Re: browser safe colours

Hey, Shelley: ;-)

I feel your pain - and admit I have strayed from that 216 colors myself - 
more than I would like to admit!

At 10:18 AM 10/16/2000 -0700, Shelley Watson wrote:
>Dear Peoples  :)
>
>         I have been pretty much sticking with the so-called
>"browser-safe" colour palette for graphics, backgrounds, font
>colours etc.  It has been my understanding that this is the best
>way to go in order to maintain consistency for cross-platform
>issues.

That is best... but heck sometimes best isn't always as 
fun!  ;-)  Especially if you are like me when on the rare occasion where 
creativity is actually in full swing you don't realize you have strayed 
until it is too late....  :-(

>Have I got my head in a hole in the sand?  I see quite a
>few sites that use colours outside that spectrum and I'm dealing
>with a client who is approaching his web site like it can be
>formatted in Word and coloured in the same manner as a print
>document.

I would think as with many decision you make during the design process that 
you need to review who the target market is for the site and what their 
limitations are.  If they are on higher end systems - sticking to the 
safety pallet may not be as important as if the site was to be viewed by 
mostly .edus.

We include "The Web Wheel" in our client starter kit so that clients are 
aware of the color limitations from the get go.  They are so dazzled by the 
choices they do have (even though 216 doesn't seem like enough to me 
sometimes), by pre-selling the safe pallet and telling clients to advise 
which of /those/ colors they want us to use, from the beginning, it saves 
us having to cover this issue too far into the design cycle.

<http://www.technochallenged.com/216_safe_colors.html>

HTH!
/j

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA