Wordmark style issue in user documentation?

[Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca>]

Leo Paoletti wondered: <<My company (specifically the Marketing group) 
is considering using a wordmark (I hope this is the right term) to name 
a product feature.>>

If it's a "graphical treatment of a word" and used as part of a "visual 
identity program", then it's a wordmark.

<<The wordmark would be a combination of two words. For example: 
RedBlue (this is not the actual feature name) On top that, "Red" would 
be italicized and "Blue" would use a normal font. I'm uncomfortable 
using a this wordmark in the user documentation for a few reasons:>>

The key here is to disinguish between the graphic and what that graphic 
refers to. Have a look at IBM and Microsoft and you'll see that they 
have very distinctive wordmarks, but nowhere do these wordmarks appear 
in the running text of their manuals. (I mention these two because they 
offer a compelling argument against marketeers who don't know any 
better and want to be distinctive.) On the contrary, you only see the 
wordmark as such where a graphic is necessary--such as in branding 
materials.

So use the wordmark for graphical purposes (e.g., in brochures), but 
for running text, just set the word in the same font you're using for 
the rest of the body text.

--Geoff Hart   ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca
(try geoffhart -at- mac -dot- com if you don't get a reply)