|
|
|
Web Safe Colors |
|---|
| message from Ray on 21 Jul 2004 |
I want a very light background, and the lightest yellow that is web safe
(FFFFCC) seems a little darker than what I wanted. What would go wrong if I
made the background something like, say, FFFFDD or FFFFEE?
*OR*
What do you think of the colors as is? Any suggestions
www.caveroad.com
|
| Ray replied to Ray on 21 Jul 2004 |
Thank you one and all. I guess it used to be harped on so much that I still
have a little phobia about it. All better now. Thanks again!
Ray
"Ray" <1234raykidd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cdmdil$504$1@forums.macromedia.com...
|
| James Shook replied to Ray on 21 Jul 2004 |
Web-safe colors can be ignored.
In my opinion.
|
| Robert Barnett replied to James Shook on 21 Jul 2004 |
They are also one of the ugliest set of colors I have ever laid my eyes on.
I would hang myself I they were all I could use. Fortunately most people
today have high color displays and as was said you can pretty much ignore
them. If you do see a web safe color you like and can use then go ahead, it
never hurts, if not don't worry about.
Robert
|
| A.H.O. replied to Robert Barnett on 22 Jul 2004 |
havnt ANY of you been reading the thread about outdated browsers? If you had
you would NEVER DREAM of ignoring someone who might not be completely up to
date!
I sincerely hope that no one who has posted any of the above has posted in
that thread...
But, on the other hand....while Im not an expert in the implementation of web
design, I do know that the non "web safe" colors I use in my graphics look
fine. And Im not to worried about the people who do have an outdated browser
or system. If they dont see the same green that I do, would they know the
difference? How do I know I see the same green you do in real life? Everyone
sees colors a bit differently.
|
| Linda R. replied to A.H.O. on 22 Jul 2004 |
Web safe never meant that everyone would see the same colors. It meant
that colors selected from the palette wouldn't dither.
|
| darrel replied to A.H.O. on 22 Jul 2004 |
Haven't YOU paid attention that these are usually accessibility issues?
Whether an image shifts colors to a dithered pallette or not is hardly an
accessibility issue.
Tone down the drama. ;o)
-Darrel
|
| James Shook replied to Robert Barnett on 22 Jul 2004 |
The problem is that they were derived mathematically. So they cover a
reasonable gamut, but the individual colors are simply points on a line
between the vertices of a color cube. This works fine for a
black-to-white gradient, but there are only six other pure gradients
available. Any other gradients that you may try to make are impure since
at least one component (R, G or B) will vary.
Luckily it's a thing of the past.
|
| James Loudon replied to James Shook on 21 Jul 2004 |
Agreed. Use whatever colour you want. There may be a couple of users with
1980's gear still going. Oh well.
|
| raizel replied to James Loudon on 21 Jul 2004 |
Hey, you're picking on my city's public library system <LAUGH> No
kidding, most are still Netscape 4.7! may take another year or two to
get the security iron tight for IE 6 to be spread to all of our
libraries (every library has free internet access for the public. When I
was there yesterday, someone had hacked their way into the network and
brought it down!)
|
| darrel replied to raizel on 22 Jul 2004 |
Ahahahaha! Year or two? How about 'never'?
Why oh why would a library upgrade to IE6 when there's great, lighter
weight, more secure browsers out there?
*sigh*
-Darrel
|
| raizel replied to darrel on 22 Jul 2004 |
Well, you see.... it's not unlike a lot of company networks or some who
did Y2k and figure "what, after ALL that work, I ain't doing no more
upgrades".
Seriously, it's not so much the security of the browser but of the
browser/network together. Maybe their network folks aren't totally
competent or their needs truly are different than a financial
institution, government, or some other type of compute network that
needs the tightest of security. hacking is a frequent problem with them.
|
| Robert Barnett replied to darrel on 22 Jul 2004 |
I don't want to be insensitive. But, the other browsers (Mozilla, Firefox
and Opera) aren't perfect either. They may be more secure, though I am not
fully convinced of that either. I suspect that if more people used them then
we would see more flaws with them in the security department. But, now that
is like writing a virus for the Mac, if you want to cause trouble you don't
aim for a system that has such a small market share.
Anyways there are enough usability issues with the 3 alternatives that I
don't use them even though I had IE with a passion. As a web design I see a
big problem with designing for them and that is again they aren't wide use
like IE.
I just wish Microsoft would start updating IE again and forget about
integrating it in to the OS. If that means they only have to update it ever
decade like they seem to plan for their OS I see that as a big problem. The
web advances at a much faster pace then that. On the plus side of Microsoft
doesn't, then the use of the other browsers will grow. Feature wise IE is
lacking a lot and while they are not critical to viewing web pages they do
make things better for the user which is enough to make people switch, that
is if Microsoft continues to sit on their hands.
Robert
|
| Michael Fesser replied to Robert Barnett on 23 Jul 2004 |
.oO(Robert Barnett)
Of course they all have their bugs and flaws, but they definitely _are_
more secure simply by the fact that they are not part of the operating
system. IE on the other hand will never be secure. Making it an in
integral part of the OS is broken as designed, because now a critical
browser bug may corrupt the entire system. On other platforms with a
stricter separation of operating system and userland applications such
things are (nearly) impossible.
It's not only the market share, it's also the vulnerability of a system.
A default windows system is open to everyone and everything, to make it
worse most users work as root/admin. Lucky days for viruses and worms.
It wouldn't be impossible, but a lot harder on a restricted system.
Examples?
The problem is more how to fix a correct code to show up as intended in
broken IE. Thankfully recent IEs have a nice feature: conditional
comments, so it's possible to easily apply fixes/hacks without affecting
any other browser.
ACK
Yep. Mozilla is ready for CSS 3, while IE doesn't even get CSS 1 right.
Hopefully. The more the better.
Micha
|
| darrel replied to Robert Barnett on 22 Jul 2004 |
Nope. But IE is bad. Plus, Mozilla is updated nightly. There's not even a
hint from MS that they'll ever update IE6 except for the routine security
patches.
What are you talking about? Mozilla is MUCH more standards compliant that
IE. It's much easier to get consistent results with Mozilla, Safari and even
Opera.
They won't. And this is why I wondered why the library wouldn't make the
sensible decision and go with something like Firefox.
-Darrel
|
| Robert Barnett replied to darrel on 22 Jul 2004 |
There is no doubt IE is bad. Worse than the others by far, but that doesn't
mean the others are near perfect either. And, yes Microsoft's attitude
towards updating IE I think could very well be their down fall. They think
that because at this moment in time they have the lead by far that that
won't change no matter what. Unfortunately, the web moves so fast that in no
time IE could be the under dog. That I would like to see. As it is now IE is
definitely showing a little long in tooth, I sweat it ages in dog years.
Yes. Opera and Mozilla are much more standards compliant. But the fact
remains that for now we have to design for IE which makes the standards
compliant browsers a royal pain, it is like designing for NS 4. It just adds
a whole new level of mess to the picture. It is unfortunate and should not
be that way but it is.
The library should, it is free. There are only a few sites that require IE
to work right. Windows Update being one of them. Frankly, I think consumers
got the screws put to them with the governments law suite against Microsoft.
They chickened out and in the end they accomplished nothing at least for the
users of Microsoft's products.
Robert
|
| darrel replied to Robert Barnett on 23 Jul 2004 |
Not at all. The standards compliant browsers are easy to design for. Follow
the standards, and hey! They work!
It's IE that you then need to go back into to add the hacks for.
If you are only designing for IE, then you are not building web pages. You
are building IE pages.
Equally to blame are class action lawyers. ;o)
-Darrel
|
| David B replied to Robert Barnett on 22 Jul 2004 |
That may be true to a point, but I think Microsoft's woes stem from two
major issues:
1. Bill Gates designs crappy software.
2. There's a lot of justifiable hatred for Microsoft, stemming from
issues that range far beyond software.
But, now that
Why are web designers slaves to Microsoft? Why will virtually NO ONE do
so much as inform their clients and visitors that there are other
choices? Is it apathy? Laziness? Political correctness?
My understanding is that Mozilla has already posted a major gain in the
wake of the latest Internet Explorer scare. In absolute terms, it's
still a small player, but that could change very rapidly. It would
change far more rapidly if web designers would help spread the word.
Feature wise IE is
I just learned that the University of Washington's library system is
switching to Linux computers, so I assume they'll be introducing quality
browsers, as well. The news blew me away, because Bill Gates virtually
owns the UW.
|
| James Shook replied to raizel on 21 Jul 2004 |
This has nothing to do with the browser. It's about the color depth of
the display.
|
| raizel replied to James Shook on 22 Jul 2004 |
I know --- forgot to add "oldie" monitors too :(
|
| raizel replied to James Shook on 21 Jul 2004 |
I think it's more important to view PC vs. Mac monitors with your
colours that web safe after all these years :)
|
| darrel replied to raizel on 22 Jul 2004 |
I'd say that it's most important to compare between CRT and LCD displays.
-Darrel
|
| middletree replied to Ray on 21 Jul 2004 |
The colros are fine. Howver, I'm not sure how to go about paying
$1,200,00.00 for a house, or for anything else. You may want to check out
that typo before you find yourself having to sell it for 10% of the desired
value.
"Ray" <1234raykidd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cdmdil$504$1@forums.macromedia.com...
|
| raizel replied to middletree on 21 Jul 2004 |
Hey, maybe the $1.2 million includes a plane to get you to Georgia
<SMILE). Sounds like a very nice home, can it be moved closer to where I
live please (north of the border). i can pay about $1.20 a week for
mortgage....
|
| Ray replied to middletree on 21 Jul 2004 |
Thanks for picking up that typo. Naturally it's not my house. I wish I
*did* have something I could sell for over a million dollars. But, I'm sure
the lady I'm doing the site for would beat anyone about the head and
shoulders with her purse so severely it would become a non-issue real quick
if they tried to suggest buying for that price, my typo notwithstanding.
Thanks for looking at the colors.
Ray
"middletree" <middletree@htomail.com> wrote in message
news:cdmhv1$aib$1@forums.macromedia.com...
|
| VA_Webmaster25 replied to Ray on 23 Jul 2004 |
i encourage the use of black text on white whenever possibkle. bnut if ur going to use that color of text, stick with a background color that provides more contrast to improve readibility
|
| darrel replied to VA_Webmaster25 on 23 Jul 2004 |
That's actually not ideal. A very light grey background on white text is
actually better on the eyes.
Ideally, for text reading online, green or amber text on a black background
works well (remember those old monitors?)
-Darrel
|
| cmbergin replied to darrel on 23 Jul 2004 |
Yeah, but black on white makes more sense to people like me who don't think
about such things. I mean, paper is (generally) white and pens are (generally)
black, and printers do black on white. Therefore, a black on white web page
makes a kind of sense.
Okay, so I'm not a designer. Pure programmer. I'm used to looking at text
that's blue, red, green, black, bold black, and grey, depending on what it
happens to stand for, all on white and all at the same time. Don't think
you'll see any web pages like THAT! ;)
|
| darrel replied to cmbergin on 23 Jul 2004 |
Only if print = the web. Which it doesn't.
;o)
-Darrel
|
| Michael Fesser replied to cmbergin on 24 Jul 2004 |
.oO(cmbergin)
White is by far the brightest "color", it has the the most intensity on
a screen. It's that energy and brightness that strains the eye. To get a
similar effect with paper you would have to read it with a powerful
halogen spot behind it.
On my system for example I have set #FFEEDD instead of the default white
windows backgrounds (another way would be to reduce the brightness or
color temperature of the monitor, which would also save some energy ;).
Micha
|
| Gerry W - for email use my name at dergal dot com replied to Michael Fesser on 25 Jul 2004 |
Also a light (very light) yellow is supposedly very good for dyslexic
readers..
If it is a document library / information site - you could give them the
options via CSS... new browsers (not IE) have the option of giving you
multiple CSS and you can select which one you prefer via the browser
itself, alternatively in IE you can give them some sort of cookie
approach.... Course for most sites that is over kill! Only reccomended
for real text heavy / massive information sites!
G
Michael Fesser wrote:
|
| Gary White replied to darrel on 23 Jul 2004 |
That might be hard to read. ;-) I'm sure you meant black text, although
a dark grey text on a very light grey is also good. I like something
like:
background-color: #f7f7f7;
color: #333;
It looks like black on white, but is not quite as stark and is easier on
the eyes.
Gary
|
| James Shook replied to Gary White on 23 Jul 2004 |
Amazing. I usually end up with those same values, although sometimes I
use #F0F0F0 or #E7E7E7 for the background.
|
| Gary White replied to James Shook on 23 Jul 2004 |
The amazing part is that a non-designer like me would come up with
something remotely close to what someone more artistically inclined,
like you, would. ;-)
Gary
|
| James Shook replied to Gary White on 23 Jul 2004 |
Most graphic design, like any other sort of design, is just applied
common sense. Oops, forget that you read that.
|
| Gary White replied to James Shook on 23 Jul 2004 |
Forget what? :-0
Gary
|
| darrel replied to Gary White on 23 Jul 2004 |
Oops! Yep, meant black text.
-Darrel
|
| Linda R. replied to two can's on 22 Jul 2004 |
Unless your system is set up to display 8 bit or 16 bit color. :-)
|
| seb replied to Linda R. on 22 Jul 2004 |
yeah. I also write poetry for pre-historical people, in case they would
come back trhough a loop hole.
If you use a 8 or 16 bit color monitor, you're either one of these
cro-magnon people, who don't know how to send an email anywyas, or
you're a progammer genius using a home-made computer, and you *know*
that your monitor sucks anyways.
Linda R. wrote:
|
| darrel replied to seb on 22 Jul 2004 |
...or you are using a public computer in a library...
...or you are using a color PDA with 16-bit color...
...or you are in an inner city school where you use whatever computer they
get...
...or you are from a less developed country and are happy to be using any
computer you can get...
Granted, none of these are that critical when we're talking about whether
images dither or not. Just don't assume that everyone that uses older
equipment is an idiot or ludite. ;o)
-Darrel
|
| raizel replied to darrel on 22 Jul 2004 |
Ahem. Some non-profits too are glad to have the Y2K "cast offs" we
wouldn't touch.
|
|
