Netiquette
For years, general rules of Internet etiquette ("netiquette") have kept those of us in-the-know angry at those who violate the rules. Netiquette is based on a mixture of common sense and how the Internet works. For years, people have been clinging onto these rules of netiquette and assuming that they shouldn't change. I think a few rules need to be updated because how the Internet works has changed.
Text Width
Netiquette dictates that the width of text in email, newsgroups, etc. must not exceed 80 characters and should not exceed about 72 to allow for replies, since replies generally quote the original text by preceeding each line by a > character (more on that in the next section). To accomplish all this, it was necessary to insert hard line breaks (i.e. hitting enter after each line) before 72 characters were typed. These suggested width limitations were really there to support dumb email and newsgroup programs that were not capable of wrapping text properly. Hard breaks were feasible at the time because we could also guarantee (or safely assume) that the reader's screen would be 80 characters in width.
It was a good suggestion at the time, but we can no longer assume the reader's screen width. Also, with word wrapping as a standard feature in every email and newsgroup program now, putting hard line breaks into text causes more problems than it solves. Hard breaks make it difficult to view the text once word wrapping gets a hold of long lines. For example:
Your really long lines start wrapping like this, and it makes it difficult to read a paragraph.
Hard and soft wrapping rarely mix well. So, should the newer, soft wrapping be eliminated? No, it shouldn't because it addresses a fundamental idea that text can and should be flexible. The web grabbed a hold of this idea from the very beginning. Text in a browser will try to be as wide as possible, and the browser controls where to wrap the text. The author of the text does not have to worry about how wide the client's screen or browser is.
My recommendation is to change standard netiquette to discourage hard line breaks. Presently, most people use email and news readers that soft wrap text, so discouraging hard breaks shouldn't be much of an issue. The people still clinging onto the idea of hard breaks are the ones that will be impacted.
Message Quoting
In the prior section, I recommended hard line breaks be discouraged to wrap text; however, this creates a problem with current netiquette's suggestion for quoting text in replies. Currently, the suggested method to reply is to include the original text preceded by a > (or some other indicator) and include your replies within the original text. For example:
> Here is the original text with its preceding > indicator. Here is my reply. > Here is more of the original text.
Being able to reply to specific paragraphs or even lines may be a benefit, but if the cost is eliminating hard line breaks, I choose the latter.
The loss of message quoting may actually encourage better writing. Though inserted replies tend to be succinct, these snippets of replies don't encourage a well-written, overall reply. Also, the replier may remove some of the original text that may be relevant to future replies. After three or four replies, the original message may end up being butchered to the point where further replies may be out of context of the original message.
The original message should be maintained in full. Replies should be inserted at the top of the note. Referring to a point in the original message should be done as literature writers have done for centuries, by creating a new paragraph that paraphrases the original point and replies appropriately.
Signatures
Current netiquette doesn't go into too much detail about signatures. Signatures can be quite an annoyance, especially on mailing lists. So, I think it is important that I give my netiquette suggestions.
Signatures should use as few lines as possible. Exclude your postal address (not for an email audience) and your email address (it's included with your message). Including your phone number is ok because it is not obtrusive, but if you include your fax number, put it on the same line as your voice number.
Don't align anything into fixed-width columns because most viewers don't use fixed-width fonts nowadays. Precede your signature with two dashes (--) and a hard return; some email programs will recognize your signature and color it differently. Finally, only include your signature once per discussion; each of your replies doesn't need a signature.
Content updated: 15 Oct 2003