Justifications for Grayscale Graphics

Of the reasons we've heard (or have not heard) to avoid grayscale graphics, here are some justifications:

1. Cost of training:
What does one mean "cost of training" when it comes to grayscale graphics? To train the operator to recognize the differences between the various shades of gray versus red, yellow, green, magenta, etc.? Isn't color recognition automatic for those who aren't color-impaired? In fact, with properly implemented grayscale graphics, color recognition is quicker and lessens the training required. Example: if you were using color-coded process lines in your graphics, you have to train the Operators what each color represents. In time of crisis, this can be confusing. The more colors you use to represent information, the more complicated and confusing things become. With grayscale graphics, colors are only used to indicate abnormal conditions and those colors are universally understood without requiring any training. Example: when you see RED, it usually means a bad thing! Rather, it is more accurate to say that the cost of training is usually associated in training the Operators to use the new operating station and its main interface "wrapper", such as Fix, Honeywell Station, or whatever the other system's main interface is called.

2. Graphics designers lack know-how to use effectively:
This can be overcome by using experienced graphic builders (be it Engineers working with Operators or some combination thereof) who possess some basic or general knowledge and understanding of human-factors design, control room lighting and how they affect the color palette, and color usage in HMI.

3. Graphics are boring to look at:
Yes, they are supposed to be boring. Process/Operating graphics are not web pages or billboards. One precisely points out, "FOCUS ON ME, FOCUS ON THIS", whereas the latter screams out, "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME AS A WHOLE". Same desire from both, to attract, but with totally different intentions. As a simple test, put a "rainbow" graphic side-by-side with an ASM-style grayscale graphic, one looks exciting, one looks boring. Politely ask an Operator to stand 20 feet away (as if he was in the kitchen eating his lunch). Put three points in alarm and ask him which one is easier and quicker to recognize. Now acknowledge the alarms, ask the Operator again which graphic indicates to him there's a problem with his unit or process. You have your answer as to whether boring is such a bad thing after all.

4. Operators set in their ways/Can't get Operator approval:
Get Operators' involvements and buy-ins early on in the layout, approval, and even in the building of the graphics (with training of course) they will use. They ARE the ultimate end customer. Recognizing this will often eliminate or reduce the effect of this issue.

5. Loss of color-coded information (ie: pipes: blue = cold water, red = steam):
If an Operator needs color-coded process lines to tell him whether it is cold water or steam, I'm not sure I want that Operator running my board. The process lines (along with other equipment) on a properly built graphic are usually and should be labelled clearly and legibly, but if it is absolutely necessary to augment with secondary informational cues, try varying the line thickness.

PROPERLY implemented grayscale or ASM-style graphics are superior and have proven to promote operator effectiveness and awareness.

And no, I'm not a member of the ASM Consortium. Just a system integrator.