From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CFF592F for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:42:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp89.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp89.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.89]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C2AF148 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:42:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B95033B77 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:42:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp65.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (relay.iad3a.rsapps.net [172.27.255.110]) by smtp4.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTPS id B0E4AED2 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:42:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B1AEF6007A; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:42:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: rodolfo@coinkite.com Received: by smtp1.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: rodolfo-AT-coinkite.com) with ESMTPSA id 3CBA860066; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:42:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: rodolfo@coinkite.com Received: from [10.10.0.95] (CPE44d9e70592e4-CM64777d5e0200.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.248.13.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.12); Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:42:21 -0400 From: Rodolfo Novak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-8621B045-2727-4978-91A1-B4366E93985B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:42:13 -0400 Message-Id: <7EA432A9-BF76-4B2A-B664-0F374BD5C18F@coinkite.com> References: <5b787d19.1c69fb81.e0628.771a@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <5b787d19.1c69fb81.e0628.771a@mx.google.com> To: damgaard.martin@gmail.com, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15G77) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:58:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Suggestion for a universal bitcoin value scale X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:42:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail-8621B045-2727-4978-91A1-B4366E93985B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is not a good solution. In UX colors have expected meaning. Red often m= eans error, yellow cation, green possible, etc...=20 Text doesn=E2=80=99t have good legibility in colors, monochrome high contras= t being the best. You will also have issues with colorblind people. Rodolfo=20 =E2=84=9D. > On Aug 18, 2018, at 16:10, Martin Damgaard via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 > Hi bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > Here is my humble attempt to make a contribution to the impressive work th= at you all are doing. > I am unfamiliar with the normal BIP procedures. I have therefore just trie= d to follow the example of BIP 176 by Jimmy Song, in order make something si= milar. I suggest a universal bitcoin value color scale, for tackling the sam= e decimal problem, as identified by the BIP 176 proposal. > I have attached the document in three different formats (*.rtf, *.pdf and *= .docx) as I do not know your preferred format. I hope you will find my sugge= stion useful. > =20 > Thank you and all the best > Martin Damgaard > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail-8621B045-2727-4978-91A1-B4366E93985B Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is not a good solution. In UX colors h= ave expected meaning. Red often means error, yellow cation, green possible, e= tc... 

Text doesn=E2=80=99t have good legibility in c= olors, monochrome high contrast being the best.

You w= ill also have issues with colorblind people.

Rodolfo 

=E2=84=9D.

On Aug 18, 2018, at 16:10= , Martin Damgaard via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
<= br>

Hi bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat= ion.org

Here is my humble= attempt to make a contribution to the impressive work that you all are doin= g.

I am un= familiar with the normal BIP procedures. I have therefore just tried to foll= ow the example of BIP 176 by Jimmy Song, in order make something similar. I s= uggest a universal bitcoin value color scale, for tackling the same decimal p= roblem, as identified by the BIP 176 proposal.

I have attached the document in three di= fferent formats (*.rtf, *.pdf and *.docx) as I do not know your preferred fo= rmat. I hope you will find my suggestion useful.

 

Thank you and all the best

Martin Damgaard

<Unive= rsal bitcoin value color scale.rtf>
<Universal bitcoin value color scale.pdf>
<Universal bitcoin value color scale.doc= x>
_______________= ________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfound= ation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
= --Apple-Mail-8621B045-2727-4978-91A1-B4366E93985B--