Look out, Outlook: Gmail adds in-line images
Gmail's got a new option in its labs section that lets users insert images directly into their e-mails, and not just as attachments. This has been something you've been able to do in standard e-mail software for ages, but Gmail's way of handling them for the last five years has simply been to stick them on as attachments that show up in the bottom of your outgoing message.
This wasn't the worst way to view images, but if you were using Gmail to put together a short photo tour of your travels, or a family newsletter, it's come up short compared with software e-mail clients like Outlook, Thunderbird, and Apple's Mail that offer much richer creation tools.
Now, when you want to insert an image into your e-mail you can either upload it from your computer or grab it from a URL (like you're able to do in Google Docs). It sticks it right into the message where it can be resized and aligned to fit in with the rest of your message. Gmail warns that while going the URL route is easier, if your recipient's using Gmail or some other Web mail service they'll have to click on the "display images below" link since it doesn't load them to keep spam at bay.
My own personal request is for Gmail to offer the same kind of simplicity for videos. Does a friend or family member have a video they want to share via e-mail? Great, but it probably won't fit as an attachment. If Gmail were to build in an integrated YouTube uploader, I'd be in heaven.
Inserting pictures in Gmail with the insert images item flipped on lets you drop images into your e-mail just like you do in Google Docs.
(Credit: CNET Networks)
Josh Lowensohn writes for Webware.com, CNET's blog about Web applications and services. E-mail Josh, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/Josh. 
If they can do this, they can do a simple html signature.
For example, with Windows Live Mail client software, I can edit my email anyway I want, including adding pictures. I can login to my hotmail account both via browser and via email client. I can still access my email anywhere I want. Even better, I can read and write my email offline... So I get the best of both worlds.
I don't understand the people who think webapps are going to replace traditional software...
Why would I restrict myself with the limitations of a browser window? Isn't that just thinking "in a box" (the browser window)?
yes one day we will use only web apps with offline caching.... but the quality of web apps in comparison with desktop clients is still really far away
- by sbram April 10, 2009 1:11 PM PDT
- This is a huge step backwards. We're already suffering the effects of far too liberal, decades old specs that are ill-equipped to address widespread public usage. (Ever heard of spam?)
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by skillingssucks April 10, 2009 1:39 PM PDT
- You have no idea what you're talking about.
- Like this
-
- by shoffmueller April 10, 2009 2:38 PM PDT
- Sbram - in your world, I would have to upload a file to a share site, then send an email with a link to that site so that the recipient can see my file? And in order to send a photo to someone, I first have to build a web site, then send my buddy a link? Try explaining that to grandpa.
- Like this
-
(18 Comments)Inline images? Build a web site. Send a file? Upload it to a file share site.
These aren't over-wrought answers to questions no one is asking, they are solutions that can serve to wean you off your over-featured software attachment.
You're just kidding, right?