Humble brag Alert but also legit question for who has come across this:
Worked a weekend with a big headliner who sold out all weekend. I had really good sets and did different sets all weekend. We had a good time and I liked them a lot. Friendly, shared some smoke and drink and swapped some stories.
End of the weekend I went to thank them and their crew before i bounced and they sincerely gave me some nice compliments and said "dm me and I'll have you open for me other places."
The question is: have other headliners done this to you? And how long till you DM? Were they being friendly??
First time this happened for me. Any advice to not look like a crazy stalker would be greatly appreciated.

I’m happy that most of the app was largely the same except for a different font, but I absolutely hate the new opening of the app. The old one with a pink sky behind a 787 looked so pretty, and now it is a dull dark gray.
Also, might be an Apple exclusive problem but I feel like the old font and UI was better suited for the iOS.

...spend my Sunday afternoon remaking the "About Me" template just to assuage my OCD about compression artifacts, different font sizes, and slight misalignments.
But here's a link to it for Krita if anyone wants it.
And here it is filled out.

Ok so I used ChatGPT to write this macro for me, which is only working for like 30%. I would really appreciate some help on how to improve this code or if anyone can suggest some better way to do this: Goal is to compare two files and copy the common data to a tab already provided in the second file. So I have 2 files- 1. Configuration _file 2. macro
The first file have multiple tabs which gets updated by some other team, these tabs are details of different states and it specifies when a certain fee is charged over claim. There are 4 type of main fees: 1. Title fee 2. Registration fee 3. Plates fee 4. Additional fee Under these there are sub fees which gets applicable and non applicable depending on the state this is indicated by columns populated to the left of these fees. And always these fees are ended by a bold line after which irrelevant data is provided.
I am only concerned with applicable fees, even if in either of columns applicable is mentioned, it is relevant and the rest is not a concern.
Now coming on to the next file, here 2 static tabs are provided:

1. Links
2. CCC_tool

In the second tab of this file Column A to I entails detail about a particular claim and column E specifies states, after column I to column AI are different types of fees and these are or same format as in file 1. I want only relevant columns to get copied in other state tabs of this file(which I will create every time).
The code provided below only copies Column A to Column I and all of the column headers are getting copied with no data under it.
I would really appreciate if anyone can solve this issue
Below is code:

Sub FilterAndCopyRelevantData() Dim wsConfig As Workbook Dim wsCCC As Worksheet Dim wsState As Worksheet Dim wsConfigState As Worksheet Dim ws As Worksheet Dim lastRow As Long Dim feeStartRow As Long Dim state As Variant Dim feeName As Variant Dim headerCol As Long Dim i As Long, j As Long, k As Long Dim configFilePath As String Dim stateList As Collection Dim colNum As Long Dim feeDict As Object Dim key As Variant Dim relevantFees As Collection ' Get the folder path where the macro workbook is stored configFilePath = ThisWorkbook.Path & "\Configuration_file.xlsm" ' Open the Configuration file On Error Resume Next Set wsConfig = Workbooks.Open(configFilePath) If wsConfig Is Nothing Then MsgBox "Configuration file could not be found or opened. Please check the file path.", vbCritical Exit Sub End If On Error GoTo 0 ' Set the CCC_tool worksheet Set wsCCC = ThisWorkbook.Sheets("CCC_tool") ' Create a collection of state names from the existing sheets (excluding "Link" and "CCC_tool") Set stateList = New Collection For Each ws In ThisWorkbook.Worksheets If ws.Name <> "Link" And ws.Name <> "CCC_tool" Then stateList.Add ws.Name End If Next ws ' Loop through each state tab For Each state In stateList ' Set the state worksheet Set wsState = ThisWorkbook.Sheets(state) ' Clear existing data in the state tab wsState.Cells.Clear ' Copy column headers from CCC_tool to the state tab wsCCC.Rows(1).Copy Destination:=wsState.Rows(1) ' Copy columns A to I for the specific state With wsCCC lastRow = .Cells(.Rows.Count, "A").End(xlUp).Row k = 2 For i = 2 To lastRow If .Cells(i, 5).Value = state Then ' Copy columns A to I For j = 1 To 9 wsState.Cells(k, j).Value = .Cells(i, j).Value Next j k = k + 1 End If Next i End With ' Create a collection to store relevant fee columns Set relevantFees = New Collection ' Find the relevant fee names from the Configuration file On Error Resume Next Set wsConfigState = wsConfig.Sheets(state) On Error GoTo 0 If Not wsConfigState Is Nothing Then feeStartRow = 13 ' Loop through until the bold line indicating the end of relevant fee rows and ignore empty cells j = feeStartRow Do While wsConfigState.Cells(j, 1).Font.Bold = False And wsConfigState.Cells(j, 1).Value <> "" feeName = wsConfigState.Cells(j, 1).Value ' Check if any of the condition columns have "All" If Application.WorksheetFunction.CountIf(wsConfigState.Range(wsConfigState.Cells(j, 3), wsConfigState.Cells(j, 9)), "All") > 0 Then ' Add the fee name to the collection relevantFees.Add feeName End If ' Move to the next fee row j = j + 1 Loop ' Copy the relevant fee columns to the state tab For Each feeName In relevantFees headerCol = Application.Match(feeName, wsCCC.Rows(1), 0) If Not IsError(headerCol) Then ' Copy the header to the state tab colNum = wsState.Cells(1, wsState.Columns.Count).End(xlToLeft).Column + 1 wsState.Cells(1, colNum).Value = wsCCC.Cells(1, headerCol).Value ' Copy the data to the state tab k = 2 For i = 2 To lastRow If wsCCC.Cells(i, 5).Value = state Then wsState.Cells(k, colNum).Value = wsCCC.Cells(i, headerCol).Value k = k + 1 End If Next i End If Next feeName End If Next state ' Close the Configuration file wsConfig.Close SaveChanges:=False MsgBox "Data copied to state tabs successfully." End Sub 

I see headlines about the booming economy, low unemployment, and real wages going up, All of these are good things, but I'm not feeling the benefits of them.
I work in tech product support, and it took me 8 months to land my current job. I maxed out my credit cards during the job hunt and had to accept a position that pays $10k less than the same role I was doing a year ago at a different company.
I realize personal experience is not at play in the broad economic picture, but I am not alone in the struggle to find better-paying work. I know dozens of people who have been laid off in recent months and are struggling to find work. Junior positions are being filled with senior talent who just lost their jobs. The only people who seem to be in a good position in the high-end job market are the ones with advanced specialties in machine learning and AI.
On the other end, the majority (the last stat I saw for April was 73%) of jobs being created are in a narrow set of industries - healthcare, hospitality, and retail. These jobs, while seeing some wage growth, are still at the bottom end of the earning scale and outside of healthcare, have no real room for career growth.
Anecdotally, I worked my ass off to get out of the retail and hospitality field and into tech so that I could finally make a decent living. The idea of going back to that work is grim, to say the least.
This is not just a 'vibe' but is being shown in actual data. https://www.businessinsider.com/economy-adding-low-paying-healthcare-retail-jobs-high-wages-scarce-2024-5
"Where there's been job growth has not been sectors where there has been high wage growth," Bahn said, adding: "That's interesting that there's high labor demand in those industries — clearly — but it has not translated into high wage growth.
The point of all this is not to bemoan my situation. What I'm trying to understand is why is the economy considered to be 'booming' when the jobs being created are of comparatively low value and limited opportunity.
People on the bottom of the wage scale deserve to earn more income, and I'm glad their wages are increasing. At the same time, people at the top of the wage scale are being squeezed out, losing work, stalling in their careers, and are materially worse off than before. Why should I feel great about the economy when I'm not benefitting from any of the top-line trends?
I'm also curious about income inequality and how that factors into wages. Are wage estimates simply an average, or are they weighted in some way? I don't know the actual wage spread of earners in the U.S. so I'm using a simplified example:
Given:

• 25% earners make $30,000 per year
• 50% earners make $50,000 per year
• 20% earners make $200,000 per year
• 5% earners make $1,000,000 per year

The average wage in this model is $122,500 per year, but 75% of workers are earning less than this. I assume that actual wage models are much more nuanced than this, but it seems clear to me that 'average wage' does not tell an accurate story of worker's spending power.
I'd love to better understand how all of this works. Again, I understand that personal experience doesn't matter for broad economic outlooks, but I feel insane when I hear how great everything is and my perception that I'm worse off than I was four years ago is wrong and just a 'vibe.'

In a fascinating study, evidenced for a possible landing sight for Lehi in America has been discovered within easy travel distance to Palmyra, NY. If substantiated, it could add weight to an Atlantic migration, the controversial Solutrean Hypothesis, in addition to the traditional Siberian route. https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2024/05/19/first-americans-chesapeake-parsons-island/
The link is behind a pay wall. Here’s the article
PARSONS ISLAND, Md. — With the Chesapeake Bay sloshing at his knee-high boots, Darrin Lowery stood back and squinted at a 10-foot-tall bluff rising above a narrow strip of beach. To the untrained eye, this wall of sandy sediment is the unremarkable edge of a modest island southeast of the Bay Bridge. To Lowery, a coastal geologist, its crumbling layers put the island at the center of one of the most contentious battles in archaeology: when and how humans first made their way into the Americas. The story of the first Americans has long been a matter of public and scientific fascination, undergirded at times by vicious disagreements. The timeline of when people arrived has shifted earlier in grudging steps over the past century, and scientists today mostly agree people were in the Americas at least 15,000 years ago. Story continues below advertisement
Lowery’s site and others like it could revise the story again, pushing back the timeline earlier than most experts thought possible. In total, Lowery and a motley crew of collaborators have discovered 286 artifacts from the site on the island’s southwestern edge. The oldest, they reported, was embedded with charcoal dated to more than 22,000 years ago, a time when much of the continent would have been covered in ice sheets. If Lowery is right, Parsons Island could rewrite American prehistory, opening up a host of new puzzles: How did those people get here? How many waves of early migration were there? And are these mysterious people the ancestors of Native Americans?
Casts of tools found at Parsons Island are seen on display. Lowery and his team have unearthed 286 artifacts from the site so far. (Michael Robinson Chávez/The Washington Post) New claims of sites dated this far back face a wall of skepticism, rooted in legitimate scientific scrutiny and in the threat they pose to long-entrenched views. To complicate matters, Lowery — who has been affiliated with the Smithsonian but does much of his work independently — presented the results of his study of Parsons Island in a 260-page manuscript posted online rather than in a traditional peer-reviewed journal. The peer-review process is designed to help validate scientific claims, but Lowery argues that in archaeology it often leads to a circle-the-wagon mentality, allowing scientists to wave away evidence that doesn’t support the dominant paradigm. He says he isn’t seeking formal publishing routes because “life’s too short,” comparing this aspect of academic science to “the dumbest game I’ve ever played.”
The island is also a challenging site to study for a variety of reasons — most poignantly because it is rapidly eroding as the land subsides and sea level rises. The spot where the artifacts were found is now covered by the choppy waters of the bay. “The visit reinforced my will to invest my time into this time period, because it’s a very fragile record,” said Sebastien Lacombe, an archaeologist at Binghamton University, who visited the island in 2017. “It’s at risk of disappearing, and we’re at risk of [allowing] these sites and artifacts to lose their meaning forever.” ‘A weirdo kid’
Darrin Lowery walks a beach on Parsons Island. Most of the artifacts were excavated by erosion, discovered on the beach after they had already fallen out of the bluff. (Michael Robinson Chávez/The Washington Post) Lowery began exploring the Chesapeake shoreline as a child, wandering his backyard on Tilghman Island, about 15 miles southwest from Parsons Island. In 1977, 9-year-old Lowery picked up a distinctive fluted stone projectile point. A few years later, he saw something similar on a documentary on public television, in which a Smithsonian archaeologist explained it was a Clovis point, a relic of what most people then believed were the first Americans. For the last half of the 20th century, the peopling of the Americas followed a tidy narrative. Humans traveled from Siberia across a land bridge that connected Asia and North America during the last Ice Age, when sea levels dropped. They then migrated southward around 13,000 years ago, when the ice sheets covering the continent retreated and exposed a previously impassable inland route. These people — named after a site in Clovis, N.M. — left behind distinctive, fluted stone points that have since been found scattered across North America. Story continues below advertisement
Lowery turned to his dad and said, “I found one of those.” He found more by walking the shoreline every day. Lowery made discoveries as he meandered, and he began to understand how seasonal patterns, sediment movement, wind and waves could unearth ancient treasures. “I was a weirdo kid,” he recalled. He trained as a geologist, and it was geology that initially attracted Lowery to study Parsons Island. In 2010, he published an article in Quaternary Science Reviews describing layers of windblown silt deposited between 13,000 and 41,000 years ago at Miles Point in eastern Maryland. But the geological record is like reading the CliffsNotes version of a book, and he was frustrated by an “unconformity” in the sediment layers where thousands of years were missing, like someone had ripped out those chapters.
Parsons Island is rapidly eroding. The archaeological site is now covered by the Chesapeake Bay. (Michael Robinson Chávez/The Washington Post) Lowery and a colleague were prowling around in a whaler, looking for a spot that might fill in the blanks, when they spotted a black streak of sediment rising up out of the bay. They pulled up to Parsons Island and thought they had found “the Rosetta stone” to decode the geology. Parsons is a 78-acre island less than a mile offshore that is privately owned by the Corckran family, which uses it as a family retreat. With the Corckrans’ permission, Lowery and colleagues began to visit regularly. The bluff layers preserved a remarkably intact geologic timeline going back more than 40,000 years. Then, one morning in August 2013, the team discovered a leaf-shaped prehistoric stone tool jutting out of this crumbling wall. They knew from the work they’d already done that it was probably quite old. Story continues below advertisement
On a recent visit to the island, geoarchaeologist Daniel Wagner demonstrated why. He stepped back to scan the cliff, then tapped a narrow spade into a light tan sediment layer just above his head. That, he said, is the geologic “chapter” where they’d expect to find Clovis artifacts. Lower layers were set down before Clovis. The palm-size tool Lowery and his colleague found came out of the dark sediment layer near their knees. The scientists used two methods to date the sediment around the artifact, both showing it was more than 20,000 years old. They scoured the beach on 93 visits and conducted a formal, top-down excavation, collecting the 286 artifacts. They sent out sediment to labs that specialize in studying ancient pollen and microfossils called phytoliths to help reconstruct the ecosystem at the time. Back then, this region wouldn’t have been a coastline. The sediment the tools are embedded in dates to the “last glacial maximum” — the scientific term for the most recent coldest period of the Ice Age. In the final analysis, Lowery thinks the artifacts may have been transported downslope before they were buried, making them between 15,000 and 20,500 years old. “This was a swale, where water was collecting,” Lowery said, envisioning the ancient landscape. “You’ve got a dune. It’s got sedges and small trees on it that are windblown and all contorted, and then behind it you’ve got a little pond.” That pond may have attracted prehistoric bison, musk ox and llamas, whose fossilized molars he’s found scattered on the island shore. And it may have been what attracted the mysterious people who left behind a cache of stone tools. A story in flux
Parsons Island is seen from nearby Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay. (Michael Robinson Chávez/The Washington Post) Parsons Island is the latest addition to a growing list of what are called pre-Clovis sites. But while the long-held “Clovis First” theory has crumbled over the past three decades, that has only deepened the debate about how much earlier the first Americans arrived. Claims of early sites present a challenge on two fronts. The first is technical: Dating a site convincingly can be difficult, depending on the context. Sediments can shift or be disturbed. What at first look like artifacts can turn out to be “geofacts,” created not by humans but by natural processes or animals. As a result, many pre-Clovis sites “enjoy a Warhol-esque 15 minutes of fame, and then they disappear” because of real problems with the geology or the methods, said archaeologist James Adovasio. In 1973, he began excavating Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania, which dated back 16,000 years. It was instantly mired in controversy, and the site still has its critics today. The second challenge reflects the culture of science. For a long time, people who claimed to find pre-Clovis sites were swimming upstream against deeply entrenched thinking. Tom Dillehay, an archaeologist at Vanderbilt University, began working on a site in southern Chile called Monte Verde in 1977, which was dated to 14,500 years ago. He recalled a group of researchers he calls the “Clovis police,” scientific gatekeepers who summarily rejected any pre-Clovis sites, sometimes for valid reasons and sometimes as a knee-jerk reaction. Monte Verde began to change that. In 1997, a group of respected archaeologists visited the site and declared it authentic. “It took about 25 to 30 years for Monte Verde to be accepted,” Dillehay said. “We went through hell.”
Holly, a German shorthaired pointer, runs across a bluff top on Parsons Island. (Michael Robinson Chávez/The Washington Post) Lowery says he isn’t interested in running that gantlet. He noted that he drew on multiple labs and methods for dating the Parsons Island artifacts in an effort to ensure that any one extremely old date isn’t a fluke. He’s also invited other researchers in to visit and study the site. That approach irritates some scientists. David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University, said in an email that he would not discuss Lowery’s claims “until they go through the wringer of peer review and get published.” Others like Stuart Fiedel, an independent archaeologist based in western Massachusetts who has been skeptical of other sites, say the site should not fly under the radar just because of Lowery’s unconventional process. Story continues below advertisement
“There are people I know in the field who will not pay any attention to it, because it has not been peer-reviewed, which I think is kind of sticking your head in the sand,” Fiedel said. “It’s there. We can’t act as [if] nothing’s been found there.” Share this article Share
A bigger issue may be the site’s rapid erosion. Most of the artifacts were found after they’d fallen out of the bluff, which means their place in the geologic timeline is obscured. Nine artifacts were found in place, and only three were able to be dated using charcoal flecks found next to them. Steven Forman, a geoscientist at Baylor University, helped date the sediment layers at Parsons Island, corroborating findings from another lab. He said that it’s hard to find the artifacts in the kind of bulletproof geological context needed to support extraordinary claims. “The case is not as tight as we like to see it with other sites,” Forman said. Michael Waters, an archaeologist at Texas A&M University who has worked on pre-Clovis sites and excavated at Parsons Island, thinks he probably got there too late, when most of the artifacts had already been eroded out. Still, he pays someone to monitor the bank profile on a regular basis, because he’s ready to jump on a plane if they see something in place. “Too bad we didn’t get there four to five years sooner,” Waters said. Enter ancient DNA
An ancient bovine tooth is among the fossils found so far on Parsons Island. (Michael Robinson Chávez/The Washington Post) Parsons Island isn’t the only site that could dramatically push back human arrival in the Americas. Last fall, a study published in the journal Science described fossilized human footprints discovered at White Sands National Park in New Mexico that have been dated to between 21,000 and 23,000 years ago. That stunning finding suggests people were here during the Ice Age — much earlier than most experts thought possible if the first humans arrived via the Bering land bridge and inland corridor. The dates at White Sands are still being disputed because of questions about the methods. But the timeline collides head-on with another exciting line of evidence: studies of ancient DNA. By examining genetic material preserved in bones and teeth and comparing those samples to modern populations, scientists have been able to track when populations mingled and became isolated from one another, offering a new window into patterns of human migration. Story continues below advertisement
In broad strokes, they’ve found that the ancestors of Native Americans split from ancient Siberian populations no earlier than 23,000 years ago. The studies can’t say where such splits took place, but many scientists interpret genetic evidence to mean that the ancestors of modern people weren’t in the Americas until much later. Genetic studies suggest that Native American ancestors traveled into what is now the United States between 17,500 and 14,600 years ago. Joe Watkins, a senior consultant for Archaeological and Cultural Education Consultants in Tucson and a Choctaw tribal member, said that he sees a few problems with using the still-evolving DNA evidence to decide how ancient sites are related to modern-day people. “The reality is genetics does not equal culture,” Watkins said. He also argued that there are still too few samples of ancient DNA in the Americas to be sure they capture the whole story. “Trying to create population histories based on 10 people, if you will, is a little bit of a scientific conundrum,” Watkins said. It could be that additional ancient genomes will one day help fill in the blanks. Another possibility is that earlier sites could represent small, isolated groups of people who didn’t contribute to the ancestry of living Native Americans.
A tree-lined path leads to a beach on Parsons Island. (Michael Robinson Chávez/The Washington Post) “Let’s suppose you have a successful population colonizing an area, and then one day, 15 males go out and get eaten by a short-faced bear,” Lowery said. “You reduce the genetic diversity, and bada boom, bada bing, game over.” All this explodes the neat picture of one population migrating into the Americas as ice sheets retreated, hunting big animals like mammoths and giant sloths, driving them into extinction as they went. If there were small groups making their way into the New World, with different stone tool technologies, and far earlier than previously believed, how did they get here? People could have migrated along the coast by boat, following a “kelp highway.” It’s also possible the ice sheet was not as impenetrable as experts have long thought. Lowery’s longtime collaborator, Dennis Stanford, proposed that people crossed the Atlantic Ocean in what is known as the Solutrean Hypothesis, though that idea has been rejected by many archaeologists. To resolve the question, scientists need to keep looking for more evidence. Archaeology is a historical science, and unlike chemistry or biomedicine, where researchers can perform the same experiment over and over again to see if they get the same results, consensus is built by argument, counterargument and new evidence. To a certain extent, older ideas and prejudices also fall away as new people enter the field, said James Feathers, who performed dating on samples from Parsons Island before he retired from the University of Washington. “Sometimes you have to wait for people to die off,” Feathers said.
Alex Corckran, whose family owns Parsons Island, stands on a beach on the southern side of the island. (Michael Robinson Chávez/The Washington Post) Lowery is determined to keep motoring around the Chesapeake, researching the ephemeral landscape that he loves and that may contain clues about human prehistory. He acknowledges that the sites, perhaps a little bit like him, are “persnickety” but that shouldn’t deter interest in them. Instead, it should spur more. He noted that if a pod of silverfish was found gnawing on documents in the National Archives, people would be galvanized to act. “I view it as my swan song,” Lowery said, “to say you can learn a lot from [an] eroding site if you do a little bit of effort and look at it systematically.”
Share
1241 Comments
By Carolyn Y. Johnson Carolyn Johnson is a science reporter. She previously covered the business of health and the affordability of health care to consumers. Twitter MORE FROM THE POST
headline Va. Gov. Youngkin vetoes bills on birth control, Confederate tax loopholes May 18, 2024
headline She vanished in 1968. This year her family finally learned what happened. Today at 6:00 a.m. EDT
headline PerspectiveWhen Melania Trump wears a hat May 18, 2024
headline School apologizes after seizing Lakota student’s feathered graduation cap May 18, 2024
headline Lawyer preparation suggests Trump won’t testify in New York trial May 18, 2024 NEWSLETTER 1-5/WK
Speaking of Science The latest, greatest and weirdest in science news, every Wednesday. Expect news on discoveries, animals and space. Sign up
washingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Post About The Post Contact the Newsroom Contact Customer Care Request a Correction Send a News Tip Report a Vulnerability Download the Washington Post App Policies & Standards Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Settings Print Products Terms of Sale Digital Products Terms of Sale Submissions & Discussion Policy RSS Terms of Service Ad Choices Your Privacy Choices California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Opt-Out Icon Coupons

Exploring CSS Compatibility in Gmail Clients

When designing email campaigns, understanding the constraints imposed by email clients like Gmail is crucial for ensuring your message is delivered as intended. Gmail, being one of the most widely used email services, has specific rules regarding the CSS properties it supports. This can significantly impact the visual presentation of your emails, potentially affecting user engagement and the overall success of your campaign. Designers often face the challenge of balancing creativity with the technical limitations of email clients, making knowledge of these constraints essential for effective email marketing.
The intricacies of Gmail's CSS support involve a combination of allowed and stripped attributes, which dictates how styles are applied to your email content. The variation in support across different email clients and even within Gmail's own ecosystem—spanning web and mobile applications—complicates the design process further. This introduction to Gmail's CSS compatibility aims to shed light on these limitations, offering insights and strategies to navigate through the challenges of email design, ensuring that your emails not only reach their intended recipients but also display as intended, regardless of the client used to view them.

Command	Description
u/media query	Used to apply CSS styles for different devices and screen sizes, but limited in support by Gmail.
!important	Increases the priority of a CSS property, but Gmail ignores these declarations.
Class and ID selectors	Allows styling of specific elements, but Gmail predominantly supports inline styles over external or internal stylesheets.

Navigating CSS Restrictions in Gmail

Email marketers and designers often encounter significant challenges when creating campaigns intended for Gmail users, primarily due to Gmail's handling of CSS. Unlike web browsers that typically support a wide range of CSS properties and selectors, Gmail strips out certain CSS attributes to maintain its own standards of email presentation and security. This includes, but is not limited to, complex selectors, styles defined in tags, and the use of !important declarations. As a result, email designs that rely heavily on these features for layout and styling may not appear as intended in the recipient's inbox, leading to potential issues with readability, engagement, and overall effectiveness of the email campaign.
To effectively work within these limitations, it is essential for designers to adopt Gmail-friendly CSS practices. This includes the use of inline CSS for critical styling, as Gmail is more likely to preserve these styles. Additionally, understanding and utilizing CSS properties that Gmail does support can help in creating responsive and visually appealing emails. For example, employing table-based layouts and inline CSS can enhance compatibility across Gmail's web and mobile clients. By prioritizing simplicity in design and coding, and rigorously testing emails across different clients, marketers can create effective, engaging email campaigns that look great in Gmail, ensuring their message is communicated clearly and effectively to their audience.

Adjusting Email Design for Gmail Compatibility

Email Design Strategy

 
 
 
Example Content
 
 
 Inline styles for better Gmail support 
 
 
Example Content
 
 
 

Navigating CSS Restrictions in Gmail

Email marketing remains a vital communication tool, with design playing a key role in engaging the recipient. However, when it comes to designing emails for Gmail, one of the largest email platforms, there are unique challenges. Gmail strips certain CSS properties to maintain a consistent user experience and to protect against potentially malicious code. This means that email designers must be adept at navigating these restrictions to ensure their emails look as intended across all devices. Understanding which CSS properties are stripped and which are supported is crucial for this. For instance, Gmail does not support CSS styles contained within the [if !mso]>> Content visible for all but Outlook.

     
 This text will be highlighted in red.