On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:16 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM Greg Chase <gch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > This email encrypted by tiny buttons & fat thumbs, beta voice > recognition, > > and autocorrect on my iPhone. > > > > > On Jul 1, 2016, at 1:41 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 4:35 PM Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Marvin Humphrey < > mar...@rectangular.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Greg Chase <g...@gregchase.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> The branding guidelines do not address feedback such as "logo in > > >> footer" or > > >>>> "disclaimer is buried deep or below the fold". > > >>> > > >>> Incubation disclaimers are intended to be substantive. They are not > > CYA > > >> legal > > >>> boilerplate that can be are buried in fine print. The intent is to > > >> communicate > > >>> (effectively!) to consumers that a project is incubating. > > >> > > >> I haven't heard anyone suggesting "CYA" or "buried in fine print"? > > >> Most sites put notices at the bottom of a page similar to how we put > > >> our equally important copyright/trademark notices at the bottom of our > > >> home page. That, along with having the page saying "(Incubating)" all > > >> over the place is surely enough of a notice... this "must be above the > > >> fold" stuff is overreaching and encroaching on the PPMC. They have > > >> the disclaimer, let's not overcome our boredom by being helicopter > > >> parents... > > > > > > Please don't interpret the current research being done as saying that > the > > > logo/disclaimer has to be above the fold. There are certain ways I've > > seen > > > the disclaimer where its not clear how its used, or what it's related > to. > > > I've seen podlings use differing fonts to make it seem unimportant, and > > > actually think it makes more sense in the footer. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > The observations are listed as "issues" and this is described as a > > "branding audit", not a "survey." > > > > The meaning is clear. It's fine if you choose to redefine as a result of > > feedback. > > > > Good point. In my mind I was treating them as findings/observations. > Reworded the title. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> --tim > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > >> > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > Now that is good fodder for a discussion.
