> We need to know why people open plain email more than those fancy designed ones, rather than just having those numbers
This is interesting. Would you have questioned the numbers if they showed the inverse (ie designed emails have higher click rates)?
> a well-designed email could increase the efficiency of email reading as you may already familiar with some email and their layouts
I don't think this is true at all. IMO test emails are /much/ more easy to read, because I can use a consistent font and layout for /all/ my emails instead of reading through every designers view.
> emails which heavily polluted with contents that have nothing to do with me
Yes text or designed emails don't change any of the contents and spam still is spam. Marking as spam and removing is probably the best option :)
> This is interesting. Would you have questioned the numbers if they showed the inverse (ie designed emails have higher click rates)?
I think there are already answers to that, as we actually gradually came from that age where email were just plain text, to today's we have option to send HTML in emails.
> I don't think this is true at all. IMO test emails are /much/ more easy to read, because I can use a consistent font and layout for /all/ my emails instead of reading through every designers view.
Well, I think somebody should do a survey for that, about consistent font and layout, easy reading and also fatigue (It apply to driving[0], maybe it also apply to text reading).
And, I don't think plain-text email will be easy to read by natural. Yes, they can be made easy to read, but it doesn't mean they ARE easy to read.
A designed email can be made hard to read, and we call that poorly designed. On the other hand, they can be well-designed and easier to read than plain-text emails.
Boil down, the design of email (whether plain-text or HTML) must serve a purpose. The designer must know what they're doing and hold that purpose in their mind. Plain-text or HTML is a choice they need to made to better fulfill that purpose.
Simply saying one of them is better than the other is inaccurate.
This is interesting. Would you have questioned the numbers if they showed the inverse (ie designed emails have higher click rates)?
> a well-designed email could increase the efficiency of email reading as you may already familiar with some email and their layouts
I don't think this is true at all. IMO test emails are /much/ more easy to read, because I can use a consistent font and layout for /all/ my emails instead of reading through every designers view.
> emails which heavily polluted with contents that have nothing to do with me
Yes text or designed emails don't change any of the contents and spam still is spam. Marking as spam and removing is probably the best option :)