[rfc-i] Two drafts showing the advantage of the new format

Phillip Hallam-Baker phill at hallambaker.com
Wed Aug 16 19:21:50 PDT 2017

If people are colorblind, they are not going to know. So they are only
going to care if someone lets on. Or they don't understand the document.

If Mozilla can't afford a color printer then I will assume that paper is
also scarce.

Since the experimental stylesheet on GitHub produced white text on a white
background on the first two browsers I used, it does not appear that the
ability to print has been of significant concern. As I was merely trying to
produce a pdf, this was rather irritating.

My docs do at least print. So I am ahead of the game.

What I do resent is the unfounded claim that the documents cannot be read
by people who are colorblind. If you look, you will see that the Red and
Green buttons in confirm have 'accept' and 'reject' labels. And Bob who has
left the President's advisory doodah is not just red, he has a great big
cross through him.

The use of color in Figure 7 was an oversight. I had corrected the source
document but had not saved the new SVG version. My tool chain does not
support extraction of SVG images from Visio at the moment (it does support
PNG). The tools are only automatic up to the point of producing the HTML
and XML. I have not got round to integrating the push to the web site.

Given that people like me have had to put up with unreadable crud for
decades and nobody seems to have cared, I find the 'concern' for
accessibility rather suspicious. The W3C has been committed to
accessibility for decades with full time staff. They use color in their
documents to make them *more* accessible.

I was going to fix some bugs tonight but now I am going to add support for
PNGs instead. And I am going to enjoy it.

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>

> Sure. I was just objecting to the "there's an RFC, shut up and change your
> stuff" message.  The reason not to use colour is because of printing and
> colour blind people, not because The RFC Sez.
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
> > On Aug 16, 2017, at 21:20, Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/16/17 8:13 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >> Note that at least one IAB member at the time thought the plan was to
> modify the rfcs in question in light of experience.  I believe said IAB
> member made this point at a plenary.
> >
> >
> > Sure -- my understanding of the plan is to have revised versions of all
> of the documents out now that we've had time to poke at their practical
> impact.  However, unless you've found a way to let my laser printer produce
> colors, and additionally come up with a miracle cure for the red-green
> colorblindness that impacts a non-trivial percentage of the general
> population, it's going to be hard arguing that there's experiential reasons
> to revisit this *specific* requirement.
> >
> > /a
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20170816/84f3bbba/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list