Informal survey:
How many of you are still designing with the old "web-safe" colors? This came up in a personal discussion the other day, and I'm wondering what the general concensus is.
Calgary Web Design
Submit Your Article
Forum Rules
Informal survey:
How many of you are still designing with the old "web-safe" colors? This came up in a personal discussion the other day, and I'm wondering what the general concensus is.
Calgary Web Design
The old websafe colors controversy. I love throwing this into the mix just for fun... instead of 216 web safe colors, there may be only 22. The Really Safe Palette :)
Death of the Websafe Color Palette?
by David Lehn and Hadley Stern 6 Sep 2000
I also use the 22 Web Safe colors.
According to The Counter (www.thecounter.com), 89% of all surfers coming to their website have a color depth of 65K or better.
The need for web-safe colors has passed.
,dave
P.S. Yes, the colors will look different when displayed on a Mac. But, who cares? Mac's "think different".
There is no point designing for Websafe colors... I haven't done that in the last 3 years.
I try to use the "web-safe" pallette when I can but there are times when you need to match a specific color from a logo or whatever.
The Counter is a great resource. I use them all the time.
Webmonkey has a great tutorial about this topic. It's a little on the technical side but very thorough.
That all being said, the largest group of users out there (according to TheCounter.com) is using monitors with 32-bit color. The next largest group is 16-bit, then 24-bit and 8-bit. If you stick with your basic 216 web-safe colors for most of your design you should be fine. Then if you have a special photo or features of your site that require higher bit depths, go for it as most people will be able to see it as it is intended. The key is to hit the target for as many people as possible.
Also, avoid specifying colors when providing directions to certain things (i.e., don't say something like "click on the green button") as this will make things more complicated not only for users with low-color displays but also your users with vision impairments.
</my 2 cents>
Please Read The Forum Rules on Signatures.
The best test is to set your monitor to 256 colors and then go view your site. You may have some startling discoveries and rethink your statement.Originally Posted by jgoddard
Please Read The Forum Rules on Signatures.
cooper,
Why would I review my site with my computer set to 256 colors when only 2% of visitors to my site have this color depth?
Why not tell me to get rid of colors entirely so as to accomodate those people who are using black & white monitors?
I CAN understand the need to review a site with color depth set to 16 bits. But, not down to 8-bit color.
,dave
If you get 1,000 visitors to your site in a given day/week/month, then 2% is 20 visitors. Who's to say that 1 or more of those 20 visitors wouldn't be a sale or a lead or a potential client to make it worth your time?
I admit that I am guilty of designing for the higher-end systems, but if you have the resources to test for all contingencies, then by all means, do it.
Also keep in mind that some PDA's and cell phones that can view your site may not have all the color capabilities of your desktop/laptop users.
Black and white, or monochromatic monitors are extremely rare for usage on the internet. It's not worth testing for those users in my opinion as that type of user will most likely have another resource available. What is good about testing for 256 colors is being able to see (or not see) how much contrast you have in your designs for certain functional items like navigational text and background colors, form fields and buttons, etc. It's a usability thing. It should be considered especially for anyone that has to design any government web site(s) as he/she will be responsible for section 508 compliance.
Please Read The Forum Rules on Signatures.
On the other hand, it would seem that those 2% would be used to seeing ugly colors on websites they visit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote