Signature line hyperlink

Hey!

I created a "business" card for my signature line. Current format is
Tif. I want to add a hyperlink to the graphic so that when you pass
over it with a mouse, it gives you the chance to link to my web site.
Cannot find a way to get this done.

Anyone else out there tackled this issue?
Any help would be great!

Kristi

Jolly
Sun Oct 28 11:16:42 PDT 2007

In article <1193594462.915237.155150@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
mellodramatica@gmail.com wrote:

> I created a "business" card for my signature line. Current format is
> Tif. I want to add a hyperlink to the graphic so that when you pass
> over it with a mouse, it gives you the chance to link to my web site.
> Cannot find a way to get this done.
>
> Anyone else out there tackled this issue?
> Any help would be great!

I can certainly see the attraction of being able to stylize email
messages like crazy, but have you ever considered that the people you
send email to may be on a slow dial-up connection and they might not
really *want* to have to download an image file every time they read an
email from you?

Have you considered that, even without the image file, HTML email
messages are three or four times *larger* than plain text emails, and so
will naturally take longer to download?

And what if the people reading your messages would prefer to display
their email in *their own* preferred font, size, and style, rather than
the fonts you happen to like? What if their preferred fonts is easier on
their aging eyes?

HTML emails enforce your preferences on everyone else, which many
consider to be rude.

If you'd send plain text emails instead of these HTML monstrosities,
your readers would have the freedom to read your emails in *their own*
preferred font, size, and so on, and the messages would be small and
would download much faster for them.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

Michel
Sun Oct 28 10:44:35 PDT 2007

Hi Kristi,

since Entourage's HTML creation engine is rather weak, it cannot create
masked hyperlinks, let alone assign a hyperlink to a picture. However, you
can create your message(s) and signature(s) in Word 2004 (save them as
templates if you need to access them on a regular basis), which allows
pictures to be turned into hyperlinks, then click on File>Send to>Mail
Recipient (as HTML) to get the desired result. Note that there are a couple
of downsides to that method: you cannot modify the message once it's been
passed on to Entourage, and you cannot add attachments to these messages,
either.


On 28/10/2007 20:01, in article
1193594462.915237.155150@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
"mellodramatica@gmail.com" <mellodramatica@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey!
>
> I created a "business" card for my signature line. Current format is
> Tif. I want to add a hyperlink to the graphic so that when you pass
> over it with a mouse, it gives you the chance to link to my web site.
> Cannot find a way to get this done.
>
> Anyone else out there tackled this issue?
> Any help would be great!
>
> Kristi


--
Michel Bintener
Microsoft MVP
Office:Mac (Entourage & Word)

*** Please always reply to the newsgroup. ***

Ed
Sun Oct 28 16:21:36 PDT 2007

OTOH some of us prefer the flexibility of HTML for both sending and
receiving. E.g., I prefer to see and use bold or italics or underline for
emphasis rather than SHOUTING, er, CAPS.

While your points, especially on the size of messages with attached images
are well-taken, most users, especially in the US are now on broadband
connections, so the difference in time that it takes to download HTML rather
than plain text messages without images is not even noticeable.

FYI, this message sent in HTML (with a few words bolded or italicized) is
only twice the size of plain text, not 3-4 times as large.


On 10/28/07 2:16 PM ET, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <1193594462.915237.155150@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> mellodramatica@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I created a "business" card for my signature line. Current format is
>> Tif. I want to add a hyperlink to the graphic so that when you pass
>> over it with a mouse, it gives you the chance to link to my web site.
>> Cannot find a way to get this done.
>>
>> Anyone else out there tackled this issue?
>> Any help would be great!
>
> I can certainly see the attraction of being able to stylize email
> messages like crazy, but have you ever considered that the people you
> send email to may be on a slow dial-up connection and they might not
> really *want* to have to download an image file every time they read an
> email from you?
>
> Have you considered that, even without the image file, HTML email
> messages are three or four times *larger* than plain text emails, and so
> will naturally take longer to download?
>
> And what if the people reading your messages would prefer to display
> their email in *their own* preferred font, size, and style, rather than
> the fonts you happen to like? What if their preferred fonts is easier on
> their aging eyes?
>
> HTML emails enforce your preferences on everyone else, which many
> consider to be rude.
>
> If you'd send plain text emails instead of these HTML monstrosities,
> your readers would have the freedom to read your emails in *their own*
> preferred font, size, and so on, and the messages would be small and
> would download much faster for them.

Diane
Sun Oct 28 19:55:52 PDT 2007

On 10/28/07 11:01 AM, in article
1193594462.915237.155150@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
"mellodramatica@gmail.com" <mellodramatica@gmail.com> wrote:

> I created a "business" card for my signature line. Current format is
> Tif. I want to add a hyperlink to the graphic so that when you pass
> over it with a mouse, it gives you the chance to link to my web site.
> Cannot find a way to get this done.


Microsoft has some templates you can use, but consider the overhead for this
function that can be achieved with just a link in your signature instead.

<http://www.entourage.mvps.org/faq_topic/html_msg.html#sigs>

I also understand that Apple's Leopard Mail has a lot of templates and fancy
stuff. You might like it better than Entourage.

Without going into pros and cons, the debate over HTML vs plain text email
is a hot topic. Since you are a business and your email is representing you,
beware of who you might be offending with your fancy signatures.

--
Diane, Microsoft Mac MVP (MVPs are not Microsoft Employees)
Entourage Help Page <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/>
Entourage Help Blog <http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/>

Jolly
Mon Oct 29 08:30:53 PDT 2007

In article <C34A91C0.32FFE%ed.kimball@att.net>,
Ed Kimball <ed.kimball@att.net> wrote:

> On 10/28/07 2:16 PM ET, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > If you'd send plain text emails instead of these HTML monstrosities,
> > your readers would have the freedom to read your emails in *their own*
> > preferred font, size, and so on, and the messages would be small and
> > would download much faster for them.
>
> OTOH some of us prefer the flexibility of HTML for both sending and
> receiving. E.g., I prefer to see and use bold or italics or underline for
> emphasis rather than SHOUTING, er, CAPS.

There are ways to *emphasize* different _things_ in /messages/ without
CAPITALIZATION. And those other ways allow the person reading the
message to read it in their own preferred font, size, style.

> While your points, especially on the size of messages with attached images
> are well-taken, most users, especially in the US are now on broadband
> connections, so the difference in time that it takes to download HTML rather
> than plain text messages without images is not even noticeable.

Sure - who cares that some people aren't on broadband. They don't
deserve consideration, right?

And that still leaves the poor folks would would really prefer to read
their email in *their own* preferred font. I don't want 10 people
enforcing their own individual styles on me. I want to read my email in
my own preferred font and so on. HTML email is inconsiderate to the
needs of the people you want to read the email.

> FYI, this message sent in HTML (with a few words bolded or italicized) is
> only twice the size of plain text, not 3-4 times as large.

I hate to break it to you, but your message was not in HTML:

Xref: sn-us microsoft.public.mac.office.entourage:78455
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:21:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Signature line hyperlink
From: Ed Kimball <ed.kimball@att.net>
Message-ID: <C34A91C0.32FFE%ed.kimball@att.net>
Thread-Topic: Signature line hyperlink
Thread-Index: AcgZuUi8h5F/UYWsEdyUmAAbY5Wtcw==
References: <1193594462.915237.155150@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
<jollyroger-FEA46D.13164228102007@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.mac.office.entourage
NNTP-Posting-Host: c-68-43-197-204.hsd1.mi.comcast.net 68.43.197.204
Path:
sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-10!sn-xt-sjc-08!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-xt-sjc-12!
supernews.com!postnews.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!TK2MS
FTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl
Lines: 1

<http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gzu7w>

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

Ed
Mon Oct 29 10:06:29 PDT 2007

See below.

On 10/29/07 11:30 AM ET, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <C34A91C0.32FFE%ed.kimball@att.net>,
> Ed Kimball <ed.kimball@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/07 2:16 PM ET, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you'd send plain text emails instead of these HTML monstrosities,
>>> your readers would have the freedom to read your emails in *their own*
>>> preferred font, size, and so on, and the messages would be small and
>>> would download much faster for them.
>>
>> OTOH some of us prefer the flexibility of HTML for both sending and
>> receiving. E.g., I prefer to see and use bold or italics or underline for
>> emphasis rather than SHOUTING, er, CAPS.
>
> There are ways to *emphasize* different _things_ in /messages/ without
> CAPITALIZATION. And those other ways allow the person reading the
> message to read it in their own preferred font, size, style.
My preferred style is neither CAPS nor *asterisks*.

>
>> While your points, especially on the size of messages with attached images
>> are well-taken, most users, especially in the US are now on broadband
>> connections, so the difference in time that it takes to download HTML rather
>> than plain text messages without images is not even noticeable.
>
> Sure - who cares that some people aren't on broadband. They don't
> deserve consideration, right?
With the relatively small size difference (see below) between HTML and text
messages, I don't think that dial-up users suffer a noticeable disadvantage
by receiving HTML.

>
> And that still leaves the poor folks would would really prefer to read
> their email in *their own* preferred font. I don't want 10 people
> enforcing their own individual styles on me. I want to read my email in
> my own preferred font and so on. HTML email is inconsiderate to the
> needs of the people you want to read the email.
If people send me plain text I reply in plain text. So if that's how you
want me to send you mail, then send it to me that way. But I'd really rather
get HTML.

>
>> FYI, this message sent in HTML (with a few words bolded or italicized) is
>> only twice the size of plain text, not 3-4 times as large.
>
> I hate to break it to you, but your message was not in HTML:
I didn't say the message was posted in HTML. I said that sent in HTML, it
was about twice as big (5.4kb vs 2.7kb) as in text. I sent it to myself both
ways to find out. I'm sorry my message wasn't clear. I don't suppose HTML
would have helped, however. :-)
>
> ...

Jolly
Mon Oct 29 11:14:16 PDT 2007

In article <C34B8B55.33033%ed.kimball@att.net>,
Ed Kimball <ed.kimball@att.net> wrote:

> See below.
>
> On 10/29/07 11:30 AM ET, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C34A91C0.32FFE%ed.kimball@att.net>,
> > Ed Kimball <ed.kimball@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/28/07 2:16 PM ET, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you'd send plain text emails instead of these HTML monstrosities,
> >>> your readers would have the freedom to read your emails in *their own*
> >>> preferred font, size, and so on, and the messages would be small and
> >>> would download much faster for them.
> >>
> >> OTOH some of us prefer the flexibility of HTML for both sending and
> >> receiving. E.g., I prefer to see and use bold or italics or underline for
> >> emphasis rather than SHOUTING, er, CAPS.
> >
> > There are ways to *emphasize* different _things_ in /messages/ without
> > CAPITALIZATION. And those other ways allow the person reading the
> > message to read it in their own preferred font, size, style.
>
> My preferred style is neither CAPS nor *asterisks*.

And your preferences matter more to you than anyone else's preferences.
I understand.

> >> While your points, especially on the size of messages with attached images
> >> are well-taken, most users, especially in the US are now on broadband
> >> connections, so the difference in time that it takes to download HTML
> >> rather
> >> than plain text messages without images is not even noticeable.
> >
> > Sure - who cares that some people aren't on broadband. They don't
> > deserve consideration, right?
>
> With the relatively small size difference (see below) between HTML and text
> messages, I don't think that dial-up users suffer a noticeable disadvantage
> by receiving HTML.

Two to four times largers isn't small, by any stretch of the
imagination. I've seen HTML emails grow to quadruple the size of the
same messages in plain text. Multiply that by tens or hundreds a day for
some people, and it can add a significant amount of time to the task of
checking email every day. What you consider to be insignificant is not
insignificant for others. You've made it clear you're not interested in
considering others needs here. I'm glad you don't send *me* an email.

> > And that still leaves the poor folks would would really prefer to read
> > their email in *their own* preferred font. I don't want 10 people
> > enforcing their own individual styles on me. I want to read my email in
> > my own preferred font and so on. HTML email is inconsiderate to the
> > needs of the people you want to read the email.
>
> If people send me plain text I reply in plain text. So if that's how you
> want me to send you mail, then send it to me that way. But I'd really rather
> get HTML.

Well that's good to know. You'd never get HTML email from moi. ; )

> >> FYI, this message sent in HTML (with a few words bolded or italicized) is
> >> only twice the size of plain text, not 3-4 times as large.
> >
> > I hate to break it to you, but your message was not in HTML:
>
> I didn't say the message was posted in HTML. I said that sent in HTML, it
> was about twice as big (5.4kb vs 2.7kb) as in text. I sent it to myself both
> ways to find out. I'm sorry my message wasn't clear. I don't suppose HTML
> would have helped, however. :-)

Ah I see now. Anyhow, personally, I've seen messages grow to quadruple
the size.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

Ed
Mon Oct 29 16:35:14 PDT 2007




On 10/29/07 2:14 PM ET, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <C34B8B55.33033%ed.kimball@att.net>,
> Ed Kimball <ed.kimball@att.net> wrote:
>
...
> And your preferences matter more to you than anyone else's preferences.
> I understand.
Yes, as yours seem to do to you. :-)
>
...

Jolly
Tue Oct 30 08:44:23 PDT 2007

In article <C34BE672.33062%ed.kimball@att.net>,
Ed Kimball <ed.kimball@att.net> wrote:

> On 10/29/07 2:14 PM ET, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C34B8B55.33033%ed.kimball@att.net>,
> > Ed Kimball <ed.kimball@att.net> wrote:
> >
> ...
> > And your preferences matter more to you than anyone else's preferences.
> > I understand.
> Yes, as yours seem to do to you. :-)
> >
> ...

Nice try, but no cigar.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR