For those of you on the CAWG mailing list you have probably gotten an email about the new mandatory email signatures with "branding". IMO they look horrible. My first problem is that half of the signature is images which most modern email clients don't even show by default for security reasons. Second is the bottom of the signature is a bunch of social media icons which IMO look less professional than a simple plain text signature that has your unit website or if you don't have a unit website your group or wing.
Before these new signatures were approved my signature was modeled off what we use in AFROTC (I'm a senior in CAP and cadet in AFROTC)
<end of email>
Respectfully,
//SIGNED//
FIRST MI. LAST, RANK, USAF-AUX
DUTY POSITION
SQUADRON, CIVIL AIR PATROL
CITY, STATE
YOUR EMAIL
YOUR PHONE
It looks WAY more professional and easier for the recipient to view as they don't have to download any images to see it's a CAP signature block.
I'm just stating my opinion, I'll still change my signature as instructed of course.
Well, yours isn't correct either, by case or the use of "USAF-AUX", which is specifically prohibited,
and as for showing images, I'd have to disagree, as if anything the display of HTML in email
is increasing (not necessarily a good thing for security as you indicated).
Sounds like a non-IT person who hasn't read the T&Q had a "great idea".
Quote from: aviator9417 on November 19, 2014, 06:49:29 AM
For those of you on the CAWG mailing list you have probably gotten an email about the new mandatory email signatures with "branding". IMO they look horrible. My first problem is that half of the signature is images which most modern email clients don't even show by default for security reasons. Second is the bottom of the signature is a bunch of social media icons which IMO look less professional than a simple plain text signature that has your unit website or if you don't have a unit website your group or wing.
Before these new signatures were approved my signature was modeled off what we use in AFROTC (I'm a senior in CAP and cadet in AFROTC)
.....
You are barking at the wrong tree, it is not a CAWG design or idea, CAWG just appears to be trying to comply with NHQ's suggestion. It is from page 18 of the CAP Branding Resource Guide. http://capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_BrandBook_RD12__Revised_DA547E24B0F48.pdf (http://capmembers.com/media/cms/CAP_BrandBook_RD12__Revised_DA547E24B0F48.pdf)
As happens all too frequently in CAP a suggestion is being carried to extreme. The following is the e-mail from NHQ on the new e-mail signature blocks. I have added some bold and text color to an important part of the NHQ e-mail which makes it clear that the new signature block is to be used only on e-mail that will be sent outside of CAP. It is not for use within CAP.
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 2:22 PM
To: CAP Corporate Team
Subject: New Standardized Signature Block as Part of Implementation of CAP Branding Plan
Importance: High
(Please view this message in HTML or Rich Text)
CAP Team,
We are in the process of implementing the CAP Branding Plan that Gen Vazquez approved several weeks ago.
One of the simple, yet effective steps in the plan is to encourage all of our members to standardize their email signature blocks when they send an official CAP message. My signature block below is the new standard that we will all be using. It includes social media icons that point to the National pages which is also important in standardization. Please use it for external emails (not for those emails sent within headquarters). You can copy and paste this signature block and make the necessary changes by going to the "Tools" – "Options" – "Mail Format" and then "Signatures" in the Microsoft Outlook menu.
For those who want additional info on branding, two quick one page excerpts from the branding documents are attached to help explain why branding is so important to the future of the organization and what CAP's branding communication strategy is.
Note: the full versions of the Brand Resource Guide and the Branding Master Plan can be downloaded in the upper right hand corner of the following link:
http://capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/ (http://capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/)
cid:9A18312A-A445-4805-8F77-524A881DDED9
John A. Salvador
HQ CAP Senior Director
(O) 877.227.9142 ext. 235
(O) 334.953.7748 ext. 235
(DSN) 493.7748 ext. 235
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
gocivilairpatrol.com
I have a simpler solution.
Skip it all together. I don't put anything at the end of my message, except a period.
They look horrible so far, to me. I don't download embedded/inline graphics in messages by default. It's a lot more efficient that way. All those twitbook facer space icons and links are just a big waste of bandwidth on mobile devices.
While I'm personally not a fan of social media I can't deny that it is currently a highly visible and inexpensive method of getting the word out. I can't blame CAP for jumping on the same bandwagon that corporate America has. I see very similar signature blocks in the many high tech firms I deal with.
^ Yes; I understand some who aren't happy with this format, however it is a simple, effective, and inexpensive way to advertise CAP. I am proud of my membership. IMHO, it is good we are permitted to use this easy way to "spread the message".
BTW; I'm pretty sure Mr. Salvador's message was meant for interoffice emails sent by NHQ personnel working at Hansell St.
And look: no more bogus ominous FOUO / Classification tomes attached to emails that purport to be legit.
>:(
(those who deal with classified materials on a daily basis cringe at those things)
Quote from: NIN on November 19, 2014, 02:44:17 PM
And look: no more bogus ominous FOUO / Classification tomes attached to emails that purport to be legit.
>:(
(those who deal with classified materials on a daily basis cringe at those things)
You mean the entire paragraph that attaches to your emails! AAHHHHH.. for an email that says "Hey dude, come on over to HQ we ordered pizza and have plenty of left overs?"
Not only does that signature block look horrible, it contradicts CAPR 10-1.
my squadron (and I get the feeling lots of others in my wing) uses:
C/Rank First M. Last
Duty/Staff Position
RGN-WG-UNT
Michael Hatkevich, Capt, CAP
Palwaukee Composite Squadron
Cell: 847.XXX.XXX
My positions had a habit of changing a lot, so I took it out. Otherwise it would be the line between name and unit.
Hmmm...perhaps people should read CAPR 10-1 Preparing Official Correspondence for guidance:
Quotec. Signature Block. The signature block begins at the center of the page on the fifth line after the preceding text. The writer's signature is placed in the space immediately above the signature block.
(1) Two-Line. This is the preferred signature block. It consists of the writer's name in all capital letters followed by a comma, the writer's grade in normal upper and lower case followed by a comma, and the capital letters CAP on the first line (other organizational designations, such as AF Aux or USAFA, are not authorized). The second line states the writer's duty title in normal upper and lower case. See examples below:
JONATHAN Q. OFFICER, Colonel, CAP
Commander
JASON P. KIDD, C/TSgt, CAP
Cadet Logistics Officer
(2) Three Line. A three-line signature block may be used when the name and grade or the duty title are too long for a two-line format. See examples below:
JONATHAN Q. OFFICER, Colonel, CAP
Assistant Wing Deputy Director for
Operational Resource Management
ARTHUR J. FELDEMEN, JR
Brigadier General, CAP
National Vice Commander
(3) Graphics are inappropriate with either type of signature block
Although I will admit, my signature block is somewhat different, in that e-mail lacks "letterhead", I will put the unit after the duty position, such as "Deputy Commander, Unit" instead of just the duty position.
10-1 isn't exactly up to date on email...
BTW, I love that the graphic isn't available anyplace.
Quote from: FW on November 19, 2014, 01:33:29 PMBTW; I'm pretty sure Mr. Salvador's message was meant for interoffice emails sent by NHQ personnel working at Hansell St.
That's the opposite of what it says:
Quote from: Lord of the North on November 19, 2014, 07:36:53 AMMy signature block below is the new standard that we will all be using. It includes social media icons that point to the National pages which is also important in standardization. Please use it for external emails (not for those emails sent within headquarters). You can copy and paste this signature block and make the necessary changes by going to the "Tools" – "Options" – "Mail Format" and then "Signatures" in the Microsoft Outlook menu.
It also presupposes that the receiver is using Outlook, which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing with a Google Apps account.
And the image itself is useless without the HTML tags that point to the sites.
If your sig line is longer then your message, you're doing it wrong.
Quote from: Lord of the North on November 19, 2014, 07:36:53 AM
John A. Salvador
HQ CAP Senior Director
(O) 877.227.9142 ext. 235
(O) 334.953.7748 ext. 235
(DSN) 493.7748 ext. 235
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
gocivilairpatrol.com
Shouldn't an email signature that contains that much information at least include the name of the organization to which the sender belongs to?
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2014, 01:00:44 AM
Quote from: FW on November 19, 2014, 01:33:29 PMBTW; I'm pretty sure Mr. Salvador's message was meant for interoffice emails sent by NHQ personnel working at Hansell St.
That's the opposite of what it says:
Quote from: Lord of the North on November 19, 2014, 07:36:53 AMMy signature block below is the new standard that we will all be using. It includes social media icons that point to the National pages which is also important in standardization. Please use it for external emails (not for those emails sent within headquarters). You can copy and paste this signature block and make the necessary changes by going to the "Tools" – "Options" – "Mail Format" and then "Signatures" in the Microsoft Outlook menu.
It also presupposes that the receiver is using Outlook, which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing with a Google Apps account.
And the image itself is useless without the HTML tags that point to the sites.
If your sig line is longer then your message, you're doing it wrong.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I think Mr. Salvador's message was targeted to NHQ inter office staff SOP, IE; internal emails are not to have the full signature block.
I like your comment about the length of the sig vs. message length. I may steal it from you for a message to be written at a later date... >:D
Quote from: Fubar on November 20, 2014, 02:14:59 AM
Quote from: Lord of the North on November 19, 2014, 07:36:53 AM
John A. Salvador
HQ CAP Senior Director
(O) 877.227.9142 ext. 235
(O) 334.953.7748 ext. 235
(DSN) 493.7748 ext. 235
U.S. Air Force Auxiliary
gocivilairpatrol.com
Shouldn't an email signature that contains that much information at least include the name of the organization to which the sender belongs to?
It does. Not correctly, but it does....
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2014, 01:00:44 AM
Quote from: FW on November 19, 2014, 01:33:29 PMBTW; I'm pretty sure Mr. Salvador's message was meant for interoffice emails sent by NHQ personnel working at Hansell St.
That's the opposite of what it says:
Quote from: Lord of the North on November 19, 2014, 07:36:53 AMMy signature block below is the new standard that we will all be using. It includes social media icons that point to the National pages which is also important in standardization. Please use it for external emails (not for those emails sent within headquarters). You can copy and paste this signature block and make the necessary changes by going to the "Tools" – "Options" – "Mail Format" and then "Signatures" in the Microsoft Outlook menu.
It also presupposes that the receiver is using Outlook, which is the exact opposite of what you should be doing with a Google Apps account.
And the image itself is useless without the HTML tags that point to the sites.
If your sig line is longer then your message, you're doing it wrong.
But then how will you know my favorite quotes?
Just for the heck of it, I received an e-mail from Mr. Salvador forwarded to me today through the chain.
On my screen (all of this is specific to a specific screen, dot pitch, zoom level, etc. for the absolute numbers, but the relative stuff should all even out), there was ~1" of "Headers", 2" of "Body" content, and 3" of "Signature"
So, 1/2 the e-mail was "Signature", and the signature consumed 50% more screen real-estate than the body itself.
Pogo Help Us!
It doesn't have to be this hard.
Quote from: THRAWN on November 20, 2014, 12:13:55 PMIt does. Not correctly, but it does....
The "HQ CAP" part? Talk about the need for branding...
Quote from: Fubar on November 20, 2014, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on November 20, 2014, 12:13:55 PMIt does. Not correctly, but it does....
The "HQ CAP" part? Talk about the need for branding...
The "U.S. Air Force Auxiliary" part
Quote from: Fubar on November 20, 2014, 02:39:25 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on November 20, 2014, 12:13:55 PMIt does. Not correctly, but it does....
The "HQ CAP" part? Talk about the need for branding...
No, the "US Air Force Auxiliary" part. Talk about the need for new glasses... ;D
Quote from: NIN on November 20, 2014, 12:38:31 AM
10-1 isn't exactly up to date on email...
BTW, I love that the graphic isn't available anyplace.
Regardless, it is a valid regulation that provides specific guidance on the matter of signature blocks.
Quote from: JeffDG on November 20, 2014, 02:52:44 PM
Quote from: NIN on November 20, 2014, 12:38:31 AM
10-1 isn't exactly up to date on email...
BTW, I love that the graphic isn't available anyplace.
Regardless, it is a valid regulation that provides specific guidance on the matter of signature blocks.
+1
Shocking - one directorate produces a "plan" which conflicts with existing regulations no one can be bothered to update.
Pick one...
"We didn't read / know about 10-1."
"We didn't care about 10-1."
Those are the only two actual options.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 20, 2014, 03:07:28 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on November 20, 2014, 02:52:44 PM
Quote from: NIN on November 20, 2014, 12:38:31 AM
10-1 isn't exactly up to date on email...
BTW, I love that the graphic isn't available anyplace.
Regardless, it is a valid regulation that provides specific guidance on the matter of signature blocks.
+1
Shocking - one directorate produces a "plan" which conflicts with existing regulations no one can be bothered to update.
Pick one...
"We didn't read / know about 10-1."
"We didn't care about 10-1."
Those are the only two actual options.
Or
"We're not the OPR for 10-1"
Quote from: NIN on November 20, 2014, 03:47:53 PM
Or
"We're not the OPR for 10-1"
Yeah, seriously. Heard that before as well.
In which case the proper response is supposed to be "Well then you either involve the OPR, or get out of his lane."
But, you know, that requires effort and also might make someone sad, cause the OPR might say "No thanks...".
No different then Safety mandating equipment for ES and ES ignoring the conversation.
"Meh, just let the members figure it out...".
I shouldn't complain about any effort at branding, but...
In addition to the disconnect between the Branding Guide and CAPR10-1, I still have to point out that having the organization name in an image, that may not even be seen by the recipient, is not a great way to get your message across.
Coincidentally, my employer is going through a rebranding effort right now. We are working to get a consistent message to our customers. To that end, the new standard explicitly decrees that signatures should be plain text only, with no images or backgrounds. Just a few lines of 10 Pt Arial to effectively communicate name, position, company, and contact info no matter what platform or system the recipient is using. And the message won't change whether they view it in HTML, plaintext, etc. (Well, the bold on the name and company name will go away, but that's all.)
And, I don't think I've made it a secret that I work for the largest energy company in the world. If we are avoiding images and links in our signatures, you better believe the bean-counters looked hard at it and decided the plain text approach was more effective.
Just my two cents...
Thom
Quote from: THRAWN on November 20, 2014, 02:42:18 PMNo, the "US Air Force Auxiliary" part. Talk about the need for new glasses... ;D
Uhh, that's not even close to our organization's name.
I worked for several years preparing official correspondence, and as a proofreader and typesetter.
In addition to the T&Q and my Master rating in Admin, I have also worked extensively out of the Chicago Manual of Style and the American Psychological Association style guides.
This sig block that CAWG is using takes too many words to say too little and does not name CAP accurately.
The K.I.S.S. (no, not Gene Simmons) is better:
FIRSTNAME, LASTNAME, RANK, CAP
CIVIL AIR PATROL
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AUXILIARY
UNIT NAME
UNIT (or personal) MAILING ADDRESS
HOME PHONE
MOBILE PHONE
E-MAIL
I have used this style for years.
I guess the Brand and Resource Guide wasn't up for preview like other publications. The signature line contradicts CAPR 10-1 Preparing Official Correspondence, which is a regulation while the Brand and Resource Guide is not. I've always use the signature line from R10-1. As an admin officer, it's also my responsibility to correct members in my unit that use incorrect signature lines. Before, I could always reference R10-1 but now this new Guide is in conflict with R10-1.
10-1 specifically says 7.C.1... "other organizational designations, such as AF Aux or USAFA, are not authorized."
I wonder if the Brand and Resource Guide was written by CAP volunteers or if we paid a marketing company to write it. I like the intent, but I would have liked it more if it had examples of how websites should look, examples of posters, flyers, etc. It also should describe the preferred font and the colors.
Quote from: Fubar on November 21, 2014, 12:56:31 AM
Quote from: THRAWN on November 20, 2014, 02:42:18 PMNo, the "US Air Force Auxiliary" part. Talk about the need for new glasses... ;D
Uhh, that's not even close to our organization's name.
Uhh, if you're going to comment, at least make an attempt to read the previous posts.
I must be missing things in my old age. How did you guys originally become aware of this branding guide? I haven't received any word of this through command or IT channels.
Quote from: McLarty on January 12, 2015, 04:58:17 AM
I must be missing things in my old age. How did you guys originally become aware of this branding guide? I haven't received any word of this through command or IT channels.
It got pushed out sometime late last year via RSS as I recall (Nat Conference maybe?).
The sig block document in question is dated Oct 2014
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, there are at least two dead links to it on top of the one purported to be
the live one:
Live: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/branding_resource_guide/)
Dead:
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/cap_pao_toolkit/bra (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/cap_pao_toolkit/bra)
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/cap_pao_toolkit/bra/ (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/public_affairs/cap_pao_toolkit/bra/)
Also amusing is what happens to the signature when it's not inserted properly,
or it's included in one of the far too typical "multi-forwards" CAP members love to
send. It looks like it got hit by a bus with pieces scattered all over the place.
Thanks. I guess I need to pay more attention to the RSS feed.
I was thinking about how to deal with the train wreck that is embedded images in an email. I see it all the time, especially with mailing lists and clients that don't handle HTML well. The best I can think of is to force people to have alt text in their images (like "Civil Air Patrol" for the top image, and the name of each social media site for those icons, and pray for the best... Or just watch the train wreck.
^ Most of what you just wrote might as well be Lorem Ipsum to a lot of people, which is the issue.
Many simply assume that if it looks OK to them, it looks the same for all.
The fact that the example sig is published on a Word .doc probably speaks to the technical
level of whosoever good idea this was. You don't publish a purported standard in a proprietary format
that not everyone can even open, or which requires a translator to view.
I just did this for a company where we created a social icon footer and privacy disclaimer (ugh)
and forced it at the domain level, separate from any user-specific sig. It looks nice as long as it
isn't on a mobile device, or in a forward or reply, and then, as you say, it's a wreck.
There is simply no way to control how the recipient displays it, nor even that the recipient
displays HTML at all, which many companies don't allow for security reasons, and too much
HTML of the wrong kind can false-positive SPAM filters.
As I said before, I have an issue with this new branding signature block. Not only does it look horrible, but it conflicts with the current CAPR 10-1. It won't be long before we see memorandums and business letters using this or similar signature block. It doesn't matter whether it's approved or not. Some members will see the new signature block from staff members at NHQ and will start using it indiscriminately for their own correspondence.
CAPR 10-1 is the requirement, plain and simple. That's what we will continue to follow, regardless of any suggestion by National.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it:
FIRSTNAME LASTNAME, Rank, CAP
Duty Position
CAPR 10-1 aligns with the Tongue & Quill and keeps signatures to a reasonable length without being ridiculous. And despite and early comment to the contrary, it addresses and conforms with email just fine.
Aside: National's new branding suggestion with the triangle is horrible. Our unit will continue to exercise our option to use the MAJCOM shield instead, when appropriate.
I like the 3 line sig from 10-1 as well.
I very much like the suggestion in 10-1 that "graphics are not appropriate"
Quote from: JeffDG on January 14, 2015, 05:31:59 PM
I like the 3 line sig from 10-1 as well.
I very much like the suggestion in 10-1 that "graphics are not appropriate"
Concur.
CAPR 10-1 has effectively addressed the issue and no changes are needed. Graphics really have no place in a signature block. Like everything most things, it's really a matter of enforcement.
Edit: To be clear, this post references CAPR 10-1 as it was before the update referenced in subsequent posts below was made.
Well, NHQ listened to us!
The new email signature blocks with large graphics and Air Force Auxiliary have been incorporated into the updated CAPR 10-1.
Quote from: Tim Day on January 14, 2015, 06:40:15 PM
Well, NHQ listened to us!
No, NHQ heard us; they clearly weren't listening.
I appreciate the effort and attempts to come to a standard look and feel ...
However .. they need to step back and look at what they're doing.
Too much BS bloat and graphics.
Ditch the triangles, puffy graphics full of layers, and by-lines of boast.
Smooth, streamlined, efficient and to the point is key.
..and get rid of that horrible SiteVis CMS, too.
LOL. Who at National is responsible for this goat rodeo? Evidently someone at NHQ slammed something into the regulation today without consideration of the other aspects of the reg and with complete disregard for any process of updating regulations. Nice.
I agree that a consistent branding for the organization is needed and important. But whoever came up with the "new" branding approach, including the introduction of the triangle logo a few years ago, either doesn't know what they're doing or they're just really bad at it. This signature block approach is just another example and it needs to stop. Seriously.
Can't make this up...
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/hahahaha.png)
Hey hey! E-Mail from NHQ, and it's "wrong" based on the reg:
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/shocker.png)
*sigh* :-\
Quote from: A.Member on January 14, 2015, 07:45:57 PM
LOL. Who at National is responsible for this goat rodeo? Evidently someone at NHQ slammed something into the regulation today without consideration of the other aspects of the reg and with complete disregard for any process of updating regulations. Nice.
I agree that a consistent branding for the organization is needed and important. But whoever came up with the "new" branding approach, including the introduction of the triangle logo a few years ago, either doesn't know what they're doing or they're just really bad at it. This signature block approach is just another example and it needs to stop. Seriously.
Like the fact that the regulation still says that graphics are inappropriate, but the example is chock-full of graphics?
The reg I quoted above is still in there.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 14, 2015, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: A.Member on January 14, 2015, 07:45:57 PM
LOL. Who at National is responsible for this goat rodeo? Evidently someone at NHQ slammed something into the regulation today without consideration of the other aspects of the reg and with complete disregard for any process of updating regulations. Nice.
I agree that a consistent branding for the organization is needed and important. But whoever came up with the "new" branding approach, including the introduction of the triangle logo a few years ago, either doesn't know what they're doing or they're just really bad at it. This signature block approach is just another example and it needs to stop. Seriously.
Like the fact that the regulation still says that graphics are inappropriate, but the example is chock-full of graphics?
The reg I quoted above is still in there.
(http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/head-bang.gif)
Quote from: JC004 on January 14, 2015, 09:05:37 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 14, 2015, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: A.Member on January 14, 2015, 07:45:57 PM
LOL. Who at National is responsible for this goat rodeo? Evidently someone at NHQ slammed something into the regulation today without consideration of the other aspects of the reg and with complete disregard for any process of updating regulations. Nice.
I agree that a consistent branding for the organization is needed and important. But whoever came up with the "new" branding approach, including the introduction of the triangle logo a few years ago, either doesn't know what they're doing or they're just really bad at it. This signature block approach is just another example and it needs to stop. Seriously.
Like the fact that the regulation still says that graphics are inappropriate, but the example is chock-full of graphics?
The reg I quoted above is still in there.
(http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/head-bang.gif)
I should put that in my signature block...:D
EDIT: DONE!
How does one incorporate all of this HTML code and graphics into the email clients on our mobile devices, of which there are eleventy billion different configurations and versions?
Quote from: Paul Creed III on January 14, 2015, 09:08:03 PM
How does one incorporate all of this HTML code and graphics into the email clients on our mobile devices, of which there are eleventy billion different configurations and versions?
I think a better question is why would you? This is asinine.
Given that 99% of CAP emails are to other CAP members, what on earth is the rationale behind this latest example of a "circular firing squad"?!?
The intent was for external audiences. It simply grew.
(http://www.freshports.org/images/notbug.gif)
The level of fail associated with this is pretty spectacular, even for National.
I think I'll make a .jpg of this signature and add it to the end of all my CAP related text messages! >:D
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 14, 2015, 08:05:16 PM
Hey hey! E-Mail from NHQ, and it's "wrong" based on the reg:
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a302/USAFAUX2004/shocker.png)
Yeah... Regulation or not, there's no way I'm putting THAT on my signature block.
Quote from: jeders on January 14, 2015, 06:48:06 PM
Quote from: Tim Day on January 14, 2015, 06:40:15 PM
Well, NHQ listened to us!
No, NHQ heard us; they clearly weren't listening.
If you guys hadn't complained about it, they wouldn't have "fixed" it...
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 02:16:57 AM
Yeah... Regulation or not, there's no way I'm putting THAT on my signature block.
I'm afraid I'm with you. Technically speaking I can't embed these images into my mobile phone, where most of my emails come from. I will gladly conform to the rest of the standard, but the images aren't happening.
Quote from: Tim Day on January 14, 2015, 06:40:15 PM
Well, NHQ listened to us!
The new email signature blocks with large graphics and Air Force Auxiliary have been incorporated into the updated CAPR 10-1.
Whoopy do! Looks dumb to me. But then that's only my opinion.
Quote from: McLarty on January 15, 2015, 02:33:27 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 02:16:57 AM
Yeah... Regulation or not, there's no way I'm putting THAT on my signature block.
I'm afraid I'm with you. Technically speaking I can't embed these images into my mobile phone, where most of my emails come from. I will gladly conform to the rest of the standard, but the images aren't happening.
The graphics (which I hate) do work in web-based mail client on a regular desktop/laptop...but crashes and burn on my iPhone -- which I use far more than my desktop/laptop. So I just followed the regulated format sans graphics -- which means I will be getting more usage on my iPhone :)
In my opinion this was not a wise decision. It makes things difficult, if not impossible, for mobile devices which I assume a fair amount of members use to send and receive emails. It will require training members on how to add all of that to their emails which (at least for some) will require teaching them how to use third party applications like Outlook to handle their <insert provider here> email accounts. This is going to be a mess.
Quote from: McLarty on January 15, 2015, 02:33:27 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 02:16:57 AM
Yeah... Regulation or not, there's no way I'm putting THAT on my signature block.
I'm afraid I'm with you. Technically speaking I can't embed these images into my mobile phone, where most of my emails come from. I will gladly conform to the rest of the standard, but the images aren't happening.
As a heads up "administrative communications" via email are currently part of SUI tab D-4 question 8. Specifically the question mentions CAPR 10-1 para 2a(3) for emails which points directly at Attachment 5.
Quote from: a2capt on January 20, 2015, 04:38:42 AM
This whole thing with all the social media services ..
A couple other issues...
Cadets under 13 aren't allowed to use those services
(that they do, and worse, parents encourage them to
lie about their age is a seperate issues).Assuming using them is a good idea, why would we send everyone to National?
At a minimum, member should be sending people to their unit's web page,
Twitspace, MyBook, NarcissismGram, etc. Or better yet, just a landing page with
links to those things.
Quote from: Jon Moser on January 19, 2015, 07:30:02 PM
In my opinion this was not a wise decision. It makes things difficult, if not impossible, for mobile devices which I assume a fair amount of members use to send and receive emails. It will require training members on how to add all of that to their emails which (at least for some) will require teaching them how to use third party applications like Outlook to handle their <insert provider here> email accounts. This is going to be a mess.
Quote from: McLarty on January 15, 2015, 02:33:27 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 02:16:57 AM
Yeah... Regulation or not, there's no way I'm putting THAT on my signature block.
I'm afraid I'm with you. Technically speaking I can't embed these images into my mobile phone, where most of my emails come from. I will gladly conform to the rest of the standard, but the images aren't happening.
As a heads up "administrative communications" via email are currently part of SUI tab D-4 question 8. Specifically the question mentions CAPR 10-1 para 2a(3) for emails which points directly at Attachment 5.
I reread CAPR 10-1, Para 2a(3) and couldn't find anything mandating the use of that example, unlike with the memorandum which has a clearly defined standard. But even so, I'm not sure how this can be enforced when not every e-mail system supports those images or formatting.
Furthermore, I agree with Eclipse. Why would I send any of my recipients to the National sites? I would prefer they visit my local sites, as it would have more relevant information for them.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 20, 2015, 06:04:49 PM
I reread CAPR 10-1, Para 2a(3) and couldn't find anything mandating the use of that example, unlike with the memorandum which has a clearly defined standard. But even so, I'm not sure how this can be enforced when not every e-mail system supports those images or formatting.
I'm confused. How is this not mandating its use?
Quote(3) Electronic Mail (E-mail).
(a) A traditional e-mail (see attachment 5) replaces or supplements other CAP
written correspondence such as official memorandums or letters. For additional information, see
e-mail Basics in AFH 33-337, The Tongue and Quill, available on the publications page on the
National CAP website under Other Publications.
The signature and instructions on how it is to be built is listed in Attachment 5.
I agree with you on the difficulty of enforcing that change. That makes me hope they will either remove it or add a plain text/mobile friendly option.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 20, 2015, 06:04:49 PM
Furthermore, I agree with Eclipse. Why would I send any of my recipients to the National sites? I would prefer they visit my local sites, as it would have more relevant information for them.
Agreed. Sending them to National may be useful for people wanting general knowledge about CAP, otherwise it should be local information.