background color rendering inconsistency

background color issue

[knowledgenotebk]

Hi,

Here's the HTML code for background color of an iframe,
style="background:#BDD3FF"
or
style="background-color:#BDD3FF"
(don't recall which one for the source code is on another machine, not handy now).

What happens is:
with one good laptop like Lenovo high end laptop, the background looks light blue, nice
but with some second tiered laptop, the background looks deep blue, bad.

Oh, I should have in both cases, we use Chrome 19 and both are on Windows 7.

How could we overcome this problem?

tia.

[Leosghost]

Depends on the screens, the graphics cards, and how they are adjusted..

And as you can't adjust the ones that your visitors have..you'll need to "get over it"..websites are "interpreted" they are not "immutable" ..:)

[knowledgenotebk]

I can't "get over it", if it does not look good it compromises use experience... I expect most users would use default setting for his/her graphics card.

[edited by: tedster at 5:55 am (utc) on Jun 20, 2012]

[tedster]

There really is no fix - it really is out of your control. You can get more consistent color results by restricting your color choices to "web safe colors" like in the old days - but even then, it's not in the HTML, it's in the user's equipment.

Sometimes using a background image that is one solid color gif also gets around this kind of issue - but again, not 100%.

[Marshall]

The best way to ensure a more even color is use a small background gif, jpg or png. While not perfect, it does provide for more consistent rendering.

Marshall

[knowledgenotebk]

thanks for all the thoughtful input. using image increases download size and loading speed...
Now, how about this? Have a default color and give the user two more color choices via Settings?

How may give you guys my link quickly and doing so going with the rules etc. thanks.
oh, include it my profile, how's that?

[edited by: tedster at 5:55 am (utc) on Jun 20, 2012]

[Leosghost]

You need over 100 posts, before anyone except yourself, can see it in your profile..( cuts back on the spammers , and hopefully encourages people to stick around and contribute ;-) ..plus until "it" is "pulled" ..we have it now..

[knowledgenotebk]

wow, 100 posts is a lot... all right I'll stick around... btw, ppl are intelligent they'll quickly figure it out by looking at my username... let's see...

[Leosghost]

Look at tedsters count, or g1smd or netmeg or rocknbill or very many more here ..even a recent addition lucy24, her and g1smd and phranque are helping everyone at the apache forum , while Jim isn't around, and g1smd was doing so.. seems since "forever" [webmasterworld.com...] :)..all good stuff..

If things "bug you" ..( even though as now both ted and I have said you'll need to just let this particular colour rendition thing go as it really is not in your control..and it used to be soooo much worse in the days of cathode ray monitors ;-)..you'll get drawn in to reading ..and posting ..and thus contributing ..and you won't notice the post count go by ..nor will you care ..:)

[knowledgenotebk]

" reading ..and posting ..and thus contributing", I like that statement.
slightly off topic, my current landing page is static (not exciting enough), would there be another solution other than hiring some graphics designer?

[Marshall]

using image increases download size and loading speed...

A 10px square image or smaller really will not make much of a difference. in loading time. Can't have your cake....

Marshall

[rocknbil]

I can't "get over it", if it does not look good it compromises use experience... I expect most users would use default setting for his/her graphics card.

This is what everyone is telling you - "the default" may be limited to 256 colors and the one you've chosen is outside that color gamut. "Most" users don't even know what a graphics card is.

The best way to ensure a more even color is use a small background gif, jpg or png.

If the color gamut on a given system is limited for styled colors, it will also be limited for an image color, it's still rendered by a browser.

using image increases download size and loading speed...

You can use sprites or a 1 X 1 pixel image. But it's not likely to help, see previous. :-)

If the color is shifting over different browsers/operating system, you need to be quick on your feet and find a good compromise that doesn't interfere with your concept of "user experience." Honestly, the shade of blue a user sees isn't going to sway them one way or another. Your choice may only be a few cells off from web safe. Restrict your palette to web safe as tedster suggested and give it another go.

[Leosghost]

^^^ just realised I double "ll"ed you again earlier in the thread rocknbil..( ashamed face smiley ) ...too late to edit..Sorry :)

[rocknbil]

LOL . . no worries. The origin of the handle is kind of odd. It comes from "rockin' bill" and my band days, but I'm still rockin'. The last L got nixed for some early (like, prehistoric) system that only allowed an 8 character user name and it stuck. I've had people interpret it as a buff gay couple (rock and bill") :-)

[knowledgenotebk]

I'm in a BIG, BIG, SERIOUS trouble (not technical, Roanoke, VA)...

[knowledgenotebk]

Back to the tech space...
so, the new question is, what are the two best alternative colors for #BDD3FF if the user's graphics card does not support it?
tia

[Leosghost]

Look up "websafe colours" ( there are / were only 256 of them in the days when us "old timers" used to bandy such terms about ;- ) or open any image editor that uses .gif and look at your colour next to the gif 256 colour swatch..then make your choice(es) :)

Search "websafe colour chart" ..leave the quotes on ..will get you a single page, with them all in the one place ..:)

[knowledgenotebk]

ok, thanks.