Just saw a post dissing Guidelines and deeming them useless. Frankly, it infuriated me: it was a broad shallow generalization and flippantly made fun of the matter - by a writer whose profile didn't show much of a competence but of course offered quite a bit of the 'Brand is not a Logo' -type content. And so, practitioners who do Guidelines but don't know how and don't have a clue about implementation, training, education, feedback loop, ongoing management, and AI articulation, please stop posting about it - you're doing a disservice to the community and to clients who may be scrolling by. But one thing is true: Guidelines that are superficial, incomplete, just logo&color&typography, not properly introduced but just tossed over a fence, and written by ignorant practitioners are a sorry waste of ink and should indeed be ignored.
Standards & Guidelines (yes, they are two separate matters) are serious work that should be done by serious people and managed and implemented by serious people. That's always been the case, and even more so in the age of AI when codification & control must be embedded in workflows - which is something that's widely espoused by anyone who understands the power and characteristics of AI. Seriously done, 'guidelines' are not only very much alive but in fact indispensable, and companies who don't pay enough attention to them are ill-informed and unwise.
===
about Guidelines
Next
Next