Re: web safe background

Tim,

Personally, I don't believe in a "web-safe pallette" but others do. In
today's age where it's very much common to find 800x600 or larger screen
resolutions and 24-bit color depths, I build my pages so they look good,
using the colors I want. If the colors dither for someone using an older
system, such is life. Maybe it'll encourage the user to spend a little bit
of cash on a better monitor or video card rather than on a bunch of
soft-drink, snacky-cakes or whatever else they spend their money on. Maybe
not. But that's THEIR problem, not mine. Sure, it's a cavalier attitude, but
so long as my CLIENT is happy with the results of their site, the "rules"
and "theories" for proper web design and coloring can be thrown out the
window. That doesn't mean I don't TRY to make the experience enjoyable for
less-capable browsers and systems, but they're not my highest priority,
either.

Regarding your response to me, however, my post was based on YOUR comment:
"If it dithers in two browsers on your system, then why do you refer to it
as a web safe colour?" -- that comment implies that you weren't certain of
the color being referenced as being truly "web-safe" so I pointed how the
theory behind what is considered web safe. It was not a personal attack on
you, regardless of how you took it. I'm sorry if you were offended by it.

Kehvan

----- Original Message -----
From: "tim booker" <timbooker(at)btinternet.com>
To: "'Kehvan M. Zydhek'" <kehvan(at)zydhek.net>; "'Peter Anderson'"
<peter(at)launch-pad.com>; <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 15:33
Subject: RE: web safe background


| Yes, thank you.  I am well versed in the myth of the web safe pallette.
|
|
|
| www.timbooker.com

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA