Subject: Corporate logos on presentations

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 13:15:29 -0800

Post-Seoul greetings. One of the folks giving a presentation in my WG 
showed me his slides beforehand. He used the company-mandated 
PowerPoint template, which had the company's logo on every page, 
quite large. I insisted that he take it out, which he did willingly, 
but said that his corporate masters might be unhappy about it if they 
saw it.

It would be nice if the IETF had a written policy on this that we 
could point to. I propose something along the lines of:

IETF presentations are for technical purposes. The corporate or 
organizational affiliation of the presenter may be listed only on the 
first slide; other slides may have the presenter's name but not their 
affiliation. On the first slide, a small corporate or organizational 
logo is acceptable. Affiliation-based backgrounds may not be used on 
any slides.

How do others feel about this?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 13:42:48 -0800

At 01:15 PM 3/7/2004, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>Post-Seoul greetings. One of the folks giving a presentation in my WG showed me his slides beforehand. He used the company-mandated PowerPoint template, which had the company's logo on every page, quite large. I insisted that he take it out, which he did willingly, but said that his corporate masters might be unhappy about it if they saw it.
>
>It would be nice if the IETF had a written policy on this that we could point to. I propose something along the lines of:
>
>IETF presentations are for technical purposes. The corporate or organizational affiliation of the presenter may be listed only on the first slide; other slides may have the presenter's name but not their affiliation. On the first slide, a small corporate or organizational logo is acceptable. Affiliation-based backgrounds may not be used on any slides.
>

It's in the right direction... a couple suggestions:

s/presenter's name/presenter's name and/or email address/.
That is, I have no particular problem with folks providing their
email address on each page (even where that email presents an
affiliation of some sort).

Also, I suggest saying that slides should be unadorned.  Adornments
only distract from the technical purpose of the presentation.

Lastly, I suggest some note suggesting that new presenters consult
with the session chair prior to the session regarding both content
and form of their presentations.  (It might be better to word this
as a recommendation to chairs to consult with new presenters.)

Kurt

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 22:44:02 +0100 (CET)

> but said that his corporate masters might be unhappy about it if they

[...]

> How do others feel about this?

During the last week, I saw a lot of slides with basic mistakes such as:

 * Font size too small (so folks in the back can't read it).

 * Badly chosen colors (yellow, green) that are hard to read on a
   screen, essential material in color combinations that cannot be
   distinguished by the color blind.

 * Too much information on a single slide.

I think we should first get rid of those, before worrying about company
logos.

Also, I have a lot of slides in company style with drawings and graphs,
being able to use them without reformatting them saves me a lot of time
when preparing my IETF talks.  I'd expect this to be true for a lot of the
speakers.

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit
and wisdom to do their job properly.                          (David Brent).

---

From: Blake Ramsdell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:21:34 -0800

Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
> logo is acceptable. Affiliation-based backgrounds may not be used on any 
> slides.

I tend to steer away from corporate affiliation with my slides, and use 
the absolute dumbest PowerPoint format possible. When converted through 
whatever automated process to other formats, a simple format seems like 
it would be more likely to be converted correctly.

> How do others feel about this?

I look at it as "these are slides for the IETF that I've been asked to 
present" not "these are slides that my company has asked me to present". 
I think that the matter-of-fact "I work for this company" on the first 
slide is appropriate, and then after that, keep it as simple as possible 
and communicate the information. I'm personally not a fan of any 
headers/footers indicating the slide number, date, company, etc.

I also agree that the spirit is "big bullets" not lots of words, but I 
think that is heading into a different area which might be harder to 
resolve.

Blake
-- 
Blake Ramsdell | Sendmail, Inc. | http://www.sendmail.com

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 14:40:44 -0800

Blake Ramsdell <[email-masked]> writes:
> present" not "these are slides that my company has asked me to
> present". I think that the matter-of-fact "I work for this company" on
> the first slide is appropriate, and then after that, keep it as simple
> as possible and communicate the information.
My problem with corporate affiliations in footers is a little
different: many IETF presentations are on work which is a group
effort. How appropriate is it for me to put "RTFM, Inc." on a slide
about TLS 1.1, which clearly has been done by lots of people with
no connection to RTFM, Inc.? Sure, it's arguable that the presentation
is what was paid for by my company, but it leaves the wrong impression.

> I'm personally not a fan
> of any headers/footers indicating the slide number, date, company, etc.
I totally disagree about slide number, date, etc. I'd like to see
every slide have: date, slide number, and the IETF they were presented
at. I think this provides useful context for understanding and
sorting. 

-Ekr

---

From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:00:51 -0700

I think there's some subtle discrimination here against commercial
entities.  I've never heard anyone complain about slides with a
university's name and department logo on every slide, or government
entities or non-profits.  

I'd hate to see someone denied a speaking slot because he got caught
between an employer's logo rules and the IETF logo rules, or because
of criticism about colors or line spacing.  Black and white only, 15
words max/slide, 20 lines for a diagram?  Short words only.  All
acronyms expanded in a separate appendix.  Sigh.

How about requiring presenters to wear shirts with collars, and make
clipping the mike to the collar a MUST.  Avoid those awful explosive
"p" and "b" sounds.  

Stop mumbling.

Get to the point.

Stop taking flash pictures of the screen.  It's annoying and
pointless.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 23:26:23 -0000

Seems to me...

If you're worried about any of these issues:
- get all the slides submitted to the chairs in advance
- review them and get updates made
- put all the slides on a web site in advance (no need
  for any photos flash or otherwise)

Adrian

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 16:32:08 -0800

I think it is up to the working group chairs to set policy on what kind 
of slides are acceptable to be presented, both technically and 
style-wise. It's a bad idea to put too many restrictions and 
requirements on stylistic aspects -- everyone has their own opinion 
about what gets the message across best.

However, with that said, a BCP or guideline document would be helpful. 
I know that when I first started giving presentations at the IETF, I 
simply didn't know that it was frowned upon to prominently display 
corporate logos. Also, stylistic guidelines for those not used to 
making slides (such as large fonts and dark colors, as mentioned) could 
be helpful for newbies.

TJ

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:53:03 -0500

>How do others feel about this?

Personally - it's not an issue I'm worried about.  Of all the ways in 
which I'd criticize presentations and meetings (not that anyone is 
asking me to), the presence of logos insignificant.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

History repeats, therefore my life is a rerun.

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 23:44:14 -0500

At 04:15 PM 03/07/2004, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
>It would be nice if the IETF had a written policy on this that we could 
>point to.

Paul -- excerpt from the Tao, section 3.3, follows.
Al

>And here's a tip for your slides: don't put your company's logo on every 
>one, even though it's common practice outside the IETF. The IETF frowns on 
>this kind of corporate advertising, and most presenters don't even put 
>their logo on their opening slide. The IETF is about technical content, 
>not company boosterism.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 14:16:27 +0900

> think that is heading into a different area which might be harder to 

Normally, I would agree, and this is certainly the gospel of slideware. 
  however, when trying to communicate with non native english speakers, 
especially in Asia, I have found that wordy slides are a necessity.  
Living in Korea for the last year, I have had to force myself to be 
explicit on slides.  This does not mean we have to use a small font to 
get it all in, it just means we need to include enough slides so that 
someone who has trouble understanding verbal English, or someone who is 
not present at the presentation, can understand what we are trying to 
convey.

a.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:15:46 -0800

The current "disapproving attitude" is directly linked back to a speech 
Randy Bush made at an IETF plenary - I thought it was the Florida IETF, but 
the proceedings show no trace of it....

the main point being that if we are here representing technical arguments, 
the arguments are what matters, and the logos and so on distract from the 
message, causing us to remember the source rather than the argument. Wrong 
focus

It's one thing among many to remember when presenting - but unlike a lot of 
other things, it's relatively easy to fix.

                  Harald

--On 7. mars 2004 21:53 -0500 Edward Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> which I'd criticize presentations and meetings (not that anyone is asking
> me to), the presence of logos insignificant.
> --

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:01:59 +0100

I think the recommendation we could reasonably make is like this
(i.e. with wiggle room for those under the rule of logo police):

  Avoid distracting elements on slides. Examples of distracting elements
are large logos, slogans, strongly colored backgrounds, fonts that are difficult 
to read due to size, color, or unusual design. There is nothing wrong with black
and white as long as it carries the desired information. There is nothing wrong
with color as a long as it adds information. But logos, backgrounds, fonts, 
and use of color that confuse the viewer should be avoided.

 Slide sets should carry practical information for future reference,
including author's name(s) and email, date when presented, and WG or
plenary where presented.

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 07:18:31 -0500

To clarify what I meant to say - in the spirit of "be liberal in what 
you accept, conservative in what you send" - when I generate or edit 
presentations, I stick to high-contrast (black on white), concise 
wording and simple diagrams.  (Although I do have a weakness for 
American English idioms.)  OTOH, when listening to a presentation, 
I'm not concerned with logos, etc., even after knowing of the issue. 
(I wasn't at the Orlando IETF, but I've heard Randy's remarks about 
logos.)

The reason I reacted to the thread at all is that I'm against adding 
rules/guidelines unless they are necessary.  Although individually 
good intentioned, when the number of rules/guidelines achieves a 
critical mass, they get ignored again.

At 21:15 -0800 3/7/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>The current "disapproving attitude" is directly linked back to a 
>speech Randy Bush made at an IETF plenary - I thought it was the 
>Florida IETF, but the proceedings show no trace of it....
>
>the main point being that if we are here representing technical 
>arguments, the arguments are what matters, and the logos and so on 
>distract from the message, causing us to remember the source rather 
>than the argument. Wrong focus
>
>It's one thing among many to remember when presenting - but unlike a 
>lot of other things, it's relatively easy to fix.
>
>                  Harald
>

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:21:45 -0500

> How do others feel about this?

My feeling is that we should engineer the Internet not PowerPoint.
There is advice in the Tao of the IETF and that should be enough.  If WG
chairs are inclined to gently remind folks about the advice that seems
fine to me (remind != demand that people follow the advice).  If not, it
doesn't much bother me.  (I wouldn't mention it to speakers in the WGs I
co-chair unless the logo use was somehow terribly egregious.  And, if
there was a precise IETF rule against it you'd have to lean on me pretty
hard before I'd get up the energy to try to enforce it --- life is too
short and my cycles are not nearly that copious.)

allman

--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:30:41 -0500

> My feeling is that we should engineer the Internet not PowerPoint.

I don't like corporate logos on slides, but I don't think it's
a big deal.  Say "yecchhh" and move on.  However, I wish people would 
use
more portable document formats for their slides, either PostScript
or PDF.  I think that's more of an issue than the use of logos.

Melinda

---

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:27:36 -0500

> or PDF.  I think that's more of an issue than the use of logos.

IMHO, those who put BIG logos on their slides generally loose mindshare
among the clueful and don't gain much with anyone else.  

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:04:32 -0500

A perhaps related problem is that slide templates often include
default "company proprietary" or related markings which are inherently
incompatible with 2026 and the "note well" verbiage.

Occasionally I've seen these pop up in WG presentations -- likely
because everyone used to the template tunes them out as background
noise.

But I agree with the sentiment that we should, at most, make
guidelines, not rules, about this.  

If it's likely a presentation has relevant technical content despite
the logos I'd rather see it and make up my own mind than block it
completely.

						- Bill

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:42:11 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Melinda Shore writ
>or PDF.  I think that's more of an issue than the use of logos.
I agree with this, on all points.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb