SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've my color depth on 65,536 colors...is this OK for doing graphics on?

    I've read 50% of users have 65,536 colors. If I do go for a higher setting (say 16,777,216) will graphics look poor at the 65,536 setting?

    TIA!
    Let's be careful out there!

  2. #2
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    1,483
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not really - you should always stick to the Web-Safe Pallette of colors anyway. If you go down to 65536 once you've made a pic and check what it looks like you should be OK.
    I'm actually browsing at 256 colors for now (not out of choice) and almost all sites look fine - so really as a rule of thumb it should look decent at 256 colors.

  3. #3
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know anyone who browses in 256 colors. With all due respect, there is no reason for web designers to stick to some of those "standards" other than lame tradition.

    I am not saying that we should not try to make our sites look good in the majority of browsers, but at what point do we say "I don't care if the site doesn't look good in Netscape 3.0"?. I check stats on my site and less than 5 percent of my viewers use browsers older than V4. So why should I design for them? Why should I toil and sweat to build a seperate version of my site for people that refuse to upgrade.

    "Why should I get a color TV? Black and white works just fine".

    "Who needs a telephone? I can write letters".

    It's the very same principle. Either someone does not know any better, in which case i feel bad for them. Or they are intentionally NOT upgrading by choice. Either way, we cannot let a miniscule percentage of users hold progress back.

    I recommend that EVERYONE read this article from AListApart.com. It details the designers decision to re-build his site to be totally standards compliant using CSS-1 and CSS-2.
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes

  4. #4
    Irritability Defined
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    80,000 feet below the surface
    Posts
    1,442
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by creole
    I don't know anyone who browses in 256 colors. With all due respect, there is no reason for web designers to stick to some of those "standards" other than lame tradition.

    I am not saying that we should not try to make our sites look good in the majority of browsers, but at what point do we say "I don't care if the site doesn't look good in Netscape 3.0"?. I check stats on my site and less than 5 percent of my viewers use browsers older than V4. So why should I design for them? Why should I toil and sweat to build a seperate version of my site for people that refuse to upgrade.
    Uh uh - you're missing the point (and direction) here. Browsers have absolutely nothing to do with color depth. Your monitor settings and your video card does however.

    People advise using the 216-color palette because at least you're partially guaranteed to have approximately the same color show up. However, even if you use the 216-color palette you may get differences from person to person due to the different settings on the monitor in terms of brightness and contrast. Each person has a slightly different setup and it makes all the difference in the world.

    That's why I've given up on the 216-color palette now. Even at work (supposedly same monitors, same video cards) I found minute differences in shade and color tint when I look at the same image on 35 different computers. I gave up after that
    My 2 Cents (or is that 2.2 Cents including GST?)

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard edshuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    1,200
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In BCs last paragraph, each of the monitors have the RGB just slightly different. ie the way it can be adjusted in Photoshop or other programs that can set the color for photos. At the factory, near the final step, the color is adjusted. And the components can and do drift with aging.

    This may also be caused by a slight difference in chip construction during the manufacturing process. Or a different chip vendor.

    The color safe RGB palatte is a 6 by 6 by 6 Red, Green and Blue combination, resulting in 216. Another 40 colors are programmed into the standard colors of the computer and I am not sure if this is in the bios or OS.

    Colors that do not meet the 256 cause a bit more work for the cpu.

    In Website reviews, where I usually can be found, a frequent problem is not that 216 is not enough but that the use of a particular text with a given background must be selected with care. 216 is often enough, for normal web design. A good rule of thumb is to keep the bgcolor to 3 or less and fonts to 1 or 2.

    The part of the process of color viewing not mentioned is the eye. People have all manner of problems with their eyes and not the least is color blindness. One form of this is a soft red or orange fading into a light green bg.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •