Inline List and No Wrap problem
in [CSS]
|
Prev: the height of a td
Next: Div inline without float
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 8 Apr 2010 14:30 Gus Richter wrote: > On 4/7/2010 10:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> /* use the similar web-safe color #333 instead */ >> background-color: #303030; >> >> /* add color declaration here, see http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/color >> */ > > Created Date: 2003-07-30 for your W3C ref link. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors#Web-safe_colors> > > Last modified on 30 March 2010 for the Wikipedia link. > > "The use of "web-safe" colors has fallen into practical disuse" > > <http://www.lynda.com/resources/webpalette.aspx> > > "browser-safe colors are [merely] a historical curiosity" If you read CSS 2.1 and WCAG 2.0 you can come to a different conclusion. PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 8 Apr 2010 14:56 Gus Richter wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> /* use the similar web-safe color #333 instead */ >> background-color: #303030; >> >> /* add color declaration here, see http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/color >> */ > > Created Date: 2003-07-30 for your W3C ref link. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors#Web-safe_colors> > > Last modified on 30 March 2010 for the Wikipedia link. You have not read the "W3C ref"erred document, have you? PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: Jonathan N. Little on 8 Apr 2010 15:35 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Gus Richter wrote: >> "browser-safe colors are [merely] a historical curiosity" > > If you read CSS 2.1 Back in the late 90's one could argue that there was still significant number of systems with displays <16-bit color. Not so today, even for cell phones. > and WCAG 2.0 you can come to a different conclusion. Where? All that I can find is that one should have adequate luminosity and chroma contrast with the foreground to background, which is good practice regardless of the color depth. -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
From: Jeff Thies on 8 Apr 2010 20:19 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Gus Richter wrote: > >> On 4/7/2010 10:12 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> /* use the similar web-safe color #333 instead */ >>> background-color: #303030; >>> >>> /* add color declaration here, see http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/color >>> */ >> Created Date: 2003-07-30 for your W3C ref link. >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors#Web-safe_colors> >> >> Last modified on 30 March 2010 for the Wikipedia link. >> >> "The use of "web-safe" colors has fallen into practical disuse" >> >> <http://www.lynda.com/resources/webpalette.aspx> >> >> "browser-safe colors are [merely] a historical curiosity" > > If you read CSS 2.1 and WCAG 2.0 you can come to a different conclusion. How's that? http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ The main point behind web safe colors (8 bit) was to prevent dithering. Font colors and background colors set in CSS have never been dithered in any browser I've seen (in a low color depth monitor), and that goes back a lot of years and a lot of browsers. The problem was always images and graphics, and it's rare today to find 8 bit video. Rare enough that giving an improved visual appearance for the majority trumps the small minority. Being concerned about contrast is another matter. And being concerned about aesthetic choices leads us into basic color theory: http://www.color-wheel-pro.com/color-schemes.html It's not hard to have a site that is both legible and pleasing. But this has little to do with web safe and has more to do with basic design theory. Not that we have had ever had many here that are concerned with aesthetics... Jeff > > > PointedEars
From: Stan Brown on 9 Apr 2010 05:47
Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:30:41 +0200 from Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de>: > > Gus Richter wrote: > > <http://www.lynda.com/resources/webpalette.aspx> > > > > "browser-safe colors are [merely] a historical curiosity" > > If you read CSS 2.1 and WCAG 2.0 you can come to a different conclusion. I don't know about WCAG, but CSS 2.1 is quite old, about a century in Web years. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ validator: http://validator.w3.org/ CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ Why We Won't Help You: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you |