From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>

Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:09:40 -0500

Message-ID: <4BBAD024.9030300@fastmail.us>

To: Biju <bijumaillist@gmail.com>

CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>

Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:09:40 -0500

Message-ID: <4BBAD024.9030300@fastmail.us>

To: Biju <bijumaillist@gmail.com>

CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>

On 2010-04-05 7:46 PM, Biju wrote: > In my experience teaching #C0C0C0 to a new comer is easy, they see it > as a Label or a code. > And for those who are interested, you can explain how to compute it. Telling them what it is and teaching them how to use and read it are two different things; I agree that it's generally not a problem for people to understand that hex notation is used to reference a color. However, what you're saying is "easy" appears to be the first thing (i.e., telling them what it is), not the second thing (teaching them how to use and read it). Ask your average author how hex notation works and I really doubt that you'd get many that can provide you the very simple formula; as previously mentioned, most of them probably copy-and-paste with no actual understanding. As David indicated, this gets worse when someone is trying to read that style sheet to edit it (sometimes the same person) and can't see what color is actually being used without going into the document and tracking down the rendered element or doing a reverse copy-and-paste into a color generator. Alpha transparency in hexadecimal will likewise become incomprehensible for many authors and readers if added; the formula isn't even the same because you're doing a conversion to 100 instead of 255 so that's another calculation to remember: To 255: 15a + b; Example: #BC 1. 15(11) + 12 2. 165 + 12 3. 177 Red/Green/Blue To 100: (15a + b) / 255; Example: #BC 1. (15(11) + 12) / 255 2. (165 + 12) / 255 3. 177 / 255 4. 69.4% Opacity > But for the case of rgb(), first of all it looks like a function and > everybody will see it as complex scientific function I disagree. The notation seems clean enough not to invoke the idea "complex scientific function"; it involves three comma-separated integers or percentages without any use of operators and the order and meaning of the numbers is made clearer by the preceding "rgb". > so you start explaining the mathematics behind it and at end most > newcomers will get completely lost. > > How can a base 256 parameter for rgb() ever become easier to teach > than a hexadecimal? I disagree; the process is more straightforward. The process behind it is exactly the same as hexadecimal except that you don't have to do the back and forth conversion between decimal and hexadecimal. If the mathematics behind RGB functional notation is incomprehensible, then it follows that the mathematics behind hex notation is even less comprehensible due to the extra conversions required. Further, you seem to be forgetting that RGB functional notation accepts percentages as well as decimal numbers, which means that working on a scale of 0 to 255 is not strictly necessary. For example, if I want 60% Blue, then I don't need to do the calculation 0.6 * 255 = 153; I can just type 60% and be done with it. (Notably, that conversion is still easier than what you need for hex.)Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 06:10:18 GMT

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