Simon Nash wrote:
> After printing all of these out on my mono laser printer, I like the
> pale yellow the least of all (it isn't visible).
>
> In order of visibility on my printout, from least visible to most visible:
> C20014 (pale yellow)
> C20006 (pale yellow)
> C20009 (green)
> C20013 (pale grey)
> C20004 (bright yellow)
> C20012 (bright yellow)
> C20011 (orange)
> C20003 (darker grey)
> C80002 (mid blue)
> C20008 (dark blue)
> C80001 (cyan)
> C20007 (cyan)
>
> IMO, the pale yellow and green are too light to be visible easliy, and
> the cyan, dark blue and mid blue are too dark. This leaves pale grey,
> bright yellow, orange and darker grey.
>
> If bright yellow is not acceptable for some reason (not sure why),
How about: hurts my eyes ;-)
Actually, I'm now conditioned to that color so it is not as jarring as
before.
I was looking at MS Word help and they offer the following advice:
"Use a light highlight color if you plan to print the document by using
a monochrome or dot-matrix printer"
-Anish
--
> my alternative choices in order of preference would be pale grey,
> orange and darker grey.
>
> However, I think the current bright yellow colour works better on
> screen and in printouts than any of the other alternatives.
>
> Simon
>
> David Booz wrote:
>> After seeing the gray, I like the pale yellow much better than I did
>> before.
>>
>> Dave Booz
>> STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
>> Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
>> "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
>> Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
>> e-mail:
>>
>> Inactive hide details for Bryan Aupperle---07/01/2009 08:24:39 AM---I
>> should not do these things late in the day... Here are thBryan
>> Aupperle---07/01/2009 08:24:39 AM---I should not do these things late
>> in the day... Here are the attachments
>>
>>
>> From:
>> Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>>
>> To:
>> , ,
>>
>>
>> Date:
>> 07/01/2009 08:24 AM
>>
>> Subject:
>> Re: [sca-bindings] Conformace point highlight color
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I should not do these things late in the day...
>> Here are the attachments
>>
>>
>> Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
>> STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
>>
>>
>> Research Triangle Park, NC
>> +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
>> Internet Address:
>>
>> *Simon Nash <>*
>>
>> 07/01/2009 07:17 AM
>>
>>
>> To
>> Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>> cc
>> ,
>> Subject
>> Re: [sca-bindings] Conformace point highlight color
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bryan,
>> Where is the sample with the two shades of grey?
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> Bryan Aupperle wrote:
>> >
>> > I have added two shades of grey (10% and 20%) to the samples. I agree
>> > with your point about grey working well with color-challenged
>> technology
>> > and people. My only concern about that approach is that this does not
>> > provide any real visual distinction from samples.
>> >
>> > In the C++ and C specs we use italics for text literals and courier
>> for
>> > language constructs (keywords/identifiers), so I would not be thrilled
>> > with the font changes you suggested.
>> >
>> > Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
>> > STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
>> >
>> > Research Triangle Park, NC
>> > +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
>> > Internet Address:
>> >
>> >
>> > *Anish Karmarkar <>*
>> >
>> > 06/26/2009 06:47 PM
>> >
>> > > To
>> > Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>> > cc
>> > ,
>> ,
>> >
>> > Subject
>> > Re: [sca-bindings] Conformace point highlight color
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Bryan,
>> >
>> > Thanks for starting the thread and providing alternatives.
>> > I actually prefer a shade of grey. Is there a good reason not to use
>> > grey? Works well with color-challenged technology and people. We could
>> > even use italics in addition to the grey color. I know in some SCA
>> specs
>> > we have used italics (although not consistently) for attribute/element
>> > names/values, but I would suggest changing that and using courier new
>> > font for those.
>> >
>> > I would also like to start a discussion on the suggestion that Eric
>> had
>> > made: to use a superscript instead of running text for the conformance
>> > item number. It does enhance the readability.
>> >
>> > -Anish
>> > --
>> >
>> > Bryan Aupperle wrote:
>> > >
>> > > There has been some discussion over the past few weeks about the
>> color
>> > > highlighting of the conformance points in several of the TCs. To
>> > > summarize the key points of the discussion:
>> > >
>> > > - Without the highlighting, it is not clear in the PDF version of
>> > > document what the extent of the conformance point text is (it
>> shows up
>> > > with grey shading in Word but this is not carried over to the
>> generated
>> > > PDF). One of the TAB members remarked favorably on the
>> highlighting of
>> > > the Assembly spec in his review of the C++ spec.
>> > > - The current highlight color can make the text hard to read in
>> some
>> > > environments, especially when the highlighted content includes
>> added
>> > > text that is displayed in a different color. This will not be
>> as big a
>> > > concern when we are done working on the documents, but is a
>> problem for
>> > > us in the mean time.
>> > > - The current color is rather intense.
>> > >
>> > > I have prepared a test version of the C spec, which currently
>> does not
>> > > have the highlighting, showing 6 different highlight color
>> options (the
>> > > original yellow, plus 5 others) The best place to look at the
>> samples
>> > > is Appendix F (pages 109-112). Here you can see the colors with
>> and
>> > > without added text in them. I have also converted the sample to
>> PDF to
>> > > show what that would look like (links do not work).
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > I offer this up to start an e-mail discussion about what
>> highlighting
>> > > color people prefer. My preference is the light yellow used for
>> C20006
>> > > and C20014. It shows well but does not seem to clash as badly
>> with red
>> > > marking for added text.
>> > >
>> > > Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
>> > > STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
>> > >
>> > > Research Triangle Park, NC
>> > > +1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
>> > > Internet Address:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
>> that
>> > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> > >
>> _https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php_
>> >
>>
>>
>> [attachment "sca-ccni-1.1-spec-cd03-rev2-test.doc" deleted by David
>> Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM] [attachment
>> "sca-ccni-1.1-spec-cd03-rev2-test.pdf" deleted by David
>> Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM] [attachment
>> "sca-ccni-1.1-spec-cd03-rev2-test-Final.pdf" deleted by David
>> Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM]
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
