[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfcformatreq-01

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Jan 18 16:19:52 PST 2013


On 1/18/13 1:42 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Martin Rex <mrex at sap.com> wrote:
>> The problem with anything else than monochrome is that it becomes
>> much more difficult to achive/retain a common/consistent look for the
>> document series, it creates new accessibility problems when color
>> or shades of grey become significant for understanding the specification.
> That seems like the way to write guidance on the use of color and
> greyscale (and bold/overstrike): it must not be significant for
> understanding the text (or figures).
>
> A figure might use color, but it should be possible for the
> color-blind to get the same meaning from it.  Thus a diagram of -say-
> firewalled red/black networks using red and black as visual cues
> should also have "red"and "black" labels.
>
> The main reason to reject color/greyscale then would be testing:
> testing accessibility may be difficult.  Fully-sighted reviewers might
> not always notice what would be ambiguities to the sight-impaired.  To
> me this is a winning argument.
That's certainly one reason.  I expect there are many more, both
technical and not, to be discussed.  I suggest we hold those thoughts
for now, since color/greyscale are not on the table for discussion at
this point in time, and focus on making sure the rest of the
requirements and arguments are clear in the draft.

-Heather



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list