takes too long to vote.
Show HN: Colorvote.io – ranking all sRGB web colors by popularity
131–134 of 134 posts
Re: Show HN: Colorvote.io – ranking all sRGB web colors by popularity
#132I wonder how context sensitive these are. Will votes be different depending on pairings?
Now I'm imagining a site where you have a standard format(Like a page with body, borders, headers, links, banners, etc, or just an abstract arrangement of 2-5 colors), and people make pallets and vote on them.
Re: Show HN: Colorvote.io – ranking all sRGB web colors by popularity
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
> random comparison While certainly different individuals are going to vote on colors differently, I doubt that the aggregate results would resemble randomness.
I mean random as in the two colours are selected at random. I think it's not really relevant to select colours in a void. Colours are good for a purpose. This is especially relevant on websites. I love yellow but I would hate it when it's used for text on a white background. Stuff like that.
I certainly agree that context is important when picking a color. I don't think the conclusion is that whatever color is selected the most should be used for everything because it's the most popular. But when presented with two colors the way the site does, there is generally one I prefer over the other. Whether this preference information is actually useful is a whole other question.
Re: Show HN: Colorvote.io – ranking all sRGB web colors by popularity
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
To riff on Hume, all colors are indistinguishable in total darkness. Or to be Wittgensteinian, that’s not how “of different colors” is used in ordinary language. In terms of additive color science, different combinations of RGB (or XYZ) light can produce the same color perception. In part because the human visual system (green cones) has a negative response to a particular frequency band and additive light can’t have…
I'm not sure how any of that contradicts what I said, which is simply that when someone selects one option from among multiple options that they themselves cannot distinguish from one another, that does not constitute explicit rejection of the options which were not selected.
The premises of your position contradict themselves.
The premises that several colors can be different despite humans believing the colors are the same color requires that color is an independent property of external objects.
The premise that voting is a way of studying color requires that color is a property of human perception.
The discipline of color science operates on the second premise because the discipline of color science is scientific.
The first premise has been the road to philosophical skepticism in Western philosophy for more than two millennia.
Although it appears in physics courses everywhere, there is nothing special about the visible spectrum except that it happens to be what we see...which is to say that partitioning the universe into infrared, visible, and ultraviolet is not based on properties independent of humans in the way that mass, force, and frequency are.
Because color only exists in the context of the human visual system from a scientific perspective. Or to put it another way, color is derived from human physiology. And that's why it is scientific to vote on it.
Of course for the same reasons we talk about the sun rising and setting, the tides flowing in and out, and the ancients distinguished between Hesperus and Phospherus, ordinary non-scientific language treats color as a property of things similar to mass because tedious pedants aren't much fun at parties.
In ordinary language it is also the case that choosing a color involves explicit rejection of closely related colors that are a little too warm, I-think-it-will-be-too-dark, or something-a-bit-more-red.
Choosing a color involves high discernment. When you find the right shade of blue, you have condemned all other shades as wrong.
Fortunately, nobody cares.