|
Mr. Clark2 posted:Some of the C levels decided that our agency needs to be more "woke" so they now want to give users the option of having their chosen pronouns appear in their email signature. The IT dept. (all 2 of us) now have to drop what we're doing and figure out how to implement this using O365. To make it even better, nobody wants to pay for a 3rd party tool/service that will do what they're asking. https://www.dcode.fr/geek-code 
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Mr. Clark2 posted:Some of the C levels decided that our agency needs to be more "woke" so they now want to give users the option of having their chosen pronouns appear in their email signature. The IT dept. (all 2 of us) now have to drop what we're doing and figure out how to implement this using O365. To make it even better, nobody wants to pay for a 3rd party tool/service that will do what they're asking. I get the annoyance with getting a large task last minute but can you drop the whole woke bullshit? This small thing could mean a hell of a lot to some people you might not realize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Editing signatures in Outlook is trivial though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
my biggest question is where and how are the preferred pronouns going to be stored
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
The Fool posted:my biggest question is where and how are the preferred pronouns going to be stored AD profiles. You can dynamically generate a user-specific email signature from AD info; just add a custom attribute for pronouns and put it in the user's sig. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what's happening but this doesn't seem hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
The Fool posted:my biggest question is where and how are the preferred pronouns going to be stored In the balls
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Woof Blitzer posted:Editing signatures in Outlook is trivial though. This is true. We currently have a rule in Exchange online that applies the same signature (O365 calls it a disclaimer) for everyone in the org, users cannot modify it. The pronoun thing is voluntary, not everyone will want it applied. We're currently working out how to - with the least amount of effort - dynamically move the users that want the pronoun included into a group, and then apply this different signature to that group. The wrinkle is that different people will want different pronouns, so the HTML that makes up the signature will have to change based on that...and the users that don't want pronouns displayed can't have a blank line saying "My pronouns are:"...that would just be ugly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Weedle posted:AD profiles. You can dynamically generate a user-specific email signature from AD info; just add a custom attribute for pronouns and put it in the user's sig. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what's happening but this doesn't seem hard. I don't currently store gender information in AD, and while it's not technically hard, HR would have things to say if I started to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
Mr. Clark2 posted:This is true. We currently have a rule in Exchange online that applies the same signature (O365 calls it a disclaimer) for everyone in the org, users cannot modify it. The pronoun thing is voluntary, not everyone will want it applied. We're currently working out how to - with the least amount of effort - dynamically move the users that want the pronoun included into a group, and then apply this different signature to that group. The wrinkle is that different people will want different pronouns, so the HTML that makes up the signature will have to change based on that...and the users that don't want pronouns displayed can't have a blank line saying "My pronouns are:"...that would just be ugly. Suppose you skipped the 'my pronouns are:' text and just dropped them in after the name?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Holy poo poo, my nephew is driving me insane Is he 14?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Shut up Meg posted:Suppose you skipped the 'my pronouns are:' text and just dropped them in after the name? Not a bad idea, I'll run it past the boss. We're currently going the custom attribute route and using that to dynamically populate a hidden DL, then the HTML of the signature is just copied/pasted with the exception of the custom attribute. Testing it now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
 We have a "summary" on Sharepoint that lists all our current jobs in a Master Job List...then there's an individual tab for each sales rep. In theory, they are supposed to match. In reality, they do not. I found this out because our ERP indicates that our backlog is roughly $900,000 higher than the summary indicates that it should be. I get to go line-by-line through the existing sales orders and match them against the summary, then I have to break the current jobs down into contract and permit totals, because the summary backlog is based only on contract total. Now I have to go line-by-line through the current jobs and match them against the sales rep tabs, then filter out whatever is on the MASTER list that is not on the loving REP'S tab, and pull THOSE totals from our ERP. I am going to bet I can't make this $2.2 million dollar backlog into the $1.3 million it's supposed to be. EDIT: This multiple-points-of-data-entry bullfuck is also why I'm trying to develop a centralized place in Access to enter all of this poo poo, that can simply generate the desired reports instead of relying on a stupid loving Excel sheet on Sharepoint that is way too prone to data entry errors. D34THROW fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Feb 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
I wouldn't attempt to do centralised signature management without a third party tool, it's not worth the pain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:I wouldn't attempt to do centralised signature management without a third party tool, it's not worth the pain. I couldn't get the OK for the $2600 or so/year it would take to get CodeTwo 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Been going back and forth for a month with Cisco TAC to get some UCCX reporting issues cleared up and I am not ashamed to say I lost my mind on the phone with the guy who called me to recite my ticket notes at stare at a blank CUIC screen for half an hour not understanding the issue. gently caress you!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 22:32
|
|
|
Royally pissing me off right now: Our main reporting system is being replaced with a new one that is going to take 5 days to implement. Awful but whatever, we've known about this for months. Pissing me off is that the system was supposed to be shut off at 1800 hours. Instead, some chucklefuck decided to turn it off two hours early without telling anyone or giving any kind of warning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
Mr. Clark2 posted:I couldn't get the OK for the $2600 or so/year it would take to get CodeTwo All I want is for it to be built into Office 365 where I can have something like <#signature1> at the bottom of a message replaced with a chunk of HTML with variables pulled from AD. I don't want to have to relay all my outbound messages through another service just so it can insert a signature, and I don't want to manage agents on devices. Transport rules get very close but they put disclaimers at the end of messages which is no good past the first message that goes out, and the UI is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Sickening posted:I get the annoyance with getting a large task last minute but can you drop the whole woke bullshit? This small thing could mean a hell of a lot to some people you might not realize. Sorry, but something tells me the C-suite are much less eager to do something like pay women and ethnic minorities equally to white men than make this signature thing happen, so I would say the mocking use of woke is appropriate. This is 100% performative to make the company look good at 0 cost (because they don't think about the cost of labor going into it). Signature templates are a thing, right? I feel like the correct answer to this is to send out the template company-wide with instructions on how to apply/edit it
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
I tend to avoid using the term either in support of equality objectives or in a mocking way (because I'm not a dickhead) due to its roots in African American culture as a term used to describe gaining an awareness of social and political oppression. When used in sarcasm it's a pretty good indication that you're dealing with a complete arsehole in the same way that 'virtual signalling' is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Sorry, but something tells me the C-suite are much less eager to do something like pay women and ethnic minorities equally to white men than make this signature thing happen, so I would say the mocking use of woke is appropriate. This is 100% performative to make the company look good at 0 cost (because they don't think about the cost of labor going into it). Corporations don't give half of a ghost poo poo about anyones rights or needs. It's all about what makes them money, or sometimes intangible benefits. Like how you'll see corps changing logos, or having a banner during Pride month, and then poo poo all over LGTB the other 11 months of the year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:I tend to avoid using the term either in support of equality objectives or in a mocking way (because I'm not a dickhead) due to its roots in African American culture as a term used to describe gaining an awareness of social and political oppression. When used in sarcasm it's a pretty good indication that you're dealing with a complete arsehole in the same way that 'virtual signalling' is. How would you describe a cynical attempt to appear like they give more than zero fucks about minorities? Like the Rainbows on Everything(tm) in the weeks leading up to Pride. Sure they'll put the flag on an advertisement, but they don't actually do anything else in support. "Virtue Signaling" more or less hits the nail on the head, 'we say and do these things, not because we actually care, but because we think it will make people like us, and thereby, buy more of our poo poo'. Not to say Clark's management are that cynical, they could genuinely care about making everyone more comfortable interacting online, and preventing workplace incidents. That said, good luck with the signature thing. Automating it isn't fun, and tends to piss people off, when corporate idea of branding doesn't mesh with their personal sense of style. It might be easier to just make a company wide announcement with some basic templates for how to format the signature made available in the KB system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
quote:That said, good luck with the signature thing. Automating it isn't fun, and tends to piss people off, when corporate idea of branding doesn't mesh with their personal sense of style. It might be easier to just make a company wide announcement with some basic templates for how to format the signature made available in the KB system. Deleting all the crap off the end is now just a part of the morning routine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Is he 14?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
Not pissing me off, more laughing at dumb clients while on mute. The people that got woken up in the middle of the night probably got pissed off though. Customer's system didn't come back up after taking the database down for backups. Turns out the database didn't back up. Turns out the system didn't come down to start the backup. Turns out there were database locks from users being logged on, so it didn't shut down. We ask the customer if there were any users online when it was set to shut down. The answer? "We told them they had to be off."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:How would you describe a cynical attempt to appear like they give more than zero fucks about minorities? Like the Rainbows on Everything(tm) in the weeks leading up to Pride. Sure they'll put the flag on an advertisement, but they don't actually do anything else in support. "Virtue Signaling" more or less hits the nail on the head, 'we say and do these things, not because we actually care, but because we think it will make people like us, and thereby, buy more of our poo poo'. We use a 3rd party signature tool on 4 of our 5 sites where the user can only make changes by changing what is stored in AD. On that 5th site it's a free for all. Some might say clinical and boring but I would say it looks professional, particularly compared to the free for all where people just make a mess and ignore the guidance
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 13:08
|
|
|
It makes it easy to spot those who are somehow completely invulnerable and bulletproof at work when they are able to get away with their email signatures being in comic sans or some god awful faux cursive font.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 14:10
|
|
|
less than three posted:Yeah we bought software for this and sets your signature on login. Naturally after your info it has 2 giant images, the company mission statement, and a long rear end disclaimer about "only intended for recipient" etc. That would irritate the holy gently caress out of me. I have my name, company, branch, business address, and contact numbers. I have no disclaimer, I have no images. It's just simple this-is-where-to-reach-me poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
no signature no masters
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 17:08
|
|
Cat Army
|
Signatures are dumb. If I want your name I'll look at the From: section of the email. If I want your number I'll ask or you'll provide it in the context of our communication. If I want your address or any other bullshit I'll definitely ask. At my last place signatures made life difficult because we listed every office/address in this massive block so it was impossible to search for things relevant to any individual office by just searching for "Houston" or whatever because that would match every single email in history due to signatures. So dumb. Don't ask me why we didn't have extetnal-only signatures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
I wanted someone to have a signature for the first time in a long time today, but that was because the person was repeating a request for a MacBook and complaining about how slow the PCs they had been given were. I wanted to know what they did so I could judge them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
My current signature has a small company logo, my name, job title and department. I removed the phone number because it's 2020 and nothing you say over a phone couldn't be said in a short email that I can read and reply to at my own leisure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
 Yellow is what the summary says we should have for a backlog as of 1/31, orange is what the ERP says we should have. I'm $1,100 over down from $900,000 over, I'll take it!  Good enough for my boss, it's good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
I mercilessly bottom-post with people who use giant signatures that don't begin with ---, quoting the signature in its entirely. Yes, I am that rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
Found out a level 3 in my department is making 24% more than the rest of us because he accepted a fairly far relocation a while back. That ended and he is back in his old building. I'm just a lowly level 2 but I still feel that our jobs aren't that different. Would I have a case for a raise during my review? I've never had a review or anything more than COL raises so this is all new territory to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
cage-free egghead posted:Found out a level 3 in my department is making 24% more than the rest of us because he accepted a fairly far relocation a while back. That ended and he is back in his old building. I'm just a lowly level 2 but I still feel that our jobs aren't that different. Would I have a case for a raise during my review? I've never had a review or anything more than COL raises so this is all new territory to me. So you want your employer to pay you 24% more to do the work you already do? That is a hard sell. Are you u making less than market average? Are you making less than the other level 2s? Compare like to like. It’s easier to sell depending on the person you talk to both caring and having the power to do so. Please ask, please be your own advocate, worst they can say is no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Sprechensiesexy posted:My current signature has a small company logo, my name, job title and department. I removed the phone number because it's 2020 and nothing you say over a phone couldn't be said in a short email that I can read and reply to at my own leisure. I remove the phone number so I don't get spammed by salespeople etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:I remove the phone number so I don't get spammed by salespeople etc More than once, I've played email tennis with someone that specifically asked me to call them yet didn't give me their number and inexplicably, it took 3 requests from me before they understood that they had to give me their number before I could call it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
cage-free egghead posted:Found out a level 3 in my department is making 24% more than the rest of us because he accepted a fairly far relocation a while back. That ended and he is back in his old building. I'm just a lowly level 2 but I still feel that our jobs aren't that different. Would I have a case for a raise during my review? I've never had a review or anything more than COL raises so this is all new territory to me. You're going to get that other guys relo raise cancelled
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
I got 8x 8TB WD Elements drives to shuck, only to find out that they don't fit in my old norco 4020, god drat it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:16 |
|
|
Sheep posted:Signatures are dumb. If I want your name I'll look at the From: section of the email. If I want your number I'll ask or you'll provide it in the context of our communication. If I want your address or any other bullshit I'll definitely ask. Did I mention that our signatures are applied to internal emails as well? Because they are 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 03:14
|
|