Got a ticket today to redo the companies html e-mail signature.
Requirements: Support for Outlook 2007-2016.

Me never done one before, thinking: "Regular Html and a bit of CSS, no biggie, can't be that hard"
Also me: "Okay let's see which CSS features are supported in Outlook 2007"

Quick google search to find out that there is nearly no support for anything and that Outlook uses Word as render engine.
Someone seriously thought using motherfucking Word to render Html & CSS is a good idea? FML

  • 12
    Email HTML is like a whole other animal.

    You know it is bad when there are entire classes about Email and HTML:

  • 9
    @N00bPancakes and signatures are a whole nother animal after that...

    Because whatever you write should survive being forwarded as well...

    I advise you base64 any images.

    Use a small simple HTML table. And style as much as possible with HTML attributes and not the lesser supported inline styles.

    You’re basically writing an email for MS Word 2003.
  • 9
    They can absolutely go fuck themselves for using outlook 2007. Whoever made that decision, they're cancer.
  • 2

    The amount of suffering put on others by that decision is just unforgivable.
  • 0
    @HiFiWiFiSciFi What is this “nother” you speak of?
  • 2
    The word engine was slightly better then the IE6 engine, but they seriously need to move on and make it HTML/css3 compliant.

    Same goes for Gmail, they inject their own shit too.
  • 0
    Aah, nice. I did that for a living for a good year.

    HTML emails are insane. Back in the days, not even gmail (mobile) made it a fun time. I guess the problem is that it's exactly the problem we had with browsers, except it's 100 times worse because there are 100 times the clients to write code for.
  • 8

    Always use tables for signatures. Suported virtually from 2000.

    I even once did a company logo as table of 100x50 of 1px/1px so it would diplay even if images are blocked
  • 2
    @NoToJavaScript *insert hackerman gif here*
Add Comment