Talk:AIGA, the professional association for design

Name change
I am sorry to see the noble sounding name updated for now meaningless initials and a descriptor that sounds more appropriate to a drycleaning trade group than communicators and graphic designers. CApitol3 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
The organization's name is simply "AIGA". What follows in the current article title ("the professional association for design") is just a tagline, so the article title should properly be just AIGA. See AIGA's own page about its name. æ² ✆ 2007&#x2011;06&#x2011;15t03:11z


 * That page says that the organisation remains legally, and will always be the American Institute for Graphic Arts, which is more in line with the naming conventions at Wikipedia. American Institute of Graphic Arts is already a redirect — is one just an erroneous form of the other? --Stemonitis 06:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm... that page says both "of" and "for", actually. I read the text as leaning more towards usage of the acronym as the name rather than any expansion, kind of like CBS or NBC. æ² ✆ 2007&#x2011;06&#x2011;18t00:56z

AIGA acronym, and small capitals used in text
Hi Alerante, would you explain what the problem is you see in use of small capitals for acronyms, e.g.: AIGA ? It is considered a typographic refinment in that it is less disruptive of typographic texture than full upppercase. Wiki MoS doesn't prohibit it, and I see it used in many articles. Your edit summary says it opens up opportunities for inconsistency. How so? I've looked at it on Windows and Mac systems, looks fine to me. Given the subject is a design organization I expect most editing will be done by users able to use small capitals. Appreciate your thoughts and explanation. CApitol3 12:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there — for presentational purposes I understand that small capitals look better, but some editors may not notice that they (a) are present and (b) require wikimarkup to appear differently. A lot of articles have problems with italics for book titles, etc. already, and those are prescribed by the MOS. Also, I haven't seen any other pages that use small-caps acronyms; can you point me to a few examples? æ² ✆ 2007&#x2011;06&#x2011;15t15:34z

Hi again. You got me on "presentational purposes" are you speaking of aesthetics here? One example of use of small caitals that comes to mind, and where I learned to do it, is in the article on the Boston Public Library. There they are used for a monumental inscription. But I have seen them used for acronyms many places on wiki. Use of the small capitals is not much trickier than using bold, or, as you note, italics. My expectation is that the article will likely be edited mostly by either by graphic designers, or people with some design and technical awareness. A further safeguard is that several designers/typographers are waching the article. I think we can do this. CApitol3 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Sounds fine, then. æ² ✆ 2007&#x2011;06&#x2011;17t00:18z