[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue May 15 15:01:23 PDT 2012

On 2012-05-15 23:52, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I'm not sure people have asked for user-selectable fonts. I *do* see a
>> requirement to select font *sizes*, for accessibility reasons.
> Once the output format is "flexible" or "changeable" or
> "customizable", changing fonts and sizes is a natural consequence.
> That's what happens with HTML and browsers today, it's generally
> considered a Good Thing, ditto for reflowing. The downside is that it
> MAY completely ruin carefully designed and "beautiful" pages that were
> /designed/.

That is true. Is that a problem? If people choose to use an ugly type 
face: their problem.

>> Not sure what you mean by "formatting".
> Justification for example, italics for example, indentation for
> example.

OK. I don't think we have discussed this in detail so far.

>> "Re-flowable text" naturally follows from different device sizes.
> That seems to be the current thinking, how "natural" it is I think
> we could debate, designers certainly would debate it.

Then you may be talking to designers who haven't understood how to 
design for different output devices.

>> Did anybody ask for "artwork that moves"? If so, I missed that.
> Artwork moves when the text reflows, or perhaps the artwork stays put
> while the text "moves" (reflows). That means you can no longer say:
> "...the diagram to the right shows..."

Right now we only have artwork *between* paragraphs. Unless we change 
that, it won't "move".

>> 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.
> Understood.
>> 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").
> By "good design" I am referring to "readability" and "clarity."
> Perhaps these are over-used terms in this context, but I would not
> want to throw out "design intent" in favor of output device
> "flexibility". To put this a different way: I would much rather have
> a more "modern" format that looks good when printed and displays well
> on "large" screens rather than optimizing the output for my iPhone.

I don't think that talking about "iPhone" is helpful here. Being able to 
check a piece of text on a <4inch display is a nice-to-have. I would 
draw the line around 7inch, or even 10inch. What we currently have 
doesn't work well even on 10inch.

> I agree that it is (probably) possible to come up with a source format
> that will satisfy all these requirements, I am just not seeing a lot
> of discussion here about what exactly we want/need and why in terms
> of richer media etc.

Probably because most of us would be completely happy with something 
simple which just isn't as bad as what we have today.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list