Outlook 2010 not winning fans. . .on Twitter

They're a bit too late since Outlook 2007 already uses the Word rendering engine to display html.

The complaints are genuine, but I'm not sure it's anything Joe Average would (or maybe even should) care about.

@JW: Indeed it does but web developers lived in hope that Microsoft would have taken notice of initiatives such as the Email Standards Project.

The collective opinion that this campaign expresses is not entirely new. I would say the majority of participating twitterers have already been opposed to Microsoft. There is a reason behind it that any experienced web designer will understand and things like this (Microsoft's plans for Outlook 2010) only prove that Microsoft's attitude towards standards is changing very little if at all. And standards are inarguably of utter importance for the interweb.

@JW it's too late about Outlook 2007 but it's not too late to change it for the future, because change is constant. What matters is how thing actually change. And by letting the people who care about this issue make themselves heard more easily than normally, we have a greater chance of achieving the "right" change, namely improving support for web standards versus letting poor attention to standards-compliance on Microsoft's part continue to slow down the progression of the web.

@Andrew unfortunately Joe Average is probably not going to care because he probably wont understand it and take the time necessary to understand it. But the issues which this petition revolve around do affect Joe Average, namely in the way he can use the web. There is a reason for standards after all.

The fact is : Word do not render HTML as specified by W3C. Microsoft is aware of this.

Word's HTML is different, and not inter-operable with third party's email clients, and that is the part of the complaints.

Other part is : well formatted HTML mails are not properly rendered in Outlook since Ouytlook 2007, and that is a real world everyday headache for newsletter editors.

Internet Explorer 7 then 8 have made real progress in standard HTML / CSS support, Outlook does not. Why ?

Is the outrage real? Yes. Myself and others in the web community who create email started raising a fuss when Outlook 2007 started using Word to render email. Outlook 2003 actually worked better than 2007 in the way it renders. Here is a chance to try to get Microsoft to adopt the standards that everyone else in the industry is using.

It basically comes down to Microsoft doesn't seem to care about the larger community. They pay lip service to cross platform compatibility, but do nothing to make it happen. They design their software to be compatible with other Microsoft software and ignore everyone else.

People who create email care because this makes it difficult to design for a broad audience. The general public should care if they want to have a good experience using their email, and not wonder why things look broken.

Yes the outrage amongst the design and development community is real. Of course Microsoft will not care and do nothing about it.

M$ just don't get it.

I wouldn't say that this campaign is trying to "manipulate public opinion" at all. I think it has succeeded at raising awareness of a problem that many people are not aware of. As a designer, I have been frustrated since the last version of Outlook was released. Microsoft does not follow Web standards in rendering emails, so any project I do, I am forced to "dumb down" my design to make sure it looks OK in Outlook. Not only does this stifle the creative process, it disappoints my customers and forces me to spend more time debugging my designs because Outlook is such a wild card.

While I agree that his is not a topic as noteworthy as election fraud in Iran, I do believe that Twitter is the perfect place to motivate people who have an interest in this cause. And you know what? Microsoft has finally acknowledged the issue and released a statement. Granted, they are holding fast to their beloved Word rendering engine, but to get a response from the Gates camp in less than 24 hours is *quite* the accomplishment.

So spin the story however you wish. The fact is that a little company out of Australia has brought this issue to the forefront and even CNN is blogging about it. Maybe with more traction Microsoft will actually listen to our pleas. (Yeah right, who am I kidding!?)

Better if the change comes late than never. Microsoft and it's ignorance of most of web standards have been making web developers' lives miserable for far too long. Sure, most people don't give a damn but this is a chance for Microsoft to prove they are willing to listen and do what's right.

Or just don't buy the commercial product if you don't like. It's not being forced upon you.

There are plenty of alternative email programs to choose from. Thunderbird and Opera to name just two...

@JW: we had the same complaint with Outlook 2007.

@Andrew Ingram: Joe Average probably doesn't understand what this is about exactly, but it's one of those things where if you were to show them they would care.

The reasons they give for doing it this way really don't make any sense. The bar graphs and what not they point at could easily just be converted to images before the email is sent out. I can't think of a single email program that allows javascript to be activated in an email (which they shouldn't allow). Lastly why are they against standards for emails?

One last thing, which really I think Microsoft needs to think about is that they are going down the same path that they went down with Internet Explorer. They made their own standards, they decided what they supported and what they didn't. It's resulted in them being trapped having to support an 8 year old browser.

Outlook 2007 was a serious step backwards in terms of supporting web standards, but the disappointment highlighted by this campaign is that Microsoft are repeating the same mistake in Outlook 2010.

In Microsoft's response to this campaign, William Kennedy (Corporate Vice President of the Office team) incorrectly interpreted the campaign as a call to scrap the Word rendering engine in the creation of e-mails. I have no qualms with them on that issue.

What the campaign is actually promoting is to allow HTML/CSS e-mail received by Outlook to be correctly displayed as it would be in most other e-mail clients and as was the case a decade ago in Outlook 2000.

This is an issue that affects the daily lives of thousands of developers and designers who have to waste a lot of extra time and money designing e-mail newsletters that will display correctly in Outlook.

Andrew Ingram is correct when he says that this is not an issue that affects Joe Average, but a large proportion of those who have voiced their opinion in this campaign are developers just like me.

I have to agree with both of the previous posters. This is not an issue that will impact the average user at all – I've sent and received thousands of HTML messages in Outlook 2007 over the last 4+ years without any problems and Outlook 2010 will be no worse in that regard than 2007 was.

E-mail marketers and web developers may have a legitimate gripe with the lack of CSS support, but average users will rarely know or care about it.

Besides, Outlook 2007 (and 2010 I'm sure) will open your "mis-rendered" HTML message in your browser (correctly, one assumes) with no more than two clicks. So if you DO get a message that is badly rendered, two clicks will show it to you in the browser where it should appear just as the designer intended.

It's hardly the apocalypse some of the hysterical Tweeters are making it out to be.

I hate to say it ... but I actually support MS on this one. Unfortunately, MS and Outlook have underlying security issues (as all software does, so don't think I'm an Apple fanboy). They have two options: 1) correct these issues, which may result in new issues since fixing the problems will require lengthy software rebuilds or 2) remove the most vulnerable and most often used methods of attack. They have chosen option 2.

Would you rather that, one day, a colleague/friend sends you an email, and the infected host server and adds HTML code to the email, passing malware to your machine? If you don't support the exploitable portions of HTML, then it makes it much easier to defend against these kinds of attacks since the code won't do anything.

I never have a problem displaying anything. Once I approve the content it's displayed perfectly fine. For web developers please read the EULA to all Microsoft SDKs... let me some it some it up. "Take it or leave it"

There is nothing there about standards...

The majority of Outlook users are not programmers or web designers and all they want is an e-mail application they can depend on, 2003 and 2007 did just that. 2010 is built on 2007 so expectation will be that the average user will be happy with it. Can we expect Microsoft to adapt to a given standard and revise 2010 accordingly? That will depend on the feedback they get from the market place. Trying to strong arm a giant isn't likely to have much influence.

Agreed that it is only an issue for developers. I don't think we're (developers) being hysterical. Standards are standards and if you're going to support html and CSS then do it. Legitimate html-based business e-mail costs more to create when you have to jump through hoops to get it to look professional in both browser and all the major e-mail applications. We can't control what application the reader is using.

Re: "with no more than two clicks"... We depend on the e-mail to get the readers' attention. If it doesn't at first glance, they aren't going to jump through hoops to see it as it was intended. We've already lost them. Besides the issue of having it look professional from the git-go.

The only group of people that care about this and genuinely understand the issue, are spammers. They may call it "Email Marketing" (according to Newism's website anyway) but it's spam. The average person doesn't care and this "protest" shouldn't have been given even a mention on here...

"Is this “outrage” over Outlook 2010 real?"

What kind of dumb question is that? No, 20,000 people tweeted their outrage because they were manipulated into doing so by a website. That makes a lot more sense, right?

no matter what they do in outlook, it's still going to be better than lotus notes (what i'm forced to use at work).

2010? Give me a break! My Outlook (any version) has never worked properly.

Kevin is the only person who understands the underlying issue here...HTML is a security risk. MS is using Word rendering to mitigate that risk. HTML is not authorized period on secure intranets.

Why is there such a media fascination with Twitter – recent surveys have dispelled the myth that anyone actually uses this 'service'. If you want feedback on the new MS product ask some real people not fanboys for a defunct technology!

While they're at it, they can fix Entourage. It's got to be the worst thing Microsoft ever developed (and that's really saying something).

Andy is right and JW has revealed his cards. This issue ultimately just makes the jobs of people who create SPAM harder. Wah wah wah. Newsletters? Maybe for Male Enhancement Weekly.

For those not already aware (this quote taken directly from Outlook 2007 help notes), "The Microsoft Office Word 2007 e-mail editor is the only built-in editor provided in Microsoft Office Outlook 2007. The Word-based e-mail editor, which does not require that Office Word 2007 be installed, is always enabled and cannot be disabled. The Outlook editor is no longer available in Office Outlook 2007."

This Twitter foolishness is just that, foolishness.

To those saying "don't use Outlook then"... that isn't what we have an issue with. It is the fact that we (as web developers) have to code emails in an entirely antiquated way that goes against the web standards established by the W3C. It adds time to development and testing, sometimes causing missed deadlines. (And in my case more tan a few new gray hairs.)

Regarding Twitter as the vehicle to collect support – personally I think it was just the fastest way to spread the word, as most web developers folow other developers.

Yes, it was a problem in 07, despite working in 03. But we hope it will be better in 2010. That's what improvement is about.

People have suggesting using a different email client. They have missed the point. Email is a two way process. If I send you an email, I want to know that when you recieve it, it will look like how I sent it, even if I'm not using Microsoft Outlook 07/10.

Microsoft Word, has, for a long time, been a terrible HTML editor. It doesn't support the latest standards, and this has become a greater problem as people use it for email.

I'm not a 'marketer' or a 'spammer' – I'd just like it that when I sent rich emails to friends and colleagues, that they looked like how I sent them in Thunderbird?

Is that too much too ask?

For Jason – FYI Spam is unsolicited e-mail. Many of us work with businesses that have clients who want their e-mail updates. They are important parts of their services. Outlook 2007 and beyond makes that more time consuming and less flexible. Period.

1.) It's been like this for 3 years already.. this faux "outrage" is nothing more than users who hate Microsoft... the solution is simple though.. you don't like it, don't use it.

2.) Who cares? A Microsoft product using technology in another Microsoft product.. is this shocking? This is like being outraged that Ford uses a transmission that Ford created.

3.) The Word standard is open, you can go and read through it (granted, it's enourmous).. As a web developer, I agree that the Word HTML engine.. well, frankly it sucks.. but I still don't feel any outrage. The fact remains simple, if you don't like it, don't use it. For most of us that send white e-mails with black text and little formatting over bold & italic it isn't going to matter one bit.

@Kevin – the security claim is just a scare tactic used by lazy M$ developers. Thunderbird, Mac OSX Mail, and Microsoft's own Windows Mail ALL use web browser rendering engines. They just have Javascript support turned off. It's not that hard – it's actually easier – to use an existing web rendering engine to display email.

@Jason – I help write non-spam, OPT-IN emails for dozens of companies with legitimate, non-male-enhancement products. I also know many other people who do the same kind of work as I do. This is an important issue for non-spammers.

@Patrick – "This Twitter foolishness" isn't foolish. Twitter may not be everyone's choice for expressing/sharing ideas, but there are thousands and thousands of people who are upset by Microsoft's decision, who were upset at M$ decision to use Word's rendering engine in Outlook 2007. Just because the first battle was lost doesn't mean we should stop fighting.

Virtually every email client, including M$ own Windows Mail, is moving to support HTML standards in the same way as browsers support them.

Microsoft isn't being asked to remove support for _authoring_ emails using Word features. They're being asked to support email _rendering_ standards.

@John

1. I don't hate Microsoft. The issue isn't about me using Microsoft. It's about the people I develop e-mails for using Microsoft. I would like for them to continue to use whatever software they like best.

2. If Microsoft would choose to use Microsoft IE instead of Microsoft Word as the rendering engine, it would be great. Microsoft using Microsoft... again... that's not the problem.

3. If you only send white e-mails on black text, I'm not sure why you're in this conversation. You can't relate.

@Jason The e-mails sent from my workplace are opt-in e-mails, not unsolicited spam.

In my mind, if the twitters dislike it, then it must be a great product. I liked all the outlook versions and am sure I will like the next one as well.

The argument states it is harder for people writting newsletters to write them for outlook. This is a wonderful thing as I hate newsletters and all other types of spam. You go Microsoft. Great work.

Microsoft can do whatever it likes!! If YOU don't like it, don't use it!

God I love how many ignorant people post on these threads.

To those saying "OMG just dont use it if you hate it!!!". You don't get it do you? Or maybe you didn't even read the post... By sticking with the word rendering software, people who don't use Microsoft products will be forced to "dumb-down" they're emails to get anything to show correctly.

And for the people saying "Its cuz of viruses!", your argument is terrible. You're saying that instead of fixing the blatant holes in their products, its fine for them to remove standard features. Here's an example... when cows got infected with Mad Cow, instead of trying to remove the infection from our herds, we should just never eat beef again. Horrible argument.

Microsoft has again shown they don't care about standards or providing their users with the best experience. All they care about is forcing people to hold onto their market share.

I'm just happy the more they screw up, the more people turn to Apple and Mozilla and never turn back.

Oh and one more thing.. if HTML was such a security risk, how do you think people navigate the web. Are you advocating that browsers not use HTML also? I'd like to see how you get that to work.

Every site you load each day is written in HTML and you're not getting tons of malware from them. HTML can be non-harmful if they spend more time making patching the holes in their product.

As long as the messages are readable by whoever receives them – no matter what OS or system they use – no one's going to care, really.

Now if people start getting e-mails back saying "I couldn't read your message" then that's the big issue.

Security-wise, well that's another story. It's one of the reasons why I abandoned Windows for Mac 3 years ago, and I went from having to deal with a virus a week to having had no virus infections in 3 years.

Possibly a ploy my Microsof themselves to hype Outlook 2010

You said it yourself "'Outlook 2010' was a top trending topic on the micro-blogging site Wednesday" I met MS is thrilled.

And if they get the community to fix it for them, free of charge.... bonus.

Also... let's brake this down into the two potential recipients:

1) Solicited. If you're sending out a newsletter to clients, people who know and trust you, they'll be willing to go the extra 2 clicks to display the email in a browser and everything is right in the world.

2) Unsolicited. Rot in hell, spammers.

Boy you guys sure do worship Twitter.

Using the Ford example: Microsoft using Word to render emails is like Ford using whale oil to lubricate their engines. Yes, it works, and yes, the average Joe wouldn't tell the difference (as far as the car driving), and yes anyone who wanted to provide oil to Ford cars could find a way to get whale oil, but it's old, antiquated, and totally unnecessary.

I'm blown away that end users want to label this as a problem that is only a big deal for marketers. Let's say you've signed up to receive a newsletter on your favorite hobby. In Jason's example above, you can't use Outlook and simply read the newsletter as it was intended - you've got to click through to read it on the web. Personally, even small little things that force me to do extra work make me mad. I'm definitely irked that in order to read my newsletters on Outlook, I have to fire up a browser and read the email in that. Frankly, considering the hundreds of dollars you pay for Office (and Outlook), I'd think you'd want it to work straight out of the box.

This is the funny thing about using Microsoft products – you get so used to working around the bugs that you actually get attached to them. Everybody defending Microsoft (with the exception of the security people) has basically said "Word isn't as good as regular HTML but not by much so let's just use Word." Again, I'm baffled - personally, I want the best experience possible. Why would you defend a company offering a sub-standard product?!

Interesting side note: I'm fascinated with the fact that since these guys chose Twitter as their method of delivering the message, many people completely disregard the message as a whole. Just goes to show that there's a lot of Twitter haters out there (marketers take note!).

Nobody seems to have touched on the topic of continued Microsoft arrogance. It's a culture that is stuck in the 80's and it's killing that company. It's as if nobody working there has noticed that their stock hasn't done anything for 10 years, that they are losing market share on all fronts, that they are made into a laughing stock on a national ad campaign so successful that you can re-watch all the commercials at apple.com (and to which their only response has been to launch a PC campaign that after putting all their marketing geniuses in the same room they came up with only one advantage to talk about – price [known to all marketing professionals as the hail-mary of advantages]). Basically they are telling everyone – yeah, if you can afford a Mac you should buy one, but if you're broke you can settle for us.

This is the perfect example of how Microsoft just doesn't get it, and how their best days are over. Here you have a community of important and influential programmers and developers screaming out that your product sucks, and in typical Microsoft fashion, instead of considering the complaint and the billions in wasted productivity, instantly dig their heels in and cling to their mantra "our way or the highway."

This is exactly the attitude that has convinced me (and everyone that I influence regarding computers – a significant number) to give Apple a try about 5 years ago.

I think it also bears mentioning that Microsoft can't even get close to using a "SPAM" argument here. I'm not sure if it's still true, since I quit using Microsoft Hotmail years ago after the exact same circumstances. I had a Hotmail account and one day I started getting emails from Hotmail asking if I wanted to buy a BBQ grill and other items? WTF? I marked it as SPAM and tried to open up a dialogue with Microsoft. I never agreed to get these, I never signed up for them and yet Microsoft claimed that they weren't SPAM? How can that be? I even had a PAID version of Hotmail with extra storage and they felt that since they were "allowing" me to pay them for the use of Hotmail, that they had an inherent right to SPAM me. So, they forced me to try GMAIL which had an awkward interface at first, but I persevered and now of course I love it.

Years from now in business schools Microsoft will be the classic example of how arrogance can ruin a company – even one with a monopoly.

Ken

I don't understand the fuss. I've been using office 2010 since the tech Preview came out, and I've yet to see one email render improperly!

Also: has anyone considered that IE doesn't come standard in all versions of Windows 7 (Eurpoe versions don't have it at all), but if you buy any version of Office it comes with Word and Outlook?

Thanks for the interesting post. This is a great blog and I really enjoy reading it. This is not just a concept.