|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 34 responses total. |
dang
|
|
response 23 of 34:
| 
May 12 03:00 UTC 1999 |
re: 17-19 no, I meant "psudo dark on light". It's not really dark on
light, because it's not really light, but I'm hoping it's close enough
to light to have sufficient contrast, and close enough to dark that it
doesn't hurt my eyes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 34:
|
May 12 16:59 UTC 1999 |
(...my 'witty' cracks were because there is no such word/prefix 'psudo'...)
|
dang
|
|
response 25 of 34:
|
May 12 19:32 UTC 1999 |
Sorry, pseudo. There's a command on many linux boxes named "sudo" which
is a sort of "Pseudo-su" and hence is a pun, like many unix commands. I
use said command a lot, and it's programmed into my fingers.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 26 of 34:
|
May 19 21:58 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:22 - Fine, then, as many as the human BRAIN can distinguish.
Sheesh. *grin*
|
aruba
|
|
response 27 of 34:
|
May 21 04:23 UTC 1999 |
Ack - the colors look like dark blue on a hatched pattern of
white and blue. I find it very hard to read.
|
dang
|
|
response 28 of 34:
|
May 21 22:59 UTC 1999 |
It's supposed to be dark blue on light blue. Okay, I'll try
again.
|
remmers
|
|
response 29 of 34:
|
May 22 11:29 UTC 1999 |
The hatched pattern suggests that Mark is using 8-bit color depth and
hence 256 colors. When a color can't be rendered precisely using the
available color palette, you often see a hatched pattern like that.
I'd suggest trying out any color scheme using 8-bit color depth to see
how it looks. Combinations that look fine with true color can be awful
at other depths.
(I'll take this opportunity to say again what I've said before, namely
that fairwitness-settable colors are a backtalk misfeature. What looks
fine on one person's browser can be terrible on someone else's.)
|
dang
|
|
response 30 of 34:
|
May 22 16:03 UTC 1999 |
That's not the real problem here. The problem is that what looks fine
to someones eyes looks terrible to someone elses. The
problem is that I can't know which 256 colors they are actually using.
If they only have basic windows and netscape and no background picture,
then there's a good chance netscape (or ie) can put the correct colors
into the 256 color map. Then again, maybe all 256 are used already. On
my solaris box at work, netscape would use a differnt 256
colors from the rest of X. That resulted in some bizarre colors.
I like the color settings. I like having each cf different, and cfs
that still have the default color scheme look wrong to me.
|
janc
|
|
response 31 of 34:
|
May 22 20:11 UTC 1999 |
I like this dark blue on light blue color scheme.
Probably, someday, I'm going to have to invent a way for users to
override fairwitness color schemes.
|
aruba
|
|
response 32 of 34:
|
May 24 19:14 UTC 1999 |
I think I was probably using 256 colors on my parents' machine, that's why I
got the hatched pattern. I had to highlight text in order to be able to read
it.
|
dang
|
|
response 33 of 34:
|
May 25 15:51 UTC 1999 |
Mark: Chances are that the computer can do more than 256 colors, but no
one has set it better. I've always thought that Windows should default
to the highest colordepth that is supported...
|
aruba
|
|
response 34 of 34:
|
May 26 17:40 UTC 1999 |
Well, it's an old 486-33 with a truly sucky video card. When they got it a
couple of years ago I worked on it for a while trying to maximize the video
settings. I don't remember if it could do better than 256 colors, but I do
think it's on the best setting in terms of usability and speed.
|