Doing a bit more investigative work, I noticed a blog that mentioned another site Campaign Monitor's Guide to CSS support in email clients (2008). It happened there was a response to that blog post from Matthew Patterson of the Email Standards Project, and he commented:
Just so people are aware, Campaign Monitor is the driving force behind the Email Standards Project too!So, why mention this? Because in that guide linked above, here are the groups of clients tested
I'm not going to dignify the results by copying them here, but needless to say Notes did not come out well. But doesn't it seem a bit idiotic and biased to compare Entourage 2008 with Notes 6? Doesn't it seem a bit ridiculous to include AOL Web and not iNotes? I'm trying to remember not to see overt malice when it might just be ineptness, but Notes 6.5, Notes 7 and Notes 8 had all been released before this was published, as far as I can tell from the dates.
This is the reason why we need more Notes evangelists, to prevent these sloppy comparisons which then get quoted without critique. Unfortunately, it is also why IBM needs to get its act together and fix both the public perception and the actual technology to the best of its ability. The sad fact is, there are serious, real and recognized rendering issues in Notes 8.5 that IBM should have, and could have, addressed back in Notes 6, and then these comparisons wouldn't be so frequent.
Copyright © 2009 Genii Software Ltd.
Tags: Lotus Notes