W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [gradients] basics

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:31:51 -0800
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, news@terrainformatica.com, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D41B1A03-105A-462F-B845-481E87B97FF4@gmail.com>
To: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>

On Nov 8, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Ambrose LI wrote:

> 2009/11/8 Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>:
>> That really seems unnecessary. I don't see a strong use case for  
>> repeating
>> gradients at all, and much less so for 'list-image', 'border- 
>> image', etc.
>> And for those few times that you do want to have a gradient repeat  
>> as a
>> background, you would pretty much always want it to repeat in the  
>> most
>> intelligent way possible, and it is pretty clear what that would  
>> be: magic.
>> I can't see ANY reason why someone would want a repeating background
>> gradient in which there were sharp divisions between the tiles  
>> because the
>> colors didn't line up, so that is where it makes sense for the  
>> magic to
>> happen.
>
> Sorry if I have not been following the gradient discussion, but I fail
> to understand why repeating gradients does not have "a strong use
> case". The designer is responsible for any background image to line up
> (or not line up, if that's the deliberate decision), but repeating
> gradients feel quite intuitive to me.

I mean that I rarely see them practice, compared to how ofter I see  
non-repeating gradients. And when I do see a repeating gradient (using  
a raster image), it is never at an angle that would make it look like  
it was obviously tiled. Even with diagonal lines as backgrounds, the  
artist ALWAYS carefully constructs the image to avoid obvious  
divisions between tiles.

Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 22:32:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT