[rfc-i] Problems and requirements for RFC Format
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Mon Apr 23 14:11:06 PDT 2012
On 23 Apr 2012, at 9:01 , Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> What does in mean to "root out complexity and lack of clarity" for text? It means you read it, you think about it, you try to ask questions, ideally, you try to implement it. If any of this fails, you complain.
> So what does the above mean for graphics? Just about the same, except that we don't use "read" when we look at graphics, but that's a detail. Otherwise, the activities are quite similar. So I don't think there will be such a big problem. In other words, our ability to detect, and react to, complexity and inconsistency isn't really that much text-bound.
No, there are several differences. First of all, discussions use words so in discussions we can quote and suggest text. Doing the same for images is much harder.
Second, using words is second nature to us humans. Maybe not the English words used to specify protocols, but it's still words and we all know how to work with those. Not so much for images, which may mean different things to different people and many of us may not be able to create useful ones, and it can be hard to judge what will be clear to others.
So unless we are prepared to hire graphics designers who do this for a living, the quality of free form images will be much more variable than that of text.
(Of course there are many constrained types of images such as header diagrams or state transition diagrams.)
> But on the other hand, ruling out graphics from the start because some of them are bad seems a bad idea.
Once again, non-normative images in a PDF or PS version are allowed TODAY. Hardly anyone bothers to make them.
More information about the rfc-interest