"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sat Jan 19 00:51:39 PST 2013
On 2013/01/19 1:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think this was mentioned some weeks ago: if there is useful information in
> greyscale, you are relying on both devices and readers to make the necessary
> distinctions. That would apply particularly if using black and two shades of
> grey to convey information (e.g. which curve on a graph is which). I'm not
> an expert on accessibility, but I do know that in poor light or with aging
> eyes, two shades of grey are problematic. Example attached.
The example indeed shows some of the problems with using gray scale. But:
1) The curves are too close anyway; additional charts with better
resolution/limited cutout,... seems warranted, in particular if the
point of the graphs wasn't just "it's 12 of A and one dozen of B".
2) At least for those with color view, color would have improved these
3) In the end, because some people don't have any eyesight, there has to
be text to explain all the salient details anyway.
>> Heather's (non-technical) justification of this being an added drag on RS staff productivity and therefore wanting to punt for now is far more rational.
> Yes. I don't think we can ask them to figure which uses of colour or
> greyscale are problematic.
I don't mind the production staff taking their time in adopting
color/grayscale/... But I'm quite worried of putting "no color" or "no
grayscale" into the current document, because I don't want to risk it
taking another 10 years to get there. We are already very far behind.
More information about the rfc-interest