong/stupid:

"Some people even like receiving HTML email." (I have replaced his italics with my bold.)

Okay, so I'm weird, wrong and stupid.

But the thing that gets me the most is this:

"I still don’t do HTML email though. As long as support for Web Standards in email clients is as crappy and unpredictable as it currently is, well I’m sorry, but I’m not going back to nested layout tables and spacer GIFs just to create an email. Until the situation improves I’m happy to hand over the job of creating HTML email to somebody else."

Well, I'm sorry too, Roger, but in the real world we just have to work with what we have. Were we all evil in the 90s for using tables and spacer GIFs for layout? No, we weren't. We were just doing the best we could with the available technology.

Imagine saying back then, "I'm not developing any websites until browser manufacturers improve their browsers."

Yep, right.

I'm not saying we should be happy with the status quo either, and David Greiner's excellent post on why we need improvement in the area of standard support in email will hopefully shake a few things up.

I'm sure the day will come when we have decent standards support in our mail clients, but in the meantime those of us that flirt with reality have to deal with HTML email. That includes using layout tables and all sorts of other 'evil' measures.

But we just have to do the best with what we have.

Firm sues forum to silence critics

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that software maker 2Clix is suing community site Whirlpool for comments posted on its forum.

This could set a nasty precedent. Does that mean that nobody will be allowed to criticise anything online for fear of getting sued?

Do we have follow America's lead in getting lawyers involved in everything?

Anyway, here's the story.