I recently attended a wedding and reception at a local golf club. The weather was perfect as we sat on the patio and watched as vows and rings were exchanged. The ceremony went well, even if the string quartet was a bit out of tune. Afterwards it was time for cocktails, and then we moved inside for the reception.
As I sat down I counted no less than three forks by my plate; two set to the left, slightly offset, and one above the plate.
That was when it hit: Fork Anxiety.
I struggled to keep my breathing even as the utensils glinted at me with a golden sheen. I peered at the forks. The two to the left might be identical but their offset position made one of them appear bigger than the other. Was that an optical illusion, or were they the same size?
I peered at the fork along the top of the plate, tilting my head. Was it bigger than the other two. Was the gold finish a trifle more golden?
I racked my brain for clues as to which for to use first, but all my frantic gray matter could come up with was a hazy memory of a middle school teacher admonishing me to not fling potatoes with my spork.
And then the moment was upon me as the wait staff served salad. I took my time unfolding the blue linen napkin and placing it across my lap just so, all the while shooting furtive glances at my table-mates to see which fork they chose.
To my surprise I saw that the various people picked different forks, talking and laughing like they didn't have a care in the world. They didn't seem to care which fork was used, or concerned about a table etiquette faux pax.
I tentatively picked up the fork furthest to my left, and quickly stabbed a piece of lettuce. No one pointed, no one laughed. I sighed happily as I munched on my lettuce. I was just being silly; just acting the fool. No one cared which fork I chose. This was a happy occasion, and I should enjoy it.
I resolved to not let such stupid cares worry me again. I skewered a piece of tomato on my fork, but noticed it was too big for a single mouthful and reached for my knife. It was then I noticed that I had three knives.
That was when it hit: Knife Nervousness.
July 31, 2007
Rambling Rant: HTML me, baby!
I know a few people who slavishly refuse to read or send read e-mails in HTML format. They steadfastly cling to outdated notions that they are "safer" and "faster" by eschewing "pretty" e-mail for plain text. This came up once again in discussion, and after hearing the same tired old reasonings I just had to speak up. I will be addressing the "concerns" point by point.
HTML e-mail is unsafe
Let me start by saying that I have been using HTML e-mail for at least the last five years. I send HTML e-mails, I read HTML e-mails. I get newsletters in HTML format. In all that time I have never gotten a single virus running amok on my PC from an HTML e-mail, and I have had precious few e-mails containing a virus that my anti-virus software had to stop.
Both my anti-virus and firewall software keep a sharp eye out for malicious e-mail. With the proper protection, there is nothing to fear from receiving an e-mail in HTML format. Over the years I have used Outlook Express, Outlook, and currently Thunderbird. All of which work flawlessly HTML e-mail.
HTML e-mail is slow
Those who prefer plain text e-mail like to trumpet that HTML e-mails are twice as large. It turns out that this is true. Gasp! What to do? A little research proves the answer is: Nothing.
I took an e-mail that I recently received (which just so happened to be expounding on the evils of HTML e-mail) consisting of 366 words. I added all sorts of HTML tricks to it like different fonts, bold, italics, and a few emoticons, all of which doubled the size this e-mail to a whopping 5 kilobytes. A few quick calculations show this will take about .73 seconds to transmit via-dial up.
An HTML e-mail of over 2100 words takes about 5 seconds to transmit. Once again, that is over dial up. Remember that 2100 words is a good-size magazine article. Most e-mails are no where near that size. Also remember that if you have DSL or cable it will take quite a bit less time.
Some HTML e-mail will reference pictures from other places in the internet. In a dial-up environment this can be slow, and is another common argument that is used against HTML e-mail. However, most e-mail software has the ability to prevent HTML e-mail from accessing content from elsewhere on the internet, should the user so choose.
HTML e-mail is rude
Some who prefer plain text also like to say that it is rude to send e-mail in HTML format when they prefer it in plain text. Balderdash! I say. I should be able to send e-mail in any format I desire. How the recipient chooses to read it is up to them. Most e-mail clients can be configured to show all e-mails in plain text, even if they were sent in HTML.
My PC Is Too Old
As Colonal Potter used to say on M*A*S*H, "Horsefeathers!" Thunderbird will run on operating systems as old as Windows 98. Other e-mail clients will go back as far as Windows 3.1. Heck, I even found one that will run on DOS! So if you have an old system, teach it a new trick with HTML e-mail.
Now if it your personal preference to read e-mail strictly in the Courier font, without any embellishment or modification, by all means enjoy yourself. But don't expect me to believe that HTML e-mail threatens our virtual security and happiness. I'm not buying it.
Thus endth the rant.
HTML e-mail is unsafe
Let me start by saying that I have been using HTML e-mail for at least the last five years. I send HTML e-mails, I read HTML e-mails. I get newsletters in HTML format. In all that time I have never gotten a single virus running amok on my PC from an HTML e-mail, and I have had precious few e-mails containing a virus that my anti-virus software had to stop.
Both my anti-virus and firewall software keep a sharp eye out for malicious e-mail. With the proper protection, there is nothing to fear from receiving an e-mail in HTML format. Over the years I have used Outlook Express, Outlook, and currently Thunderbird. All of which work flawlessly HTML e-mail.
HTML e-mail is slow
Those who prefer plain text e-mail like to trumpet that HTML e-mails are twice as large. It turns out that this is true. Gasp! What to do? A little research proves the answer is: Nothing.
I took an e-mail that I recently received (which just so happened to be expounding on the evils of HTML e-mail) consisting of 366 words. I added all sorts of HTML tricks to it like different fonts, bold, italics, and a few emoticons, all of which doubled the size this e-mail to a whopping 5 kilobytes. A few quick calculations show this will take about .73 seconds to transmit via-dial up.
An HTML e-mail of over 2100 words takes about 5 seconds to transmit. Once again, that is over dial up. Remember that 2100 words is a good-size magazine article. Most e-mails are no where near that size. Also remember that if you have DSL or cable it will take quite a bit less time.
Some HTML e-mail will reference pictures from other places in the internet. In a dial-up environment this can be slow, and is another common argument that is used against HTML e-mail. However, most e-mail software has the ability to prevent HTML e-mail from accessing content from elsewhere on the internet, should the user so choose.
HTML e-mail is rude
Some who prefer plain text also like to say that it is rude to send e-mail in HTML format when they prefer it in plain text. Balderdash! I say. I should be able to send e-mail in any format I desire. How the recipient chooses to read it is up to them. Most e-mail clients can be configured to show all e-mails in plain text, even if they were sent in HTML.
My PC Is Too Old
As Colonal Potter used to say on M*A*S*H, "Horsefeathers!" Thunderbird will run on operating systems as old as Windows 98. Other e-mail clients will go back as far as Windows 3.1. Heck, I even found one that will run on DOS! So if you have an old system, teach it a new trick with HTML e-mail.
Now if it your personal preference to read e-mail strictly in the Courier font, without any embellishment or modification, by all means enjoy yourself. But don't expect me to believe that HTML e-mail threatens our virtual security and happiness. I'm not buying it.
Thus endth the rant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)