Return to | COLORING Index | or | Color Newsgroup discussion |

In article , feldman@crd.ge.com
says (in part) ...
>(I)s there any reason why the group couldn't be
>named sci.color (much as we currently have sci.optics)? There hasn't
>been any opposition to having color under the broad category of
>"science".  The debate seems to hinge solely on whether or not we desire
>a strict interpretation of the word engineering.
>
>Sandy Feldman

I have to agree with Sandy Feldman here, but I'd also like to preface my
remarks with the statement that I support the long overdue formation of a
group focused on color, and support it in the strongest possible terms.

I'd like to venture two comments on this subject from my perspective as a
chemical physicist teaching conservation science to graduate students
studying the preservation and conservation of books, works of art on
paper, etc.  Color is of course one of the major topics, being touched
upon repeatedly throughout the two-semester sequence in any number of
contexts.

Both of my comments are based on the following passage in the charter,
which sets very broad bounds for the scope of the proposed newsgroup:

>sci.engr.color is intended to serve people with technical interests
>in color and the coloring of materials. Though 'color engineering'
>is not claimed by any specialty, it is a convenient term that does
>not exclude specialists from the diverse backgrounds that serve the
>art, science, and industry of coloring.
>
>Everything we see around us was colored by nature, or by coloring
>specialists. This multi-disciplinary field includes
>
>    *   educators;
>    *   artists, art conservators and restorers;
>    *   colorists, color technologists, scientists, engineers,
>        mathematicians,
>    *   chemists and spectroscopists;
>    *   designers, stylists, advertisers, psychologists and
>        philosophers; and
>    *   workers in the pigment, dye, paint, plastics, textile, and
>        color and appearance instrument industries.

1)  I believe that this group's scope, as described in the above quote
from the proposed charter is far broader than "color engineering," which,
if we're honest, does _not_ include most of the above groups in more than
a tiny fraction of Usenet readers' minds, including the minds of most of
those described in the passage itself.  Placing this group in the
'sci.engr.*' hierarchy effectively consigns most of the individuals
described in the charter to the role of lurkers, perhaps timidly tossing
out a question occasionally for consideration by the "experts."  I'll
grant you that there is no mechanism that enforces this behavior, but my
experience with other news groups has convinced me that this is definitely
the end result that will evolve, especially if the charter and the FAQ are
not kept prominently posted at the beginning of the posts while the other
posts cycle through.  Let's face the facts:  the majority of the intended
audience will mostly never waste their time even browsing a group in the
'sci.engr' hierarchy.  Perhaps we need 'sci.color.general' and
'sci.color.color-engineering' in order to have a venue less intimidating
to those who are covered by most of the charter as presently written.

2)  I _do_ support starting over with an RFD to establish this group as
'sci.color' because "color" is a field that is so far-reaching.  Groups
like this proposed group that reach into  many different scientific
disciplines, belong in one of two places:
    a) If the group is of sufficiently broad interest, it belongs
       in the 'sci.* hierarchy;'
    b) if the group is of less broad appeal, it belongs in the
       (as yet nonexistent) 'sci.multidisciplinary.* hierarchy.'
In this case, I believe that 'sci.color' is more appropriate.  This would
make it more likely that in future years, subgroups will form under
sci.color (e.g. sci.color.color-engineering, sci.color.conservation,
sci.color.psychology, sci.color.art, sci.color.general) when the Usenet
traffic eventually gets heavier and the group inevitably gets split. Let's
be realistic and plan for a future in which Usenet traffic will be at
least twenty-fold greater than it is presently.  If we start out in
''sci.engr.color,' then these other groups will form scattered throughout
the Usenet hierarchies, making cross-discussion among them less likely.

Let me close by applauding Bill Dawes and Jim Jewitt for taking on this
essential project, but also by begging them to use foresight and withdraw
the present proposal (is this possible?) and begin again in the more
appropriate venue  - 'sci.color.'  I request this not because of the
ridiculous protests of the defenders of engineering as a profession, but
instead as a service to the intended audience of this newsgroup.

If the proposal cannot be withdrawn, let me ask all readers of this post
who care about this group to vote down the current proposal in order that
we can begin again in a more appropriate part of the Usenet hierarchy.
I would hope that Bill Dawes and Jim Jewitt would not be so discouraged by
the rejection that they would hesitate to start over on a 'sci.color.*'
hierarchy wherein can be found all the groups dedicated to the study of
color in its many applications.

Hal Erickson, erickson@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu
Center for Statistical Mechanics; Dept. of Physics
University of Texas at Austin Preservation and Conservation Studies

Return to | COLORING Index | or | Color Newsgroup discussion |

Created November 20, 1995