Be nice. Or else.
Email developer at Campaign Monitor Joined about 4 years ago
Thanks Brandon, your input really helps us get a better idea of what still needs improvements.
Hey Brandon, thanks for following up.
Adding a way to let you indicate which email clients you care about is definitely an option, and we’ll give some thought to whether that might be the right solution based on all the feedback we’ve received.
I see what you’re saying, both about being able to scan multiple related features at a glance, and getting a quick overview of a specific client’s support.
You’re also right that the email client pages like https://www.campaignmonitor.com/css/email-client/outlook-2007-16/ show only the features that are unsupported or partially supported, so features that are OK to use in that client are not listed there. We weren’t sure how obvious that would be, so we may well need to put a note about it somewhere.
Thanks again for taking the time to give us this super valuable input. Although I can’t commit to any specific changes now, our hope is definitely to continue improving the CSS guide in ways that address the issues you’ve raised.
Hey Brandon, thank you for the great suggestions and support! We’re very mindful of the CSS guide being an indispensable part of many people’s workflow, and we only want to make it more useful for you.
There are a few complicating factors. One is that some of the groups of email clients, such as Gmail, are less homogenous groups than you’d think. So while many features would either work or not across all of Google’s email clients, there are also many that have partial support. Another is that the clients you care about aren’t necessarily the same as someone else.
So you raise some valid concerns that we are hoping to address, but we’re still figuring out what the best approach is. Your “safe to use” indicator suggestion à la caniuse is something we’ve made a note of, and will take into consideration.
If you have any further suggestions, I’d love to hear them.
Hey Dirk, thanks for your honest feedback. We truly appreciate it!
You point out some clear disadvantages of the new format, and I can tell you that moving away from the classic table format wasn’t an easy decision for us.
I can certainly understand your disappointment that the guide isn’t as quick to reference as the old one, and as you say, these are compromises we’ve made in order to add a LOT more content.
I do hope you’ll give the new format a chance over some time. Instead of Ctrl+F, we’ve added the built in search field which gets you there nearly as quickly as before. There may be more we can try to do there, to speed that process up.
Providing more of an overview of each feature’s support at a glance, like Renato also requested here, is something we’ll have to consider as well.
And allowing all clients to be visible at the same time in smaller viewports is also something we’ve had more requests for.
These are all great suggestions for improvements, and we’ve recorded your requests to help us plan future iterations.
I’d also love to hear from you if you manage to reproduce the issue you were having, so we can investigate it.
You can always access the archived version of the guide, but obviously, the results won’t be as up to date.
Thanks again for your helpful input, and please let me know if you have any further thoughts.
Thanks, Samuel. Glad you like it!
This is super helpful feedback—thanks, Renato :) I replied on the blog too, but in case you don’t see it there: I’ve made a note of this as a potential future improvement.
Be nice. Or else.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.