From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2002-12-17T00:57:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Toward ruby-lang.org renewal; trial website offered

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lyle Johnson" <lyle@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: Toward ruby-lang.org renewal; trial website offered


> Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> 
> > I see no need to choose colors based on readability
> > by such a small percentage of the population.
> 
> Your response makes color-blind Rubyists (like me) so angry that we're 
> seeing red.
> 
> Well, I *guess* it's red.

:)

OK, I am not opposed to accessibility for
color-blind people. I just like to see it
kept on the browser side.

I don't know much about CSS, but someone
indicated that it should be easy to make
the colors adjustable on the client side.

And if proper web design can facilitate 
that kind of thing, then so be it.

I just don't want to see a lowest-common-
denominator web or even move in that
direction. That is as bad as the opposite
extreme, in which every page is marked 
with "Best viewed with XYZ browser." A 
monochromatic web? "Shades of Grey" like
the Billy Joel song? No, thanks. That would
make the other 91.5% of us effectively 
color-blind as well.

But now I'm just ranting pointlessly, and
I will shut up. I'm not color-blind, and 
I'm not the designer of ruby-lang.org, so
it is really none of my business. 

And it's certainly not a significant issue
for me. I just happen to like colors. And 
rubies are red, so the association is natural.

FWIW, if rubyhacker.com is considered 
unreadable by Lyle or Guy or others, I will
change it. I don't use CSS at all, but I 
suppose I could/should.

Cheers,
Hal