[rfc-i] Illustrations, graphics, and normative-ness

Larry Masinter masinter at adobe.com
Thu Apr 26 10:30:37 PDT 2012

wcag web content accessibility guidelines ask for textual alternatives to illustrations. please read the guidelines. Do you want to argue that new rfcs not be as accessible as current ones?

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
Cc: rfc-interest <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
Sent: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 17:18:31 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Illustrations, graphics, and normative-ness

On 26 Apr 2012, at 17:05 , Paul Hoffman wrote:

>   Initiator                         Responder
>   -------------------------------------------------------------------
>   HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni  -->
> . . .
>                                <--  HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ]

> I consider that illustration to be normative. If I update the document in the future when there is a non-text graphics format so that this appears with solid lines and arrows, I would expect graphic to be normative.

> Do others agree? Disagree?

We currently have an illustration (to use the term loosely) that anyone with ASCII capability can decipher. If we allow for normative illustrations in one or more image formats without a mandatory ASCII version then we are moving up the system requirements for implementing an RFC significantly. And don't forget: not only the technical system requirements, but also the human system requirements.

I don't think that's a good idea.

But there are many avenues to explore for less normative better looking graphics. See some of my earlier messages.
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120426/f9c137dc/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list