"Please Rate my Design/Schematic"... [RANT]

[pcprogrammer]

1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you do

That nobody tripped on the "men" in this feminist world of today. 

He meant what he said. The gene for red-green colorblindness is on the Y chromosome.

But according to some research I did, it does also affect woman, only far less. ~0.5%.

[tggzzz]

I'm sorry; but if you can't bother to document your circuit, then I can't bother to review it.

The older I get the more I take that attitude. If someone wants or expects me to understand their circuit, then they need to make it easy (i.e. not unnecessarily difficult) for me to understand it.

Extra benefit: making it easy for me to understand probably makes it easier for them to spot the "silly" mistake. That kind of thing occurs in multiple forms, e.g. teaching someone a subject (you realise how little you know), or writing down  the reasons for a decision.

There is no need for language implying bias or prejudice. If the design cannot convey critical information to its target audience due to predictable variation in their printers, their displays, their software, their eyesight or their neurology, then it fails at its purpose. I suggest "malfunctional".

Nicely put. Of course it is a malfunction in the creator, not in the audience

[tggzzz]

In the end, it will appear B/W on paper, screen candy or not.

Ever heard of color printers. 

Yes, of course. I don't have one, and they are relatively expensive to run.

Some colours are more visible on the screen than on the page. Pure yellow is a prime example, with some greens being almost as bad.

Background colours give no information, are expensive to print, and make the foreground less distinct.

How many schematics even do end up on paper these days, with digital distribution to save the planet.

Many, especially when trying to faultfind equipment. It is not easy to annotate a PDF with the voltages at various nodes

Evidence: even though free PDF scans of test equipment are readily available, there is a thriving marketplace in printed manuals.

1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you do

That nobody tripped on the "men" in this feminist world of today. 

"Men" is accurate in this context. ~0.5% of women are colour blind, i.e. men are ~16 times more likely to be colour blind.

But as an argument against using color it is not to valid. The people with troubled color vision will still be able to see something and with the colors chosen carefully they might not even miss that much of the intent

As I was taught at school, the first person to define colour blindness (John Dalton of "atoms" fame) was publically vilified and shamed for a reason he could not understand. His community avoided clothing with bright colours, and everybody was horrified when he gave a red shawl as a present. He thought it was grey.

For other examples including his notebook, see https://blog.scienceandindustrymuseum.org.uk/john-dalton-colour-blindness/

Since when is it "woke" to give serious consideration to the fact that a significant portion of your audience won't be able to correctly perceive color, and therefore that using color is a bad idea?

Calling 8% significant, nah not in my book. >30 or 40% I call significant. Sure it is a lot of people of the world population, but how many of them are in electronics? It is al relative, and it is typical how things always flow into this "woke" debate.

Technical evolution brought us color computers, so why not use them to serve some purpose. Let go of the archaic thoughts of how things used to be.

No, 30% isn't "significant"; that requires >50%. (Yes I realise the stupidity of both statements)

It colour blindness was "archaic", you might have a point. Unfortunately...

[tggzzz]

1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you do

That nobody tripped on the "men" in this feminist world of today. 

He meant what he said. The gene for red-green colorblindness is on the Y chromosome.

But according to some research I did, it does also affect woman, only far less. ~0.5%.

Was your research sufficiently thorough that you noticed that red-green is only one type of colour blindness? There are others.

[Siwastaja]

significant portion of your audience won't be able to correctly perceive color, and therefore that using color is a bad idea?

Using colors is a bad idea? This is one of the most ridiculous discussions in a while. Color is used everywhere; e.g. in traffic lights, pass/fail indicators, reference manuals to find the relevant section. Yes, even safety critical. I'm not surprised at all that in his real-world safety-critical engineering work tszaboo is encouraged to use color coding.

The key to avoid problems with "8% of men" is not to encode critical information with the choice between red and yellowish-green. This is why traffic lights use cyanish green and also the fixed order or lights (red on top). Also, when information is critical do not convey it in only one way. Let the color support comprehension, not to become the sole way of defining things. It's more like a hash - enabling quicker glancing.

[tszaboo]

1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you do

I honestly don't care, and there is nothing you can achieve with this woke crap with me.

Since when is it "woke" to give serious consideration to the fact that a significant portion of your audience won't be able to correctly perceive color, and therefore that using color is a bad idea?

In this instance I think the term "ableist" is perfectly appropriate. If it triggers some reaction in you because it ends in "ist", well, that's strictly your problem, pal.

Well sure, but did that go a little overboard maybe?
Just because some people can't perceive colors correctly means that nobody should use colors? Sorry, but *that* would be BS and yes, could be qualified "woke".
Now if there are alternate ways to enhance your schematics than using colors and you are going to share them (which may not necessarily be the case), then sure, consider that. That's nice. And especially if said schematics become significantly less readable precisely without the help of colors (in which case, you may have another problem anyway).
But otherwise, I'd be almost like, wtf.

Exactly. If you can tell blue and white apart, then what gives you the right to complain about my schematic. Especially since it's an addition of information. And considering that I also have something called "Anomalous Trichromacy", and somehow I can just suck it up without complaining about it all the time. If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.
Next topic is going to be complaining that the used font is too small, think about the visually impaired... The point is always the complaining.

[pcprogrammer]

The point is always the complaining.

We could all be Dutch. Is somewhat of a national sport in the Netherlands. Complaining. 

[davep238]

What would make drawing your schematic with wires easier, is when you use the proper logic symbol for inverters and buffers like the 74125 you used in different forms. (single gate, quad gate) Then you can have the left to right signal flow and place the gate in series with the wires, instead of having to bend around the rectangle with pins on either one or two or even four sides.

This situation seems analogous to comments in source code.  To me, source code and schematics are the implementation of the desired logic.  Source code comments describe the intent.  For schematics, that is in external documentation, like the posts here where I describe the ideas and reasoning behind each part of the schematic.

There is a programming fashion that code should be written in ways that make it self-explanatory, and that comments are unnecessary. While it is true that code should be self-explanatory, it is religious dogma to believe comments are superfluous. Comments are necessary, just as good naming and traditional formatting is necessary - not for the machine but for the humans.

The dual is that schematics should be drawn on a way that makes it easy to read them, using traditional design patterns for components in a subcircuit.

I took some COBOL classes way back in college. COBOL was supposed to be "self-documenting". 

[tggzzz]

What would make drawing your schematic with wires easier, is when you use the proper logic symbol for inverters and buffers like the 74125 you used in different forms. (single gate, quad gate) Then you can have the left to right signal flow and place the gate in series with the wires, instead of having to bend around the rectangle with pins on either one or two or even four sides.

This situation seems analogous to comments in source code.  To me, source code and schematics are the implementation of the desired logic.  Source code comments describe the intent.  For schematics, that is in external documentation, like the posts here where I describe the ideas and reasoning behind each part of the schematic.

There is a programming fashion that code should be written in ways that make it self-explanatory, and that comments are unnecessary. While it is true that code should be self-explanatory, it is religious dogma to believe comments are superfluous. Comments are necessary, just as good naming and traditional formatting is necessary - not for the machine but for the humans.

The dual is that schematics should be drawn on a way that makes it easy to read them, using traditional design patterns for components in a subcircuit.

I took some COBOL classes way back in college. COBOL was supposed to be "self-documenting". 

Some people don't bother to indent code in a traditional style, and use unhelpful function/variable names. I've seen schematics that were equivalent to C code with gotos into the middle of unrelated blocks (and I've seen that too!)

I've never heard of design patterns for COBOL. Then again I only looked at the language when I was in school, and decided to avoid it because after a long time "advanced" notation was introduced: "C+A+B". Writing that as "add a to b giving c" does not make the design clearer.

If you are just spewing out a quick bit of throwaway crap that nobody else will see, then (perhaps) crap formatting isn't something to worry about. If not, then taking pride in what you create is no bad thing.

[tggzzz]

If you can tell blue and white apart, then what gives you the right to complain about my schematic.

Can you explain that in words of one syllable, because that makes no sense to me.

[tszaboo]

If you can tell blue and white apart, then what gives you the right to complain about my schematic.

Can you explain that in words of one syllable, because that makes no sense to me.

Can you read blue text on a white paper?

[tggzzz]

And considering that I also have something called "Anomalous Trichromacy", and somehow I can just suck it up without complaining about it all the time. If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.

Apparently "Anomalous Trichromacy" means "The effects of anomalous trichromatic vision can range from almost normal colour perception to almost total absence of perception of red, green or blue light."
https://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/

So you know don't perceive colours in schematics as other people do, and still make claims about how easy/difficult it is for other people. Hmmm.

Viewing in grayscale is difficult on the screen.

As I've already pointed out, some colours reproduce very differently on screen and paper. It is unclear to me whether you could perceive that; nonetheless it is true.

[tggzzz]

If you can tell blue and white apart, then what gives you the right to complain about my schematic.

Can you explain that in words of one syllable, because that makes no sense to me.

Can you read blue text on a white paper?

The question is about why the bit after the comma follows from the bit before the comma.

And some blues are difficult to perceive on paper or on the screen. If you have defective colour vision, you might not realise that.

[tszaboo]

And considering that I also have something called "Anomalous Trichromacy", and somehow I can just suck it up without complaining about it all the time. If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.

Apparently "Anomalous Trichromacy" means "The effects of anomalous trichromatic vision can range from almost normal colour perception to almost total absence of perception of red, green or blue light."
https://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/

So you know don't perceive colours in schematics as other people do, and still make claims about how easy/difficult it is for other people. Hmmm.

Viewing in grayscale is difficult on the screen.

As I've already pointed out, some colours reproduce very differently on screen and paper. It is unclear to me whether you could perceive that; nonetheless it is true.

I don't make claims on how difficult it is. I am stating that I don't care that it's difficult for you.
Nobody is going to lower the bar for every people to be able to do anything they want. Especially that it will make the life for 99% harder.

[tggzzz]

... I am stating that I don't care that it's difficult for you.
Nobody is going to lower the bar for every people to be able to do anything they want. Especially that it will make the life for 99% harder.

One of the few things I have observed in life is that those who do care about other people tend to attract other people who care. Vice versa is also true. I know which group appears more happy and content.

More than 1% of the people in this thread have stated colour often makes schematics worse.

[reboots]

If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.

Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.

Of course you can keep your schematics however you like. I certainly do. But if you supply this documentation to other people, including claimed enhancements which actually degrade the document for the viewer and prevent critical information from being communicated, they are equally entitled to complain or to reject it entirely.

This is all fun and games between friends. Manufacturers who include colored or rastered information in their datasheets--I've seen this, and you know who you are--deserve marketplace oblivion.

[tggzzz]

If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.

Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.

That has been pointed out to tszaboo several times; either he doesn't believe it or he ignores it. I don't think you will change his mind.

His colour vision defects provide a possible reason he doesn't believe it, but even then the dithering ought to visible.

[tszaboo]

If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.

Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.

Of course you can keep your schematics however you like. I certainly do. But if you supply this documentation to other people, including claimed enhancements which actually degrade the document for the viewer and prevent critical information from being communicated, they are equally entitled to complain or to reject it entirely.

This is all fun and games between friends. Manufacturers who include colored or rastered information in their datasheets--I've seen this, and you know who you are--deserve marketplace oblivion.

Why would anyone use yellow or any other light colors for a schematics?
Do you think that I don't know how colors work?
Is this the argument? Yellow on white is hard to read therefore all colors are bad?
What makes the entire argument retarded ja that the very next thing in the software, PCB layout is going to use 30 different colors for every layer, and nobody is going to complain about that.

[tggzzz]

If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.

Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.

Of course you can keep your schematics however you like. I certainly do. But if you supply this documentation to other people, including claimed enhancements which actually degrade the document for the viewer and prevent critical information from being communicated, they are equally entitled to complain or to reject it entirely.

This is all fun and games between friends. Manufacturers who include colored or rastered information in their datasheets--I've seen this, and you know who you are--deserve marketplace oblivion.

Why would anyone use yellow or any other light colors for a schematics?
Do you think that I don't know how colors work?
Is this the argument? Yellow on white is hard to read therefore all colors are bad?
What makes the entire argument retarded ja that the very next thing in the software, PCB layout is going to use 30 different colors for every layer, and nobody is going to complain about that.

You have told us you cannot perceive colours "normally", so it wouldn't be surprising if you had some difficulty understanding how they work and are perceived.

Apart from that, your statements lead people to believe you don't understand printing.

Look at the example in the first post. Unfortunately that isn't unique, and yellow isn't the only problematic colour.

[Siwastaja]

Look at the example in the first post. Unfortunately that isn't unique, and yellow isn't the only problematic colour.

Which was a made-up strawman intentionally using problematic colors. We came a full circle of strawman after strawman by you using another strawman as your case example without realizing it. Typical tggzzz.

[Siwastaja]

It is interesting how basically every electronics CAD package has used colored texts, lines and boxes by default since 1990's if not even earlier. Like, Altium already in Protel days, and Allegro of course. Every professional schematic describing a product (internal documentation, public PDFs etc.) use these colored Allegro/etc. outputs.

Somehow this has not caused any trouble during last 30 years, but surely we must go back to the 1970's photocopies of hand-drawn schematics without any net labels and endless tight bunch of lines connecting everywhere because they are sooooooo much better because the world was completed in 1970's.

[tszaboo]

If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.

Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.

Of course you can keep your schematics however you like. I certainly do. But if you supply this documentation to other people, including claimed enhancements which actually degrade the document for the viewer and prevent critical information from being communicated, they are equally entitled to complain or to reject it entirely.

This is all fun and games between friends. Manufacturers who include colored or rastered information in their datasheets--I've seen this, and you know who you are--deserve marketplace oblivion.

Why would anyone use yellow or any other light colors for a schematics?
Do you think that I don't know how colors work?
Is this the argument? Yellow on white is hard to read therefore all colors are bad?
What makes the entire argument retarded ja that the very next thing in the software, PCB layout is going to use 30 different colors for every layer, and nobody is going to complain about that.

You have told us you cannot perceive colours "normally", so it wouldn't be surprising if you had some difficulty understanding how they work and are perceived.

Apart from that, your statements lead people to believe you don't understand printing.

Look at the example in the first post. Unfortunately that isn't unique, and yellow isn't the only problematic colour.

I also attended ergonomics class at University where they give you amongst other things what colors to use. But that's fine, I guess in your worldview only lived experience is valid, unimaginable that they actually teach this. Or that someone would actually say things that they have some idea about.

[PlainName]

I fear we are getting too polarized over this, and one extreme is taking issue with the other extreme (and vice versa, of course). My view is that colours shouldn't be necessary - print the schematic in black and white and you've not lost anything. But use of colours can add something, much like datasheets (yes!) use bold and larger fonts for topic heading, table headers, etc. They just make it easier to differentiate important things. Of course, one can go overboard just as one can inappropriately use any tool.

[Analog Kid]

I took some COBOL classes way back in college. COBOL was supposed to be "self-documenting". 

A bit off-topic, but I can't help myself. Somewhat related to this thread.

I not only took COBOL classes, I worked for a short time as a (paid) COBOL programmer.

I'm a defender of that language that is the butt of so many programming jokes.
The people who knock it are, for the most part, not familiar with it at all.
It really is self-documenting. By design.
Grace Hopper knew well what she was doing.

Very easy to maintain because of that. Because you really don't want any fuckups when your program is printing everyone's paychecks.

I'd like to see some young whippersnapper try to write a rock-solid, bulletproof payroll program in Java or PHP or Perl or Snort or Fart or whatever the fuck programming language is currrently in vogue.

[Analog Kid]

It is interesting how basically every electronics CAD package has used colored texts, lines and boxes by default since 1990's if not even earlier.

Dunno anything about CAD packages; never used one.
I do know, though, that other packages that use color sometimes use it in a very suck-y way.
Particularly LTspice. Whoever picked colors for traces had a very poor color sense. Like two blues (or is it greens?) that are so close as to be practically indistinguishable.

Yet more proof of the problematic nature of using colors in computer representation.
Yes, sometimes color can be useful. But it has to be done consciously (and yes, you have to care!), otherwise it can be totally counterproductive.