Why is the rendering engine in Outlook so bad?

I'm a web developer currently building an HTML email for a client.

I just wanted to say that Outlook has ruined my day again. So now, once
again I'm trying to figure out how I justify to a client the hours I have
spent trying to get simple, standards-compliant code to display correctly in
Outlook.

I have a feature request: a Microsoft hosted page containing an official
apology about the rendering engine in Outlook that I can direct my clients
to, to save me spending yet more of my time explaining why Outlook is so
annoying and expensive to develop for.

Thank You

Matt;145426 Wrote:
I'm a web developer currently building an HTML email for a client.

I just wanted to say that Outlook has ruined my day again. So now,
once
again I'm trying to figure out how I justify to a client the hours I
have
spent trying to get simple, standards-compliant code to display
correctly in
Outlook.

I have a feature request: a Microsoft hosted page containing an
official
apology about the rendering engine in Outlook that I can direct my
clients
to, to save me spending yet more of my time explaining why Outlook is
so
annoying and expensive to develop for.

Thank You

Every bulk email i get looks fine, so it can't be all that hard to do.
Email is not simply "web pages viewed in a browser" and should never be
treated as if they are. Don't over program/over design the message and
it will look fine. Simple *is* better in email.

See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa338201.aspx for
information on CSS support and other information.


--
Diane Poremsky [MVP]

Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
http://forums.slipstick.com

Other mail clients are not much better and web based mail clients are even
worse. An e-mail it not "the web" and should not be treated as such either.

What you can and cannot use in Word/Outlook 2007 is documented and published
by Microsoft at the following 2 locations;
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa338201.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa338200.aspx

As said, the feature set of most other mail clients are even smaller so
there are more limiting factors than just the rendering engine of
Word/Outlook 2007.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers

-----

"Matt" wrote in message
...
I'm a web developer currently building an HTML email for a client.

I just wanted to say that Outlook has ruined my day again. So now, once
again I'm trying to figure out how I justify to a client the hours I have
spent trying to get simple, standards-compliant code to display correctly
in
Outlook.

I have a feature request: a Microsoft hosted page containing an official
apology about the rendering engine in Outlook that I can direct my
clients
to, to save me spending yet more of my time explaining why Outlook is so
annoying and expensive to develop for.

Thank You

Matt wrote:

I'm a web developer currently building an HTML email for a client.

I just wanted to say that Outlook has ruined my day again. So now, once
again I'm trying to figure out how I justify to a client the hours I have
spent trying to get simple, standards-compliant code to display correctly in
Outlook.

Outlook is an e-mail client, not a web browser. Don't expect ANY e-mail
client to render your HTML e-mails exactly as you see them. With HTML, you
can *never* guarantee the recipient will see the content exactly the same as
you see it. Besides, most of what you can do in HTML will get blocked by
the vast majority of e-mail clients, anyway, like any scripting, animation,
etc. Gee, you claim to be a "developer" and you don't know this?

If you want your users to open your message in a web browser then either put
the page online somewhere and give a link to to the recipient so they end up
opening their web browser to see that page, or attach your web page as an
..html attachment so it opens in their web browser. If you want the
rendering support of a web browser then USE A WEB BROWSER to view the
content!

A screwdriver can be used as a hammer but it wasn't designed for that
purpose. Don't expect a screwdriver to work well as a hammer.

I have a feature request: a Microsoft hosted page containing an official
apology about the rendering engine in Outlook that I can direct my clients
to, to save me spending yet more of my time explaining why Outlook is so
annoying and expensive to develop for.

Create your own web page for YOUR apology to your ignorant users. Of
course, the time it takes you to tell them the URL to your apology page
would take just as much time as stating "E-mail clients are NOT web
browsers."

Roady,
Thanks for the response. I honestly didn't think the antiquated word HTML
rendering engine could be defended! It is a genuine shame the fact that
"Other mail clients are not much better" is used to justify Outlook's
shortcomings.

So what if they are not much better*? Why not make the most popular email
client the best?
*(with a few exceptions - apple mail and thunderbird are particularly good).

I'd rather not spend too much time documenting the shortcomings of Outlook's
rendering engine as they are hugely documented across the internet,
highlights include:
http://www.email-standards.org/clients/
http://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/ (showing how outlook CSS support has
got *worse* since 2003?!)
http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/...mail-design-b/



Diane,
Thanks for the reply. However please don't patronise me. I don't send 'bulk
emails' and I do my very best not to 'over-design' anything. My clients ask
me to me to produce newsletters for their subscribers that are visually
compelling and engaging or at the very least have professional standard of
simple typography, spacing and alignment (all of which Outlook make hard to
achieve). I have been designing and developing using HTML (and CSS) for
eleven years and generally speaking you're right - it is not "all that hard
to do". It only becomes hard when working around the quirks and bugs present
in Microsoft products, in particular (and somewhat famously) Internet
Explorer 6/7 and when writing HTML emails: Outlook 2007 (and now 2010).

While I agree of course that "email is not simply web pages viewed in a
browser" the reality is that like it or not, HTML email is here to stay. My
thoughts are somewhat close to those documented he (please take the time
to read if you haven't already - there really are some legitimate points)
http://www.email-standards.org/why/
http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/...ndards-supp-1/

I also agree that "simple is better" - this is true of almost everything.
But can you remind me again what is that is wrong with giving developers the
tools and the ability to innovate and push new ideas and methods?

To be honest, as usual it looks like I may as well get used to it. The fact
that Outlook 2010 uses the same antiquated rendering engine (originally
designed for a word processor?) means I will be unfortunately using these
ancient methods of building emails for some time to come..

Roady,
Thanks for the response. I honestly didn't think the antiquated word HTML
rendering engine could be defended! It is a genuine shame the fact that
"Other mail clients are not much better" is used to justify Outlook's
shortcomings.

Of the clients with any decent market share, they may not be much better,
but they *are* better. And besides, so what if they are not much better?* Why
not make the most popular email client the best?
*(with a few exceptions - apple mail and thunderbird are particularly good,
Gmail particularly bad).

I'd rather not spend too much time documenting the shortcomings of Outlook's
rendering engine as they are hugely documented across the internet,
highlights include:
http://www.email-standards.org/clients/
http://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/ (showing how outlook CSS support has
got *worse* since 2003?!)
http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/...mail-design-b/



Diane,
Thanks for the reply. However please don't patronise me. I don't send 'bulk
emails' and I do my very best not to 'over-design' anything. My clients ask
me to me to produce newsletters for their subscribers that are visually
compelling and engaging or at the very least have professional standard of
simple typography, spacing and alignment (all of which Outlook make hard to
achieve). I have been designing and developing using HTML (and CSS) for
eleven years and generally speaking you're right - it is not "all that hard
to do". It only becomes hard when working around the quirks and bugs present
in Microsoft products, in particular (and somewhat famously) Internet
Explorer 6/7 and when writing HTML emails: Outlook 2007 (and now 2010).

While I agree of course that "email is not simply web pages viewed in a
browser" the reality is that like it or not, HTML email is here to stay. My
thoughts are somewhat close to those documented he (please take the time
to read if you haven't already - there really are some legitimate points)
http://www.email-standards.org/why/
http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/...ndards-supp-1/

I also agree that "simple is better" - this is true of almost everything.
But can you remind me again what is that is wrong with giving developers the
tools and the ability to innovate and push new ideas and methods?

To be honest, as usual it looks like I may as well get used to it. The fact
that Outlook 2010 uses the same antiquated rendering engine (originally
designed for a word processor?) means I will be unfortunately using these
ancient methods of building emails for some time to come..

Hi VanguardLH,
Of course I know that scripting, animation etc are not viable in email?
Where did I suggest otherwise? And like I said before I spend every working
day of my life building and testing websites and email in a different
browsers and email clients (and have done for 11 years) so again, I *know*
the recipient will never see content the same way! The truth is, most other
email clients (and browsers) do a much better and more consistent (and bug
free) job of rendering. This is fact! Seriously, do some research.

When the internet itself was 'born' in 1973
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) it was not designed originally to
show video, play music, have online shops, provide the ability to book
flights and tickets, etc etc etc.. but it now does. So your analogy of a
hammer and a screwdriver makes no sense? Like it or not HTML email is not
going anywhere. Other email clients (eg apple mail, thunderbird, even many
mobile email clients) have shown that is perfectly possible to code a message
once and have it display perfectly well in both browsers and email clients.
Why make developers have to do more work? My question is why use the (very
old) word rendering engine when the passable explorer 8 engine exists.
Outlook 2003 used to use explorer, why have we gone backwards?

Did you take the time to read any of the links I posted above?
Please don't jump to assumptions before replying.

Matt wrote:

Hi VanguardLH,
Of course I know that scripting, animation etc are not viable in email?
Where did I suggest otherwise? And like I said before I spend every working
day of my life building and testing websites and email in a different
browsers and email clients (and have done for 11 years) so again, I *know*
the recipient will never see content the same way! The truth is, most other
email clients (and browsers) do a much better and more consistent (and bug
free) job of rendering. This is fact! Seriously, do some research.

When the internet itself was 'born' in 1973
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet) it was not designed originally to
show video, play music, have online shops, provide the ability to book
flights and tickets, etc etc etc.. but it now does. So your analogy of a
hammer and a screwdriver makes no sense? Like it or not HTML email is not
going anywhere. Other email clients (eg apple mail, thunderbird, even many
mobile email clients) have shown that is perfectly possible to code a message
once and have it display perfectly well in both browsers and email clients.
Why make developers have to do more work? My question is why use the (very
old) word rendering engine when the passable explorer 8 engine exists.
Outlook 2003 used to use explorer, why have we gone backwards?

Did you take the time to read any of the links I posted above?
Please don't jump to assumptions before replying.

So what you want or expect is for the lines of distinction to blur between
e-mail and web pages so they merge into the same form for communication.
Might happen but nowadays e-mail users are NOT expecting and really don't
want their e-mails to be populated with the crap they see in web pages.

Word has never been considered a decent HTML editor. For one thing, it
bloats the HTML-formatted e-mail with directives that are specific only to
the Word program. That is, it inserts directives in the HTML code that
helps recipients that also use Word to display the e-mail to get the same
display as the sender who saw it and composed it in Word. Using Word for an
HTML editor is only because Word is likely to be available (since there are
few standalone installs of just Outlook) and it will do some HTML coding;
however, those that want to develop solid HTML-formatted e-mails will use a
real HTML editor to produce good code and then use that editor's Send By
E-mail feature to insert that code into their e-mail body.

I do agree that Word is not a good HTML editor program. It never was and
still isn't. Microsoft puts junk into an HTML-formatted e-mail that isn't
HTML code but directives just for Word but is only usable by recipients that
also have Word and configure it to view their HTML-formatted e-mails.
Outlook is just spewing out what Word gave it, and Microsoft is not yet
designing Word to be a full HTML-compliant editor or to produce pure HTML
code for e-mails.

I'd suggest looking around at what HTML editors you like to use, consider
what HTML functions don't work in e-mails, and compose your message in that
3rd party editor and then send that code.

In many ways I agree - *I* don't want crap in my emails and I try not to work
for clients who do. Though for example a newsletter that I have signed up for
is welcome in my inbox. Even more so if it is well designed with professional
use of typography and layout.

I think you may be bit mixed up about what it is I am saying regards word. I
hand code every site and email I build using dedicated code editors - the
thought of using word to do HTML editing would cause me to find another line
of work. My point is that since 2007, Outlook has used the same HTML
rendering engine built into word *not* the rendering engine built into
internet explorer. Outlook 2003 used to use internet explorer for its engine
but for some unfathomable reason outlook 2007 (and now 2010) use word's
crippled HTML rendering engine, hence HTML emails that have extremely limited
potential for design innovation that are unable to properly display clean,
semantic, modern HTML and CSS standards.

It used to be Internet Explorer 6 that caused web designers and developers
to want to find new jobs but thankfully that browser is finally dying a (very
slow) death. Unfortunately just as Microsoft appeared to be realising that
good support for open standards are the way forward (Explorer 9 is looking
very good in beta), Outlook 2010 pushes email back another 5 years.

Anyway, I'm going to stop now. This little rant has is nothing new, I'm just
one of thousands of developers experiencing the same thing:
http://fixoutlook.org/

"Matt" wrote in message
...

Why make developers have to do more work? My question is why use the (very
old) word rendering engine when the passable explorer 8 engine exists.
Outlook 2003 used to use explorer, why have we gone backwards?

Because the European Union made Microsoft unbundle IE, so mail clients that
used to rely on the IE rendering engine being available can no longer do that.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]