1. Here's a thread that needs an answer: Creating a Select Case for a directory of folders

Are there de facto standards for email/sig block formatting?

Discussion in 'Using Outlook' started by S2FyZW4gUA, May 8, 2009.

  1. S2FyZW4gUA

    S2FyZW4gUA

    Guest
    Hello,

    I've been charged with developing a signature block and setting email
    formatting standards for our corporate communication via Outlook. We have
    lots of opinions internally about what fonts etc we should use, but I'm
    wondering if any de facto standards have developed through the years that I
    can use as rationale for decisions.

    We're on Outlook 2003 and plan to stay here for the indefinite future. Our
    concerns are for our personal/corporate correspondence via Outlook to be
    professional and consistent and to keep the "storage" requirement low, and
    look good to any recipient independent of their email program.

    We've decided not to use an image of our logo in the signature block because
    that may come across, annoyingly, as an attachment to some users. Correct?
    (Plus the logo would add to the size of the file.)

    Using the default white background for emails, rather than wood-grain or
    fluffy clouds, is a no-brainer.

    What about the font? Our corporate logo is based on Garamond so some of us
    use Garamond as our default Outlook font. Is a sans serif font like Arial
    for emails preferred? If so, is there a technical reason?

    Final question--should the font of email body and the signature block match?
    If email body is Arial, should sig block be the same? If sig block is
    Garamond, should email body be the same?

    Thanks so much--even "informed opinions" will be much better than uninformed
    preferences--am finding it hard to make decisions on that basis.
    Karen P
     
  2. Diane Poremsky

    Diane Poremsky

    Senior Member
    I'm not aware of any standard for sigs - as long as you use common sense.

    On fonts - I would use a standard font that every computer is expected to
    have. Or at least verify it looks ok if it drops down to a basic serif/sans
    serif.

    It's pretty standard in letterhead stationery to use different fonts for the
    letterhead than for the letter - for this reason, I would not hesitate to
    use a fancier font for the signature, provided it was a common font
    available on all computers. The message body should use a basic font that is
    easy to read - on computer screens this would be a sans serif font.
    Usability studies report that most people prefer Verdana @ 10pt or Arial @
    12pt.

    "Karen P" <KarenP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:9AFD69BE-1205-4A8D-BED3-8D02E3DAE861@microsoft.com...
    > Hello,
    >
    > I've been charged with developing a signature block and setting email
    > formatting standards for our corporate communication via Outlook. We have
    > lots of opinions internally about what fonts etc we should use, but I'm
    > wondering if any de facto standards have developed through the years that
    > I
    > can use as rationale for decisions.
    >
    > We're on Outlook 2003 and plan to stay here for the indefinite future.
    > Our
    > concerns are for our personal/corporate correspondence via Outlook to be
    > professional and consistent and to keep the "storage" requirement low, and
    > look good to any recipient independent of their email program.
    >
    > We've decided not to use an image of our logo in the signature block
    > because
    > that may come across, annoyingly, as an attachment to some users.
    > Correct?
    > (Plus the logo would add to the size of the file.)
    >
    > Using the default white background for emails, rather than wood-grain or
    > fluffy clouds, is a no-brainer.
    >
    > What about the font? Our corporate logo is based on Garamond so some of
    > us
    > use Garamond as our default Outlook font. Is a sans serif font like Arial
    > for emails preferred? If so, is there a technical reason?
    >
    > Final question--should the font of email body and the signature block
    > match?
    > If email body is Arial, should sig block be the same? If sig block is
    > Garamond, should email body be the same?
    >
    > Thanks so much--even "informed opinions" will be much better than
    > uninformed
    > preferences--am finding it hard to make decisions on that basis.
    > > Karen P


     
  3. Brian Tillman

    Brian Tillman

    Senior Member
    "Karen P" <KarenP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:9AFD69BE-1205-4A8D-BED3-8D02E3DAE861@microsoft.com...

    > I'm wondering if any de facto standards have developed through the years
    > that I
    > can use as rationale for decisions.


    The only real de facto standard is that the signature should start with one
    line containing two hyphens followed by a space. Everything else is up to the
    individual company. The company for which I work requires a signature of this
    form (without the separating -------------- lines that I used to offset the
    definition):
    -------------------Name
    Title
    Division Name

    T +1 123 456 7890
    M +1 123 456 7890
    F +1 123 456 7890
    E someone@company.com

    123 Main St.
    Mytown, ST. 12345-1234 USA
    Company Name

    Company Motto
    ------------------------------That's 14 lines. The blank lines between sections are required. On some
    communications, the signature exceeds the message.

     
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Exchange Server Questions Two-Factor Authentication Outlook Anywhere 2010 Jul 13, 2010
Exchange Server Questions Two-Factor Authentication - Exchange 2010 Jun 29, 2010
Using Outlook how to decrease the zoom factor of my 'Reply To' emails May 25, 2010
Using Outlook This message does not comply with required standards May 30, 2010
Using Outlook 550 5.7.1 o3FLDsbX005845 This message does not comply with required standards. Apr 16, 2010

Share This Page