CAWG's new mandatory signature blocks with branding look horrible.

[A.Member]

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.

[Tim Day]

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.

[jeders]

Well, NHQ listened to us!

No, NHQ heard us; they clearly weren't listening.

[a2capt]

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.

[A.Member]

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.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Can't make this up...

[Майор Хаткевич]

Hey hey! E-Mail from NHQ, and it's "wrong" based on the reg:

[JC004]

*sigh*   

[JeffDG]

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.

[JC004]

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.

[JeffDG]

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.

I should put that in my signature block...

EDIT:  DONE!

[Paul Creed III]

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?

[THRAWN]

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.

[ZigZag911]

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"?!?

[JC004]

The intent was for external audiences.  It simply grew.

[A.Member]

The level of fail associated with this is pretty spectacular, even for National.

[BHartman007]

I think I'll make a .jpg of this signature and add it to the end of all my CAP related text messages!

[Storm Chaser]

Hey hey! E-Mail from NHQ, and it's "wrong" based on the reg:

Yeah... Regulation or not, there's no way I'm putting THAT on my signature block.

[PHall]

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...

[Nick]

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.