[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.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list