[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue May 15 14:15:12 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-15 22:19, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> As someone who has been around (mostly print) publishing for 25 years,
> I must say that I find this discussion a little strange. A *major*
> concern of anyone involved in print publishing is presentation and
> readability. If you throw all that out the window and opt for user-
> selectable fonts, formatting, re-flowed text, artwork that moves, and
> so on for the sake of "small devices," then I think you've given up
> part of the original idea which was to make RFCs more readable and
> presentable in a world where our "competition" pays a lot of attention
> to those features.
I'm not sure people have asked for user-selectable fonts. I *do* see a
requirement to select font *sizes*, for accessibility reasons.
Not sure what you mean by "formatting".
"Re-flowable text" naturally follows from different device sizes.
Did anybody ask for "artwork that moves"? If so, I missed that.
Finally, it's not only about "small" devices but also about "large"
devices. For instance, I personally like to use the full width of my
display for test display if I choose to, but the current fixed-with
format doesn't allow me to do that.
> This is not to say that the new format, whatever it turns out to be,
> should not be device-friendly, but I am puzzled by the focus on
> engineered solutions without a clear set of "design requirements"
> if I may use that term.
Thinking about good design is good. We probably haven't discussed that
because we don't have it right now, and everybody assumed it will be
better in the future (for some value of "better").
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest