General discussion

Locked

Validity of the Web-safe palette

By MaryWeilage Editor ·
In this week's Design and Usability Tactics e-newsletter, the author poses the question: Is the Web-safe palette still valid? He then offers reasons why he thinks it is.

Do you think the Web-safe palette is still valid? Why or why not? Please share your thoughts.

If you aren't already subscribed to the Design and Usability Tactics e-newsletter, visit our e-newsletter subcenter to sign up for this free TechMail today:
http://builder.com.com/techmails.jhtml?repID=u001

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Stop Supporting the Dinosaurs

by Jessica Kelly In reply to Validity of the Web-safe ...

How long are we supposed to be backwards compatable?

Most designers I know will no longer support very old backwards compatability at the end of this year. This includes older versions of browsers as well as the the web safe palette.

Just make sure that critical items are not so close in color that they shift to the same color when a 256 color setting is used and you'll be safe.

Collapse -

No More Dinosaurs

by WebGuyBob In reply to Stop Supporting the Dinos ...

Amen, Jessica!

The vast majority of business and home computers get replaced on an average of every three years. I would imagine that most of those users have become savvy enough by now and have come to understand the 'basics' of system attributes, including adjusting their color, resolution, etc. Why not design to the same technology turnover?

Given the miniscule three percent of 256 color users, I believe it's more than appropriate to design to higher standards and functionality. Sometimes forcing a technology shift amongst tech-minorities is a good thing.

Kind regards,

Bob

Collapse -

No more color limitation needed.

by donald In reply to No More Dinosaurs

The 'web safe' colors are passe'. Where would they be used in today's web site constructed pages when an individual page can host everything from .gifs, .jpegs, vector graphics, and Quicktime and Flash movies along with the 'web safe' pallet? One answer: solid color page element consistency.

A $350 ATI Radeon video card can handle anything that comes down the Internet pipeline. Even cheaper video cards that handle DVD movies can do well enough to reproduce any web originated color.

The 'pallet' is also good for PowerPoint slides because it guarantees a consistency of color from slide to slide. Same with the background color on web pages. I'm not ready to kick the 216 pallet out the door just yet.

Collapse -

3% isn't worth it!

by New Age Designer In reply to No More Dinosaurs

Quite frankly the 3% who are still hanging onto these ancient artifacts that the websafe color palette was meant to take into account are not worth the sacrifice in a designers creativity to accommadate them anymore.

They seriously need to catchup with the rest of the world. As long as we cater to them they won't budge. I figure it's about time we give them a reason to move into the present.

Collapse -

attitude??

by ed.horst In reply to 3% isn't worth it!

To start, I have a decent video card (Matrox G400). But I would not want to be the owner of a web site designed by someone with this kind of an attitude. (Not just N.A.D.). Do you also only code websites to be MS IE compatible? I would think that a web-site owner would want to reach the widest possible customer base, to maximize sales. Too often, I see pages that have more style than actual substance, or the substance takes too long to find/appear. I leave and don't go back.

The object in creating a web page is not to show your creativity (unless it is your own personal web page); it should be to maximize the page owner's business potential. This appears too often to get lost in the process.

Ed

Back to Web Development Forum
5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums