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

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 ....

  • 4096 Web Smart Color ASE file?

    I am needing to update my swatches to the new "web smart" color palette and didn't want to manually plug and chug my way through all 4096 colors. Does anyone have an ASE file I can download from them or know where a download of this ASE file is being hosted?
    Please, any help with this ASE file containing the 4096 web smart colors is greatly appreciated.
    /kyle

    kyle,
    If this ASE file involves proprietary intellectual property, then no one here can legally give you access to it. If it is freely distributable, then a link to a legitimate source is OK, of course.
    Neil

  • Photoshop CS6 save for web some colors change?

    I have a picture with large area of color: #fffdfd, when I save it for web (jpg) this color is changed to #fefcfd (in JPG).
    I just can not save as JPG with #fffdfd.
    (was trying uncheck convert to sRGB, do not embed color profile - always #fffdfd changes to #fefcfd when save for web)
    However, color #fefcfd when save for web , does not change.
    Why some colors change and some not? Is it a bug ?
    Window7 64bit, Photoshop CS6

    Save for Web & Devices will strip some color data from the file.
    Browsers aren't color managed. Most file formats on browsers assume they're sRGB. While Photoshop gives you an option of embedding sRGB to the document color space, it also strips off data that is not relevant. This is a common occurence.
    PNG-24 on the other hand will give you the exact color match.
    Also, Save for W&D, JPG quality matters a lot - The same color at Quality 10,20,30,40,50...100 wil give you different color reproductions on the JPG end output.
    If you're concerned that much about an offset of +/- 1 hex value to your RGB colorspace, dont save for web & devices. Do a 'Save As' instead. Then use an image editing/ resizing application such as ResizeMe to resize the quality of your document. This, in most cases will retain colorspace information but just drop the resolution and quality of the image - giving you a lesser filesize.
    On a sidenote, You may also want to read this article on how to best manage color spaces: http://viget.com/inspire/the-mysterious-save-for-web-color-shift

  • Problem Converting 8-Bit Palette Color Tiff Document

    I have an 8-bit, palette color tiff file that I am trying to convert to PDF with Adobe Acrobat.  However, when I convert the file the palette color pages come out entirely black.  The tiff file looks just fine in Microsoft Office Document Imaging.  Does Acrobat support the conversion of palette color tiffs or am I doing something wrong in either Acrobat or in creating the original tiff file?

    Here's how I turn ARGB to RGB - should point you in the right direction
    public static BufferedImage stripAlpha(BufferedImage image){
         try{
         BufferedImage raw_image=image;
         image = new BufferedImage(raw_image.getWidth(), raw_image.getHeight(), BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_RGB); //CHANGE THIS TO TYPE YOU NEED
         ColorConvertOp xformOp=new ColorConvertOp(null);
         xformOp.filter(raw_image, image);
         }catch(Exception e){
         LogWriter.writeLog("Exception "+e+" removing alpha from JPEG image");
         return image;
    }

  • Have 'Web Named Colors' as default?

    When opening GL CS2 the default color select is 'Recent Colors' when I click on a color well, is it possible to set that default to be 'Web Named Colors' instead?
    Thanks.

    anymore comments on this guys ??? I just need to know if this is normal or is there something I am doing incorrectly. Many thanks in advance.

  • 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.

  • 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)  

  • Publishing iCal group to web WITH colors

    Here is my problem. I can publish my iCal group to the web and view the group calendars just fine, but the colors do not show up in web view like they do in the application.
    What am I doing wrong, or is there a solution?
    Thanks!

    Johnny,
    There is nothing that you are doing wrong.
    What you are observing is simply a limitation of the publish feature.
    You may want to provide Apple - iCal - Feedback.

  • LR4 Flash Web Gallery Color Problems

    The color space on the selected images appears to be changing when I use the Lightroom flash gallery in the web module of LR4.1. This stays the same when the gallery is uploaded. In previous version of LR I have seen color changes in the web module but they have been corrected (and correct) when the gallery is uploaded to the 'net.
    I have read that this was (previously) a problem with the flash gallery specifically becuase it was not colour magaded, but I understood that this had been corrected for LR4. As far as my use is concerned it's actually more problematic now than it has been previously.
    Can anyone offer a solution?
    Thanks for any suggestions.
    Stephen 

    I have windows 7 and monitor with a calibrated profile. LR4 flash gallery's displayed are color correct, but the same gallery displayed on a uncalibrated (wide gamut) monitor shows saturated colors. Check your color management in windows 7 if a profile is associated with your monitor. The best color managed web browser for windows is safari for windows next is firefox see also this website http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html

  • LR Flash Web Gallery Colors are too "rich"

    Hello everybody,
    I am not even sure anymore that this is a LR only question, I apologize, but I encounter my problem while using LR.
    If I create a Flash LR Web Gallery, the colors of the pictures are way off when viewed in the browser. They are too warm and very saturated.
    First I suspected my browser, but it color managed (Firefox). If I go and open a single image directly in ~/bin/images/large with the same browser, I get what I expect (and what I see in LR).
    But if I run the flash presentation, I get the overdone colors.
    Can anyone help with a hint?
    Thanxx, Peter

    No, because LR's Web module is currently based on ActionScript 2, so no 3rd party Flash web engines are colour managed.
    If you have some skills with Flash, SlideShowPro for Flash is one option. Coupled with their Director content management system, which comes with a LR export plug-in, you can have a smooth workflow and colour managed Flash output. Of course, remember that your visitors must also have Flash Player version 10, and most still don't.
    John

  • LR Web Module color management problem

    I stumbled on to this discussion thread:
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/3572174#3572174
    initiated by “JimmysPhoto” because I have observed the same LR Web Module problem with images too saturated too much contrast and clipped highlights & shadows. Please note that this is not a settle difference, it’s a major change in the look of the image. I have a calibrated monitor using Spyder3 Elite. All other LR modules display the images exactly as I see in Development Module.
    I did a test by exporting an image from the Dev Module to a file using the LR “Export “ function (from RAW to JPEG using sRBG color space) to a Windows file. When I display the image with the Windows Live Photo Gallery Viewer the image looks exactly the same as in the LR Dev module. However, opening this same image with IE-9 I get the same oversaturated look I see in the Web Module.
    Because I use the LR Web Module to push photo galleries to my website host server I end up with images that do not look the way I processed them in LR – which is a serious issue for me. Was there any resolution to “JimmysPhoto” problems that I could benefit from?
    I use Win7 64bit, LR 3.X and a high quality Dell U2410 display.

    It's very strange that both IE9 and Chrome browsers go to the trouble of doing colour management, but both do it wrong - in different ways!
    To colour-manage an image for display, you have to:
    Figure out the profile of the image (often embedded in the image, or if none probably assume sRGB unless you know the image colour space by some other means)
    Figure out the profile of the monitor (Windows will tell you that, if the monitor has a profile, otherwise you can't colour manage)
    Using the two profiles, convert the image from the image colour space , via a Profile Connection Space (typically CIELAB (L*a*b*) or CIEXYZ), into the monitor's colour space.
    The hard work is 3; finding out the profiles is easy.
    IE9 does 1 and 3 but not 2.  It goes to all the trouble of colour space conversion (step 3), but doesn't bother to look up the monitor profile.  It assumes sRGB, which will be approximately right for most monitors, but never exactly right, and hopelessly wrong for wide gamut monitors.
    Chrome does 2 and 3 but not 1.  It goes to all the trouble of color space conversion, but doesn't bother to look up the image profile, assuming all images to be sRGB!
    Why do the hard bit, but make a pig's ear of the easy bit?

  • Save For Web Saturates Colors

    Hello,
    I've dealt with this before and searched the internet for a solution/fix, but still have the problem of JPG images appearing over-saturated when viewing them in a web browser compared to the way they look in PS CS4 or in the windows "preview" application.
    Here's the workflow:
    Work with an image in PS CS4 (Vista) with an assigned color profile of sRGB. Use the "save for web" dialog to create a JPG (with the "convert to sRGB" box checked). View the image in Windows by right-clicking and selecting "preview," and it looks fine (looks same as it does within PS). View the same image using Firefox 3 or Internet Explorer 7, and it appears oversaturated (mosty too reddish) as compared to the original.
    I've tried various permutations to the above (e.g., turning off "convert to sRGB") with no avail. However, if I convert to LAB color, and then save for web, the resulting image appears less saturated overall, even though it still appears more saturated as viewed in a web browser as compared to PS/Windows-preview.
    Does anyone have any further suggestions to get the images to appear the same in a browser as they do in PS or in the Windows Photo Gallery (preview)?
    thanks,
    JP

    Silkrooster wrote:
    What happens if you use save as? I believe that save for web does not save the color profile therefore firefox or IE might assume a different profile thus over saturated images. I have read someplace that firefox uses color profiles but I am not sure about IE.
    Firefox is not colour managed by default. It has to be enabled by the user.

  • Web report colors

    Hi
    Any one can tell me how to change the colors of web report.
    I searched forums but I dint get relevant answer.
    thnaks in advance
    Nikitha

    Hi Nikitha,
    If you want to change the chart color do the following.
    Right click on chart ->select Edit Chart->Select ur chart->Click Next 2 times->You can see all series->here you can give individual colors to each series.
    Hope it will work...!!
    Assign points pls.......
    Best Regards,
    SG

  • Photoshop CS4 Save for Web JPEG Colors are Off

    Ok, I've scoured the web to see about finding a solution for this and tried every possible option and still I'm coming up empty handed. I have a website that I'm developing for a painter and have an image converted to sRGB, and the colors are where I want them to be. I use Save for Web, and every iteration suggested online for the, embed and don't embed, convert to sRGB and dont' covert, use document color profile, use windows, yada yada. Here's a recent example:
    when i preview the image with Firefox, here's the difference:
    The photoshop version is on the left and is the color that I want/need. The image on the right is firefox and saturated. If I save for web with embedded profile, safari is accurate, whereas firefox is saturated, so it's obviously discarding the icc and using some color space that I can't see in my file. I did notice that if I have my Custom, Proof and select Monitor RGB, then I can see what firefox will ultimately display and also what Safari will display if i have Embed ICC Profile unchecked in the save for web dialogue box.
    I know that CS2 and CS3 were easier and less squirrely with color managing web files, but I think CS4 has some juju under the hood. Am I the only one out there frustrated, or like other web developers just accept the inaccuracy and move on? Since this is fine art, I'm doing my best to dial the color in, but it's been all afternoon beating on this.
    Any ideas, I'm ready to install CS3 and see if my life will be easier, but I'm wondering if having Photoshop CS3 and CS4 will cause any issues.

    >> your logic
    That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.
    The OP wrote he doesn't want or need to discuss the pros and cons of embedding profiles in Web images, but for the sake of anyone else reading this:
    1) Embedded ICC Profiles increase file sizes (about 4K per image).
    a) I may have over 100 thumbnails and dozens of photos on one page,
    b) Plus, I may have an image sliced into many pieces.
    c) That additional 4k per image, per slice, will add up fast and may kill dial-up traffic.
    2) Very few computers use color-managed web browsers or calibrated monitors anyway, and
    3) Problems with matching/blending image's edges or background color with a filled box or page color.
    d) If I tag the image — on Mac colormanaged browsers — the color will mismatch the box/page color on managed browsers because the tagged image is being Converted to MonitorRGB, and the untagged page or box color is having MonitorRGB Applied.
    e) This matching or blending a pixel-based graphic to page color is a pretty big deal to do correctly in professional web publishing.
    f) If I publish untagged sRGB images/graphics, the box/page color will match the images and blend correctly in all browsers.
    I WILL QUALIFY my general recommendation about embedding profiles in pixel-based web images for the following reasons:
    1) You are posting fine-art images, creative portfolios, and are not worried about adding 4K additional data per image, per slice.
    2) You are not worried about having Mac visitors seeing graphic blends or photos mismatched to a background color.
    3) You understand only properly-profiled monitors and color-managed web browsers will benefit from your embedded profile — and it is likely 99% of web surfers don't have either — however, if you are targeting the one percent who do, then there is your number one best reason for tagging web photos with embedded profiles.

Maybe you are looking for