|
|
|
|
|
|
by popcorncowboy
1519 days ago
|
|
|
Oh I get the crusade, it's a noble one. I even support it. But you're conflating your "important to me" definition with my "actually important out in the real world". Browser vendors haven't bothered to "fix" this for a fifth of a century. Which makes this the definition of an ivory tower "problem". If it moved the needle in the real world even a little, it would have been changed long ago. And maybe it will one day, we live in hope. But the airquotes around "fix" are precisely because it's not "broken", it's simply "how it's implemented". Plan accordingly. > ...we stopped using real images prepared by real graphic designers ...allowing developers with bland toolkits based on "flat design" to do styling work instead of hiring experts. Yeah that's a separate issue and rings of No True Scotsman-ism. > What you can't seriously dispute is that those new techniques render really badly in some or all of the major browsers and now many sites look bad unnecessarily and some become harder to use as well. Pretty sure that is disputable. "Many sites" do look bad, but if you're claiming this is because of browser sRGB colour handling then you're gonna have to cite a source or do more than claim the high ground. |
|
|
I do. When I'm building web stuff professionally, there's a laundry list of CSS features (often quite basic ones) that it would be very convenient to use but I often don't because I know they will look terrible in production for a significant proportion of users. But that's unfortunate.
Yeah that's a separate issue and rings of No True Scotsman-ism.
Separate perhaps but I don't see how Now True Scotsman applies here. There certainly are professional developers who also have significant knowledge of things like colour theory and graphic design. You're talking to one. But those are separate skill sets, not normally required or expected for most development work. I don't think it's plausibly deniable that web development today frequently relies on someone who designed some toolkit, probably using basic CSS effects for almost all the visuals, instead of hiring an in-house designer. And I don't think it's plausibly deniable that today's WWW is much more homogenous and dare I say boring in appearance than the WWW of 10 or 20 years ago. There are usability advantages that come from some types of consistency but does everything really have to be so same-y?
"Many sites" do look bad, but if you're claiming this is because of browser sRGB colour handling then you're gonna have to cite a source or do more than claim the high ground.
It's not just the sRGB handling. I'm talking about a bigger picture. Some popular browsers had antialiasing glitches that made rounded corners done with CSS look like low-res pixellated junk for years when `border-radius` was first a thing. Try applying CSS transforms to anything using fonts or SVGs today and you can still see horrendous rendering artifacts in some browsers, and even worse if you're animating as well. Of course the fonts themselves render completely differently on different platforms even without any transforms applied and sometimes that has a material effect on important aspects like accessibility or even basic legibility. Gradients over large areas have horrible banding in some browsers because they don't use basic dithering techniques that every real graphics program has used since about the 1980s. The list of browser rendering glitches that any halfway decent creative software has avoided for a very long time is long and frustrating to read.