Those are the famous last words of many web developers who’ve been asked to code an email campaign only to discover that, when it comes to web vs. email development, there are some major differences.
If all your experience is in building websites. Knowing those differences will help you appreciate . What your brothers and sisters in the email world have to deal with every day. Then . If you’re ever asked to code . An html email or two, you’ll have a good idea of what to expect.
Don’t worry, though. While HTML email development presents unique challenges that you might not anticipate — and that may require some time and effort to master — web developers are problem solvers who are up to the challenge.
Email marketers like to say that you don’t choose the email life, it chooses you. Perhaps you have been chosen, my friend. This could be your time to rise to the challenges of email.
In this article, we’ll demystify the perplexing, and sometimes frustrating, differences between web and email development. Once you get familiar with the basics, you’ll be able to code HTML emails that look great across almost every device and email client.
1. Web browsers vs. email clients
With web development, coding for cross-browser compatibility is standard practice. However, there’s really only a handful of major browsers you need to worry about.
The vast majority of browsers use WebKit, Blink, Gecko, or Trident as rendering engines and, despite having some differences, are relatively standardized thanks to the (WaSP). You also have a broad range of tools at your disposal to help create attractive, high-performing, and engaging websites.
Email development is significantly more limited than web development in the type of code and media you can use. It’s also complicated by the fact that, on top of having to code for browsers and devices, you need to code for various clients and mailbox providers that have very little standardization between them.
The email rendering process is also quite a bit different than web page rendering. Email clients pre-process HTML emails to prepare them for display. They remove code that looks dangerous, raises privacy concerns, or is unsupported (like Javascript). They’ll also break links to prevent images from automatically loading, and remove object and embed tags.
When emails are finally rendered in the mail client. They’re rendered with anything from more advanced engines like webkit. Gecko, and trident to extremely limited engines like microsoft word. Notesrichtext, and the
When you take the many combinations of Netherlands Mobile Number List browsers, devices, and email clients into account, there are literally thousands of possible rendering outcomes. It can feel a little overwhelming.
Fortunately, the limitations of HTML email development provide a simplified, if antiquated-feeling, framework for coding. Coding html like it’s 2001 may feel a . Bit restrictive at first, but ensuring that you’re using code that has the widest . Possible support will help you create emails that are guaranteed to . Display well in just about every scenario.
2. Outlook: Your new worst nightmare
You may be looking forward to Internet Explorer’s forthcoming commitment to the dustbin of history. (Aren’t we all?) Its compatibility issues and scaled-back support from Microsoft have made it the bane of web developers’ lives for some time now.
If you thought Internet Explorer was frustrating to deal with, rest assured that an even more sinister monster will be awaiting you in the realm of email development — Microsoft Outlook.
If you’ve taken a look at the code in an HTML email and wondered why it’s all tables, inline CSS, and outdated-looking HTML, the answer is UAE Cell Number almost always, “Because Outlook.” Unlike most other mail clients that use the same rendering engines as browsers, Microsoft Outlook has been slow to catch up. Outlook does use Webkit for Mac OS, iOS, and Android, but for Windows, it still uses Microsoft Word. Yes. Really.
Word is not great at rendering HTML and CSS, so emails in the Windows version of Outlook can often look quite different than the developer intended.
