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

#c0ffee is the color

c0ffee.surge.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: #c0ffee is the color

#101

Post by wolco »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #77
Theodores wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but you grew up typing hex codes into a home computer connected to a tape drive. You know what 8192 looks like in binary but everything beyond 65535 you struggle with because you didn't have the registers for that on your 6502A. It probably irritates you to see images scaled to 1000 pixels rather than 1024. What about that jpeg cell that is not 8 pixels square? Think of the computational overhead and the need to…

> I think is important but it seems most front end developers would prefer not to know. This is my experience. There are two types of people in this industry, people who want to make money quick and those who are technologists.

I would be surprised if a frontend developer didn't understand hex coloring.

Re: #c0ffee is the color

#102

Post by madeofpalk »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #77
Theodores wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but you grew up typing hex codes into a home computer connected to a tape drive. You know what 8192 looks like in binary but everything beyond 65535 you struggle with because you didn't have the registers for that on your 6502A. It probably irritates you to see images scaled to 1000 pixels rather than 1024. What about that jpeg cell that is not 8 pixels square? Think of the computational overhead and the need to…

> I think is important but it seems most front end developers would prefer not to know. This is my experience. There are two types of people in this industry, people who want to make money quick and those who are technologists.

Doesn't this apply to all sorts of professions in every industry? It's not a particularly unique insight.

Re: #c0ffee is the color

#103

Post by JoshTriplett »

vegardx wrote: post #94
JoshTriplett wrote: post #14

Nice. One oddity: for some reason, the site's CSS makes text selection highlights invisible. If you select text, the selection looks identical to unselected text, though copy/paste still works. Also, the color boxes appear to be editable text areas: if you click on one, you can backspace or Ctrl-U and the text of the color vanishes, until you hover/unhover it again and the text gets reset (because of the 1337/LEET tr…

They seem to have intentionally done this, by setting ::selection to transparent. I don't understand why some people think this is a good ideal, for colorblind people this is a real nuisance.

For anyone who wants to select and copy text, this is a nuisance as well. (I wanted to quote something from the page in a comment here, for instance.)

Re: #c0ffee is the color

#104

Post by madeofpalk »

hayleox wrote: post #95

SAFEST is a decent green and ACIDIC is a decent red -- probably going to use these instead of #f00 and #0f0 next time I need success/failure color codes for some hastily-made web thing.

flatuicolors.com is in my bookmark bar for good, quick colours.

Re: #c0ffee is the color

#106

Post by zem »

needs a medium-strict mode with a-f, 1 as I and 0 as O only. those two digits seem a lot less of a stretch than the rest of the leet spectrum

Re: #c0ffee is the color

#108

Post by wruza »

LeonM wrote: post #21
nsomaru wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. I've always wanted to parse colours in my head. How do you do that?

These CSS colors consist of 3 bytes in hex, the first gives the red value, second green and the last is blue. So: #FF0000 = 0xFF, 0x00, 0x00, which is pure red #0000FF = 0x00, 0x00, 0xFF, which is pure blue #FF00FF = 0xFF, 0x00, 0xFF, which is red and blue mixed, so it's purple (violet) #FFFFFF = 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, all colors combined is white etc #C0FFEE = 0xC0, 0xFF, 0xEE, so by 'parsing' it in your head yo can see…

Also that it is bright and somewhat unsaturated, because its lowest component is 3/4 of full intensity.

Re: #c0ffee is the color

#109

Post by wruza »

Theodores wrote: post #72
LeonM wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These CSS colors consist of 3 bytes in hex, the first gives the red value, second green and the last is blue. So: #FF0000 = 0xFF, 0x00, 0x00, which is pure red #0000FF = 0x00, 0x00, 0xFF, which is pure blue #FF00FF = 0xFF, 0x00, 0xFF, which is red and blue mixed, so it's purple (violet) #FFFFFF = 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, all colors combined is white etc #C0FFEE = 0xC0, 0xFF, 0xEE, so by 'parsing' it in your head yo can see…

Yes but you grew up typing hex codes into a home computer connected to a tape drive. You know what 8192 looks like in binary but everything beyond 65535 you struggle with because you didn't have the registers for that on your 6502A. It probably irritates you to see images scaled to 1000 pixels rather than 1024. What about that jpeg cell that is not 8 pixels square? Think of the computational overhead and the need to…

Though I can read and even compare hex numbers easily, I'm with you that it would be great to just represent colors in "rgba(75 100 93 80)", i.e. colorspace(percents) format anywhere and to not deal with cryptic strings.

Moreover, RGB isn't great at all. We need "10% lighter than deep purple", not #ec12e4. All the mind-calc is done in these terms anyway.

Re: #c0ffee is the color

#110

Post by wruza »

Nursie wrote: post #100
Theodores wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but you grew up typing hex codes into a home computer connected to a tape drive. You know what 8192 looks like in binary but everything beyond 65535 you struggle with because you didn't have the registers for that on your 6502A. It probably irritates you to see images scaled to 1000 pixels rather than 1024. What about that jpeg cell that is not 8 pixels square? Think of the computational overhead and the need to…

I'm sorry, but if you don't know how to read simple hex numbers for colours, and you're unwilling to learn, you probably shouldn't be in this game. It's like when people complain that they failed to install desktop Linux in the last couple of years - sure in the 90s that was a very valid complaint, and early last decade it was tricksy too. But now? It says more about them.

TBH, in 90s I just pushed disk[ette] into the drive and booted into installer. Today I have to go through all the DVD-ISO-to-USB3-EFI hassle before it even boots. And then it still has no idea of how to install into that single partition that I created.

The fact that users cannot just install the OS and use it after 2+ decades says more about OS, not about users.

Post reply on HN