[CREATE] Color swatch convertor...
Jon A. Cruz
jon at joncruz.org
Sun Apr 20 02:11:50 PDT 2008
On Apr 19, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Olivier BERTEN wrote:
> I still advocate the optionality of the color space: in palettes
> like that one <http://html-color-codes.com/>, it's obvious that the
> RGB values are chosen for themselves and not for the color they
> represent. It is as useful with any rgb space. It helps you to have
> an idea of the entire field of possible colors with your computer's
> screen. If you "color manage" that palette, it looses any
> interest... Don't forget that many non-professional users won't
> ever publish their work and don't care about other user's screens...
On this point I would have to say the opposite.
To me, and to many others, it is obvious that the intent of someone
choosing numbers is not for the sake of numbers, but to create a
visual effect on his or her monitor, hence is trying to get a
"color". The average person picking colors for a website, for
example, uses a chart such as that *exactly* because they are looking
for a visual color, not just some raw numeric values. To the average
user the color of each swatch is what is important and drives things,
and the number is just the "magic value" they need to type into their
HTML to get the color they are wanting to see.
Most people I am aware of, especially non-professional users, do
publish their work on the web at the least. Or if not then they will
at least try to print things out (otherwise what is the point of
doing it?) I've personally seen them agonize over those colors, and
get bothered when they see their site on a different computer or on
their inkjet printout or the print from kinko's or the local drug
store's one-hour and it does not look "right". Or when they
painstakingly match the text or background color to that in an image,
only to see such things change on different people's computers and no
longer match. Or have things look good on the CRT, but mismatch on an
Remember, if one "color manages" someone's palette to sRGB, then one
gets exactly what the W3C, Microsoft, Apple and others say is the
best compromise, and also what MS Windows has built their entire
display and print system around. So by saying "don't even match what
Microsoft says for you to do" the impression is given that the actual
practice and end user scenarios aren't really understood. You were
aware that Microsoft already "color manages" everything to sRGB, right?
To bring it to the color format draft, the example you point out is
*exactly* the case where one would use
<color name="FFCCCC"><sRGB r="1" g="0.8" b="0.8"/></color>
<color name="FFCC33"><sRGB r="1" g="0.8" b="0.2"/></color>
etc. No need for any explicit color space declaration, just the
*implicit* one that Microsoft and the W3C say to already be using for
all cases like this.
If you happen to know of real-world cases where the assumption of
sRGB would be the *incorrect* thing when no colorspace was explicitly
defined, please get those listed out on the wiki. We really do want
to be sure to cover all those cases, we've just not found any to date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CREATE