From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 20 18:29:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B71F16A400 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:29:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from mh2.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F1043D4C for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:29:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh2.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k3KITNnn028986; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:29:23 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <4447D2F7.1070408@centtech.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:29:11 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060402) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bv@wjv.com References: <20060420035530.F1A5A16A4E0@hub.freebsd.org> <20060420132543.GB37150@wjv.com> In-Reply-To: <20060420132543.GB37150@wjv.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1409/Wed Apr 19 16:02:41 2006 on mh2.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:29:25 -0000 Bill Vermillion wrote: > While stranded on the shoulder of the Information > Superhiway and trying to flag down some passing bytes > freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org said "Bits don't fail me now", > and continued with: > >> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:03:57 -0400 >> From: "Coleman Kane" >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fancy rc startup style RFC > >> On 4/19/06, Mike Meyer wrote: > >>> In >>> <346a80220604190900i3bfc3b54v93a4c6c30f0dfc4f@mail.gmail.com>, >>> Coleman Kane typed: > >>>> On 4/19/06, Mike Meyer >>>> >>>> How about we all discuss good choices for "default" colors? > >>> Depends on the goal: do you want the default to work for >>> everyone, or do you want the default to be prettier and/or >>> better for most people but absolutely suck for a few? > >> I was thinking perhaps of having a predefined set of templates >> (with the option and documentation to add your own). Perhaps >> implement one that creates the "traffic-light" style that seems >> to make intuitive sense to many americans (Bold Red: error, Bold >> Green: Success, Bold Yellow: warning/notice), and also have >> another perdefined one that uses a different color set. > > "Traffic-light" style is also designed to be useable by completely > color-blind people - which is rare. By that if you notice traffic > lights are always in the same order, green, yellow, red so that all > you have to do is be able to see the luminance value in the > abscence of any chroma information.. > > That's the problem with web-sites which depend on chroma value, and > often have colors which are easily discernable by normally sighted > people, but the luminance is very close which can make things > almost invisible. > > I have a noticed a traffic-sign problem which another person also > wrote to the local newspaper - and the traffic division is looking > to change the signs. > > In Florida bright days are indeed very bright. There are signs > that use lights to spell out the message with what someone feels > the most important part in 'red'. The signs have a black > background. > > On a bright day I see "NO TURN ON " or "TO PEDS" as > the word RED in the first message is invisible to me, and > the YIELD in the second has the same effect. > > There is also a sign that I came up to that used the universal > sign for turn. I started to turn and my wife had me stop because > the circle with bar through it was in RED and I could not see it. > > On overcast days or at night these signs are easily viewable. > > For those of you who remember the late 1980s when IBM came out with > OS/2 and MS came out with a new Windows, the complaints were the > default screens on OS/2 were drab while the Windows had bright > colors. IBM is very good at designing things for people with > disabilites and the OS/2 default screen was designed to be readable > by someone with total color-blindness - which as I said is rare. > > The way to check if a web-site is readable by all it to use > a monochrome monitor [ exceedingly hard to find nowdays ], and > at least some government sites are now required to be that way. > > Color can be a great way to emphasize items >IF< the chroma > and luminance values are carefully chosen. If not you can take > away a lot of functionality. Bill - thanks for all the info here. I feel it's important for this to work for users with all kinds of vision differences, so can you confirm (or not) whether the b/w version (rc_fancy="YES", but rc_fancy_color="NO") looks readable to you? (please use patch 7) Thanks! Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------