Are web safe colors (cs4) a consideration today ?

Is there any need today to worry about web safe colors for web design ? Do not 99% of people today have high res/high color monitors ?
Tim

I quit worrying about producing sites in Web safe colors years ago.
That said, it's sometimes a quick way of sketching out a rough color story, since the colors are uniformly distributed across the RGB space.

Similar Messages

INDD to PDF: web-safe color palette?

Context: currently, the Google Docs Viewer/Embedder, when used to display a PDF in a browser, heavily downsamples images in the PDF resulting in grisly color changes and posterization. This has been discussed for a long time elsewhere on the web (example) and is something Google might eventually deal with.
I assume Google's intention was to hack down bandwidth usage, which I don't begrudge them, but the results stand out glaringly in an otherwise vibrant WWW. Embedded fonts work fine, and the only other visual/layout errors can be with some more advanced design effects—unless they are flattened down to Acrobat 5 compatibility.
With the nasty color changes, what I believe I'm seeing is a re-processing of the images in the PDF with ye olde web-safe color palette. Or maybe its paleolithic predecessor. FYI the source PDF is unaffected. And FYI, yes, I am aware of many other options for embedding a PDF in a web page; I'd like to try and solve this one.
My thinking is this: if I can output my InDesign file such that images are converted more gracefully to a web-safe palette, and possibly with more satisfactory color dithering, then the results via the Google Docs Viewer/Embedder might be improved, more predictable, good enough for now.
I know how to do this with Photoshop, and I assume it's a Photoshop engine working behind the scenes in/for InDesign when processing images, so I'm hoping this is attainable.
Semi-educated guesses:
That a suitable color profile could be created and selected when outputting either PDF or PS, resulting in 255-color (indexed) RGB images in the final PDF layout.
That the long way is to make alternate versions of each image used in the layout, swap them (such as with relink to file extension, e.g. GIF for TIF), and output a version specifically for embedding.
Thanks in advance for any creative thinking.
Edit: it's looking like the limit is far fewer colors, possibly 16. Gross. But I'm still curious about the possibility of a method for this, as it could have other applications.

After getting both your replies, I went back and experimented some more. I am creating a pdf for a b&w book interior, and it is setup as an ID book, with two files. I was trying to generate the pdf from the book.indb file without the individual book indd files being open. That resulted in the screen in my initial question.
I went back and doubleclicked both of my book indd files and selected both, then generated the pdf from the book.indb file. This time I got the proper choices Document CMYK - U.S. Web Coated ....

Web Safe Colors for iTunes U interface

I am running into problems with changing the look and feel of my iTunes site. When I try to change the color scheme, it is telling my that my color choices are not web safe. I am trying to use color schemes that fall within our university's identity standards. Is there a way around the web safe colors within iTunes U, or am I stuck with what?

There are 2 colors which must be web safe - Section box heading background color and Section box heading text color.
The tools mentioned above can help you find a near match. Photoshop/ImageReady can do this in the color picker if you use the "web safe" colors checkbox.
You can also calculate it based on the fact that the R,G,B values for web safe colors are always based on the values 00,33,66,99,CC,FF. If you have a color, for example #4000D7, you can "round" each value to the nearest match. 40 rounds to 33, 00 rounds to 00, D7 rounds to CC. This means the closest web safe color is #3300CC.
Mac OS X (10.4.6)

OT: Non Web Safe Colors

Hi all and a good Friday morning to you...
How safe are non 'websafe' colors. Newbie question, so bear
with me.
I have a logo that uses the following colors and want to
incorporate them
into the design.
How safe will these colors be?
Do I need to be concerned?
#6ACDFF
#C0EAFF
#F2AF21
#F18F18
B
www.visit-the-coqui.com/
If you are thinking of a vacation to Puerto Rico
http://gadgetgrapevine.blogspot.com
Latest gadget and other news here

I don't think you'll find any disagreement....
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com
- Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go
- DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs,
Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/
- Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"Paul Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:fd0fj0$j7q$[email protected]..
> Web safe is no longer relevant. I'm certain others may
disagree, but
> unless you're marketing or serving a market with
extremely limited
> resources (for the last 10 years), they will at least
have 64k colors
> available to them or, most likely, over 16 million.
>
> Paul Davis
>
http://www.kaosweaver.com/
> Visit us for dozens of useful Dreamweaver Extensions.
>
>
http://www.communitymx.com/
> Partner at Community MX - Extend your knowledge
>
> B wrote:
>> Hi all and a good Friday morning to you...
>>
>> How safe are non 'websafe' colors. Newbie question,
so bear with me.
>>
>> I have a logo that uses the following colors and
want to incorporate them
>> into the design.
>>
>> How safe will these colors be?
>>
>> Do I need to be concerned?
>>
>> #6ACDFF
>> #C0EAFF
>> #F2AF21
>> #F18F18
>>

What are web safe fonts?

I need to find fonts that iweb wont convert into pictures files.

Thanks for the tip about showing which fonts will be converted into an image.
I have the same font on two different pages. On one page I get the symbol that it will be converted to an image and on another page there is no image. I want them both to be converted. Any idea why they would be different?
gbs

Kuler : Are the Colors Web Safe?

I was wondering, are some or all the colors Web Safe?
I am new to Web Design and I'm interested in knowing this question.
You see, I had went to W3C Web Standards. There I noticed that there are very few Web Safe Colors for those whom want to add cool colors to their Website, Background and Headers and the like.
Thank you....

Hi Mooapo,
This website might be useful for getting some background on websafe colors
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/tutorials/web_graphics/consistent-colors-for-your-site-all-you- need-to-know-about-web-safe-colors.html
There are options available in Kuler to limit the palette or websafe colors.
-Dave

Is Kuler color web-safe?

I'm pretty new to this and i love the kuler color palettes, but can they be used for websites? it's been quite a few years since i studied web design and at that time we only used web-safe colors, but i'm thinking computers, monitors, etc. may have advanced dramatically...and it might be fine to use these palettes/colors that are not the "336699" type web-safe ones. Any thoughts?

Wow! The forums are running especially crappy today. That took several minutes and several stop-and-reloads. I guess they're "improving" them again. Adobe must really hate us for freely supplementing their inadequate documentation. Gofigger.
Anyhoo...
Websafe colours are an obsolete term and can be safely ignored. Why they are still included as a feature in a program released in 2008 is a mystery. But I guess we pay for this junk by feature, so the more features, the more value. Nice system.
Programs that support websafe colours are like gas stations that sell coal.

Web-Palette colors

I find that running javadoc in purely default settings generates html with colors that are not web-safe:
You are probably aware that Web Palette/web-safe colors are viewable on nearly all color systems and must be made up of combinations of the hex numbers: 00, 33, 66, 99, CC, FF.
the 'Light Mauve' color : #EEEEFF
and the 'Dark Blue' color: #00008B
are thus not Web Safe.
these would probably be dithered or approximated to one of the Web Palette colors.
This is not really a BIG ISSUE but if the documentation of a java program is to abide by the 'write once, run anywhere' philosophy then perhaps the default javadoc should generate Web Palette colors and sacrifice the aesthetics.
Yours,
Arjun

We deliberated over the colors to use.
When we decided on colors, we first chose web-safe colors, but could
not find any background colors that were visible on both Solaris and
Windows, IE and Netscape, and that were not so strong as to distract
the reader. We ignored other platforms.
We decided to go with background colors that work on those systems,
and let those colors shift to other colors (mostly white) on other
platforms. It was more important that the colors look good on those
systems, than look worse, but be platform-independent, on all systems.
The web-safe palette just doesn't have a light and dark pair of blue
colors. It seems that over time, the web-safe palette will get
larger.
I'm curious, does this decision impact readability on any
particular system that you're aware of?
-Doug Kramer
Javadoc team

Is there a list of web-safe fonts that Captivate 8 will accept or an option to include other web-safe fonts?

The problem I've encountered is that text generated by a variable will only display as a web safe font and not always the same one across machines. Also different developers are seeing different font options. For instance on my machine, Helvetica LT 75 Bold is listed, but no other Helvetica options. Another developer has Helvetica LT 77 Bold Condensed instead.
My questions are:
Is there a list of web-safe fonts that CP8 will use?
Can this list be expanded somehow?
Thank you,
Kelly

Web safe fonts really doesn't have the same meaning as something like web safe colors. While you will generally be OK with selecting a web safe font, it's only web safe in the concept of a font then defaulting to a font on the end users computer that they actually have installed. The default types are serif, sans-serif, and monotype, but then you have more distinct variations which you can see here, CSS Web Safe Fonts.
You'll need to keep in mind that not every person has Arial or Times New Roman installed. Because of this you may have someone that has Helvetica or Times. Both fall under their same respective font families, but will look a little different depending on what the user has installed.

Using only web safe colours speeds up site download

I have found that using the 'web safe' colours facility in the colour picker speeds things up.
In the colour picker switch on it's toolbar and click on the third icon from the left. Then choose the 'web safe colors' from the drop-down-menu, this will only list the colours that can be directly coded in HTML.
Hope his helps.

When you shot the footage, what was the camera set to record? 60p or 60i?
How are you importing the footage into FCP-7?
Did you use some third party conversion software?
Click on a source clip you imported from the camera in the FCP browser, and once selected, type Command + 9 to see the item properties for the clip. Either report those properties, or post a screen shot of them here.
Next, click anywhere on your timeline and type Command + 0 {zero} to see your Sequence Settings. Either report your Sequence Settings or take a screen shot and post that screen shot here.
MtD

How do I export my document in SVG using web safe fonts?

I currently have a document using text and when I try to export, I need this to be showing properly in IE. As per my reading, there is two ways I can do that:
- Export SVG with fonts as outline: this I can't use as the file size is really too large.
- Export SVG with fonts type set to SVG and Subsetting set to None (Use System Fonts). This option would only work if my fonts are web safe fonts like Arial (there are really only 5 true web safe fonts I believe).
When I use the second option, the problem I get is that the font that is put in my resulting svg xml is not really the web safe font. This is what I get out of Illustrator:
<text transform="matrix(1 0 0 1 46 50.0918)" font-family="'ArialMT'" font-size="12">Test SVG</text>
<text transform="matrix(1 0 0 1 58.5 186.5)" font-family="'Arial-BoldMT'" font-size="12">TEST BOLD</text>
There are two things that are weird:
- Why does it use ArialMT when it should be Arial or Arial-BoldMT when it should be Arial with font-weight="bold"?
- Why does it put the font inside single quotes inside the double quotes?
If I manually replace the above by this, it works:
<text transform="matrix(1 0 0 1 46 50.0918)" font-family="arial" font-size="12">Test SVG</text>
<text transform="matrix(1 0 0 1 58.5 186.5)" font-family="arial" font-weight="bold" font-size="12">TEST BOLD</text>
Can someone please help me?
Thanks
Seb

File -> Export -> Masters will get your Original Raw files.
Regards
TD

How are non iWeb sites able to use non "web-safe fonts?

I know there is a list of "x" number of "web-safe fonts" that we should stick to. However, we all see incredible fonts all over the internet on non iWeb sites.
What is it that makes the non-safe fonts work for them. Is there anything we can do to make those fun fonts work for us? I don't have specific examples (sorry). . .just looking for a general answer
Thanks,
roxpat

The type of file compression to use for web pages is dictated by the number of colors required. Since graphics slow down a web site, your mission is to get the best overall appearance, with the smallest file sizes. The most popular forms of graphic compression are .gif and .jpg
.gif files are limited to 256 colors which work very well for non-photo types of graphics (logo's, etc) and .gif also supports transparency, where you can actually make a graphic appear to be 'cut-out' against a different color background. Gradients do not work well with .gif files.
.jpg files are more suitable for photo's due to the thousands or even millions of shades of colors in skin tones, vegetation, whatever. Jpg's do not support transparency or animation.
Photoshop Elements would be a very good program to pick as an overall web and photo retouching program. The "Save For Web" feature is sweet. You can even continue to use iPhoto to manage your photo library and choose a program like Photoshop as an 'External Editor' to actually work on the pictures.
Adobe Illustrator is probably not where you want to start. There is a learning curve to work with shapes (vectors) instead of actual dots on a page, and it's native format is not compatible with any web browsers. It's really not suitable for photo's at all. It is very powerful when working with commercial graphics that need to be sharp at all sizes, but probably more than you want to deal with.

Safe for web changes color

My Prefs' in Photoshop are sRGB since I work for web only. My CS3 color settings are synchronised in Bridge, Europe General Purpose.
When I want to safe an image for web , let's say I filled the whole thing with brown/red #990f27, the color that I see in the SFW-window turns out to be a complete diffrent one*. Ofcourse I can get the right color in the SFW window by chosing the option Use Document Color Profile (the little triangle up in the right corner). The problem sééms solved, but it isn't: the exported file is only the right color in Safari since that browser supports Color Profiles, as only one.
Onliest solution untill now is doing the work in Firweorks, Seems like as if ther are no color profiles there. Seems even like it is making nicer colors... but that's another subject.
sRGB is as far as I know the smallest color profile. Why are then still colors transmitted to others when I save for web??? And how can I avoid this in Photoshop instead of swithing to Fireworks?
*If I measure them with the Digital Color Program that comes standard with Apple, the one in the SFW window is #990F27 and the one in the Photoshop document is #8B382E. But in Photoshop the Color Picker says it is #990F27. Can anyone explain me this?

>> tagged or untagged sRGB, it is the smallest color profile
Simply: sRGB is the target color space on the internet.
>> I believe I finally get it...this is due to Mac and not to Dell...there is no key to solve this by calibration?
Yes, that is the conclusion I came to.
>> So what difference makes the tagging?
Tagging means everything in color-managed applications BECAUSE the color management system reads the embedded profile AND converts it to the Target proofing profile: http://www.gballard.net/psd/cmstheory.html
Again, the problem is Windows Assigns sRGB to untagged color, and Mac Assigns Monitor RGB to untagged color (at least that's how Safari was performing the last time I looked).
For unmanaged applications, we CONVERT to the target color space ICC profile and Save a copy -- that is the best we can do.
Again, Windows Vista Business (Safari color-managed app) here sees ZERO change in the sRGB rollovers on BOTH standard- and wide-gamut LCD screens.
This tells us Windows browsers Assume-Apply-Assign sRGB to untagged color.
Further, I am pretty sure Safari Windows browser is mapping (converting) the sRGB to the monitor profile and displaying sRGB faithfully through Monitor RGB regardless if it is tagged or untagged.
These hi-gamut monitors seem to work fine with sRGB and the internet.
Not to burst your brain, but viewing your untagged hi-gamut Monitor RGB in Windows Safari will be off BECAUSE Windows is Assigning-Assuming-Applying sRGB to it (I think).
You could prove this easily by saving tagged and untagged JPEG versions of Monitor RGB and dragging them into an open Window Safari window and seeing for yourself.
This is not at all as complicated as it reads --- once you understand how ICC profiles work and don't work --- --- that is where I would send you back to review, not trying to figure it until you get the profile issues wired in because then it will only take a minute to identify the problem (and the rocket science is left to the experts).

After much consideration, today I decided to join Adobe Photoshop CC only to discover it is not available to me as my laptop has Windows Vista. What are my options other than having to buy a new computer or an old version like Ps5 or 6?

After much consideration, today I decided to join Adobe Photoshop CC only to discover it is not available to me as my laptop has Windows Vista. What are my options other than having to buy a new computer or an old version like Ps5 or 6?

1-Do some more reading about a Windows "upgrade version" which, according to my experience, does NOT require you to format your drive... it upgrades over what you have, without disturbing installed programs... at least that is what happened the ONE time I installed an upgrade version, so I can't give a 100% assurance it will work that way with your computer... search link for all things Microsoft http://search.microsoft.com/search.aspx?mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US
2-Depending on the hardware you have, you may not be able to run CC programs well, if at all
3-CS6 is 3+ years old and is the ONLY non-CC version still being sold... unless you can find a "legal" CS5 somewhere
Old or Used Software http://www.emsps.com/oldtools/
http://forums.adobe.com/message/1636890 warns about buying from eBay

Non web-safe link colors possible?

The non web-safe link colors I'm trying to use on my website
won't show up in any browser, although the same colors work in
other text on the site. I'm using CSS to create pages, and
everything else works well. The links show up as they would if they
were left undefined (red, blue and purple depending on their
current state). Any ideas?
BTW, I'm a designer who is learning code the hard way...when
problems crop up!
http://www.apafrancis.com/alumni
null

Ken gave you the best direction. Here's a tutorial that will
help:
http://www.projectseven.com/tutorials/css/pseudoclasses/index.htm
Walt
"altview" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:gln8f6$hgu$[email protected]..
> The non web-safe link colors I'm trying to use on my
website won't show up
> in
> any browser, although the same colors work in other text
on the site. I'm
> using
> CSS to create pages, and everything else works well. The
links show up as
> they
> would if they were left undefined (red, blue and purple
depending on their
> current state). Any ideas?
>
> BTW, I'm a designer who is learning code the hard
way...when problems crop
> up!
>
>
http://www.apafrancis.com/alumni
>
http://www.apafrancis.com/alumni
>

Are web safe colors (cs4) a consideration today ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for