Xref: utzoo comp.cog-eng:635 comp.software-eng:816
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!voder!wlbr!mh
From: mh@wlbr.EATON.COM (Mike Hoegeman)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Colors of traffic signals (Was Re: OPEN LOOK)
Summary: Seeing the forest from the trees.
Message-ID: <23293@wlbr.EATON.COM>
Date: 16 Sep 88 23:55:29 GMT
References: <7099@well.UUCP> <Sep.14.15.47.16.1988.4838@klaatu.rutgers.edu> <8501@smoke.ARPA> <890@arctic.nprdc.arpa>
Reply-To: mh@wlbr.eaton.com.UUCP (Mike Hoegeman)
Organization: Eaton IMSD, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 23

In article <890@arctic.nprdc.arpa> trejo@nprdc.arpa (Leonard J. Trejo) writes:
 >In article <8501@smoke.ARPA> geoffs@brl.arpa (Geoffrey Sauerborn (TANK) <geoffs>) writes:
 >>	RED is safer than BLUE for stops since it can be seen more
 >>easily. (But White is even better than RED for that reason - but that is
 >>why it is used for headlights). 
 
 >This is rubbish.  What is seen most easily depends on many visual
 >factors other than wavelength.  Size, retinal eccentricity,
 >background, adaptation level, and temporal properties are a few of
 >these.  



...more optometrists-on-their-lunch-hour-type talk here....



OH COME ON!! Geoffrey was just trying to make the point that things
like scroll bars are such a basic tool that there is probably some
merit in defining a standard way of operating one. The stoplight
analogy was just poking fun at the original poster's high and mighty
vehemence at someone having the gall to try and make a set of
guidelines for such a thing. Nothing more nothing less.