| <sect1 id="identity-project-structure"> |
| |
| <title>Corporate Structure</title> |
| |
| <para> |
| &TCP; corporate structure is based on a &MCVIS;. In this |
| configuration, one unique name and one unique visual style is |
| used in all visual manifestation &TCP; is made of. |
| </para> |
| |
| <para> |
| In a monolithic corporate visual identity structure, internal |
| and external stakeholders use to feel a strong sensation of |
| uniformity, orientation, and identification with the |
| organization. No matter if you are visiting web sites, using |
| the distribution, or acting on social events, the one unique |
| name and one unique visual style connects them all to say: |
| Hey! we are all part of &TCP;. |
| </para> |
| |
| <para> |
| Other corporate structures for &TCP; have been considered as |
| well. Such is the case of producing one different visual style |
| for each major release of &TCD;. This structure isn't |
| inconvenient at all, but some visual contradictions could be |
| introduced if it isn't applied correctly and we need to be |
| aware of it. To apply it correctly, we need to know what &TCP; |
| is made of. |
| </para> |
| |
| <para> |
| &TCP;, as organization, is mainly made of (but not limited to) |
| three visual manifestions: &TCD;, &TCW; and &TCS;. Inside |
| &TCD; visual manifestations, &TCP; maintains near to four |
| different major releases of &TCD;, parallely in time. |
| However, inside &TCW; visual manifestations, the content is |
| produced for no specific release information (e.g., there is |
| no a complete web site for each major release of &TCD; |
| individually, but one web site to cover them all). Likewise, |
| the content produced in &TCS; is industrially created for no |
| specific release, but &TCP; in general. |
| </para> |
| |
| <para> |
| In order to produce the &TCPMCVIS; correctly, we need to |
| concider all the visual manifestations &TCP; is made of, not |
| just one of them. If one different visual style is |
| implemented for each major release of &TCD;, which one of |
| those different visual styles would be used to cover the |
| remaining visual manifestations &TCP; is made of (e.g., &TCW; |
| and &TCS;)? |
| </para> |
| |
| <para> |
| Probably you are thinking: yes, I see your point, but &TCB; |
| connects them all already, why would we need to join them up |
| into the same visual style too, isn't it more work to do, and |
| harder to maintain? |
| </para> |
| |
| <para> |
| Harder to maintain, more work to do, probably. Specially when |
| you consider that &TCP; has proven stability and consistency |
| through time and, that, certainly, didn't come through |
| swinging magical wands or something but hardly working out to |
| automate tasks and providing maintainance through time. With |
| that in mind, we consider &TCPCVIS; must be consequent with |
| such stability and consistency tradition. It is true that |
| &TCB; does connect all the visual manifestations it is present |
| on, but that connection is strengthened if one unique visual |
| style backups it. In fact, whatever thing you do to strength |
| the visual connection among &TCP; visual manifestations would |
| be very good in favor of &TCP; recognition. |
| </para> |
| |
| <para> |
| Obviously, having just one visual style in all visual |
| manifestations for eternity would be a very boring thing and |
| would give the idea of a visually dead project. So, there is |
| no problem on creating a brand new visual style for each new |
| major release of &TCD;, in order to refresh &TCD; visual |
| style; the problem itself is in not propagating the brand new |
| visual style created for the new release of &TCD; to all other |
| visual manifestations &TCP; is made of, in a way &TCP; could |
| be recognized no matter what visual manifestation be in front |
| of us. Such lack of uniformity is what introduces the visual |
| contradition we are precisely trying to solve by mean of |
| themes production in &TCAR;. |
| </para> |
| |
| </sect1> |