Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

High Definition CSS Color Guide

developer.chrome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: High Definition CSS Color Guide

#31

Post by posterguy »

hwbunny wrote: post #28
klabb3 wrote: post #3

Surprising to see #rrggbbaa to be <1%, when #rrggbb is the most popular. If you’re already used to hex then why switch to eg rgba when you need alpha? I find it quite useful. Maybe it’s recent and less known.

99% of the new css features are not known or just unknown, because it's a hassle to use them. Syntax is just plain braindead. Just look at animations, grid and flexbox. These are supposed to fix lots of CSS2 era problems, and they do so in a mindboggingly shitty way. I mean anyone, who was responsible should be shot. And since it's a standard, it won't change for years to come. So the idiots who established these new…

A bit hyperbolic, no? Do you really find grid that hard to work with?

Re: High Definition CSS Color Guide

#32

Post by Inviz »

posterguy wrote: post #31
hwbunny wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% of the new css features are not known or just unknown, because it's a hassle to use them. Syntax is just plain braindead. Just look at animations, grid and flexbox. These are supposed to fix lots of CSS2 era problems, and they do so in a mindboggingly shitty way. I mean anyone, who was responsible should be shot. And since it's a standard, it won't change for years to come. So the idiots who established these new…

A bit hyperbolic, no? Do you really find grid that hard to work with?

And flexbox? Was floats with all those clearings easier? or inline blocks that made us reset whitespace between elements? Or akhem... tables?

Definitely hyperbole. Syntax is not nearly _the_ problem of CSS

Re: High Definition CSS Color Guide

#33

Post by jameshart »

eviks wrote: post #29
jameshart wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OkLCH is the best version of that. Sure, you have to worry about chroma limits, but they reflect the reality of color differences (blues are never going to be as vivid as greens)

it's similar to all the others: either a non-generally-human-comprehensible notation (how is pure red oklch(62.8% 0.25768330773615683 29.2338851923426) treating you?) or seriously flawed (like HSL)

Are you sure you’re not thinking of okLAB? okLCH is basically HSL, with numbers that are consistent. Not sure why those numbers wouldn’t be human comprehensible. You’ve got a lightness of about 62%, which sounds right - that’s how far between black and white you are at pure red. You have a chroma of 0.25, which you need to understand as being ‘quite high’ (0.33 is about as high as chroma goes), which I appreciate is a thing you have to learn, but it’s not beyond human comprehension. Most importantly if you lower that chroma you get colors that are as red, but less intense - which is what you would expect. And then you have a hue, which is an arbitrary angle. Add 180 to it to get a complement though, or add or subtract 120 to get to green or blue.

Re: High Definition CSS Color Guide

#34

Post by zokier »

pquki4 wrote: post #21

Joke is on them to think I care about any of this when I work on my company-issued ThinkPad T14 with a 45% NTSC screen that maxes out at 300 nits. Realistically, at this time, this is for developers who works on a MacBook and creates web pages for users that use MacBook or iPad Air/Pro. Most Windows laptops under $600 don't even have sRGB, and even some over $1k don't (like my ThinkPad). sRGB is often as good as it g…

I wouldn't call P3 very rare. Thinkpads are available with 100% DCI-P3 OLED displays in addition to 100% sRGB IPS displays. Your company is just cheaping on the configuration. Same goes for Dell XPS line and HP Zbooks, latter which also have P3 IPS display configuration available.

Sure, lots of random corporate office workers might have some crappy bottom of the barrel displays, but then you don't need P3 to see five colors in Excel.

Re: High Definition CSS Color Guide

#35

Post by CharlesW »

hwbunny wrote: post #27

I don't know whether humans or aliens work at the CSS standards bodies, but as time progresses from the advent of the internet the end result gets more and more unusable.

This is important for people who care about color. If you're more of a "sRGB ought to be enough for anybody" person, it will always be there for you.

Re: High Definition CSS Color Guide

#36

Post by brookst »

CharlesW wrote: post #35
hwbunny wrote: post #27

I don't know whether humans or aliens work at the CSS standards bodies, but as time progresses from the advent of the internet the end result gets more and more unusable.

This is important for people who care about color. If you're more of a "sRGB ought to be enough for anybody" person, it will always be there for you.

Blessed are the colorblind, for whom 4 bits/channel is plenty, and color accuracy is a punchline. I’m sorry, normal-visioned person, is this display calibrated so poorly that orange and green are the same color? Welcome to my world.

Re: High Definition CSS Color Guide

#38

Post by CharlesW »

brookst wrote: post #36
CharlesW wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is important for people who care about color. If you're more of a "sRGB ought to be enough for anybody" person, it will always be there for you.

Blessed are the colorblind, for whom 4 bits/channel is plenty, and color accuracy is a punchline. I’m sorry, normal-visioned person, is this display calibrated so poorly that orange and green are the same color? Welcome to my world.

Hello, fellow colorblind person! Certainly, better color expression doesn't hurt us. And depending on the severity of your color deficiency, the wider range of available colors in large-gamut color spaces can enable us to more easily distinguish between colors that might otherwise appear similar or identical in sRGB.

Re: High Definition CSS Color Guide

#39

Post by lexicality »

ape4 wrote: post #37

The article says #rgb is used 25% of the time... but Chrome gives a warning about it

Is your point that people shouldn't be using a standard feature because chrome doesn't like it or that chrome shouldn't be complaining because 25% of all colour declarations use this syntax?

Re: High Definition CSS Color Guide

#40

Post by Uehreka »

lucideer wrote: post #20
seanwilson wrote: post #18

> The following color spaces offer access to larger gamuts than sRGB. The display-p3 color space offers almost twice as many colors as RGB, while Rec2020 offers almost twice as many as display-p3. That's a lot of colors! Are there any stats on how many people have devices that support these color spaces? Guessing you're not going to get a lot of brands picking p3 colors until it's widely supported by devices in gener…

p3 has been the default for Apple desktop & mobile displays since 2017 (iPhone 7 era). Other device manufacturers are more likely to have lagged on that but I would imagine a fair number would have added support since. Also, within CSS & browsers at least, the colours gracefully degrade based on the hardware, so using p3 in a supported browser is not going to look terrible on hardware without p3 support.

> the colours gracefully degrade based on the hardware, so using p3 in a supported browser is not going to look terrible on hardware without p3 support.

I feel like it makes it difficult for a brand to decide to rebrand themselves using P3 colors if it means their brand colors will be wrong on many people’s displays.

Post reply on HN