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

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Jan 18 13:42:40 PST 2013

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.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list