Re: Color management in web browsers, was: Printing with No Color Management (again)
Re: Color management in web browsers, was: Printing with No Color Management (again)
- Subject: Re: Color management in web browsers, was: Printing with No Color Management (again)
- From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:22:15 -0600
On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:15 AM, René Damkot wrote:
> On 29-04-11 19:06, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Yeah but again, it's going to have two consequences that thus far no one is willing to bite the bullet on:
>> 1. Is the disconnect that will happen between CSS/HTML/images and Flash (or other plugin content). Turning color management on in the browser cannot color manage plugin content.
>>
> True. But flash colormanagement is flaky at best as far as I know. And the only real problem would be a mismatch between plugin and surroundings if the plugin content has the same colors as the surroundings. Not a big issue I'd say.
Tell this to web designers. They FLIP OUT when this sort of thing happens.
>> 2. We have been sending "sRGB encoded" images directly to our displays for so long, the creep of display behavior away from sRGB is going to be remarkably pronounced (in my estimation) if we suddenly start color managing content assuming present day sRGB as the assumed source. In the URL provided, you can see this even with orange colors.
>>
> Well, with the introduction of more and more affordable wide gamut displays, I think color managed browsers become a necessity. After all: The average consumer will probably think "moah is bettah" and go for a wide gamut screen. And get oversaturated colors on non color managed browsers.
You are preaching to the choir. I've been making this argument to Mozilla for a while. But I think it's going to have to come from the large web content companies who have a vested interest in their users seeing content that's approximates reality rather than increasingly departing from it.
>> Now, the sRGB version may very well be "correct" but a sudden change is going to get a lot of pushback from a percentage of millions of users who won't understand what's going on. I know this isn't going to get any better the longer we wait, unless we come up with a version 2.0 sRGB or something.
> Same reply as above ;)
Well, that's not so simple. 1% of millions of users is a LOT Of users globally panicking over a major change in how a web browser displays color.
>> All I'm saying is there will be consequences and those need to be incorporated. The ends don't justify the means. We have to take the means into account. So far those things (in part) have prevented flipping the switch on this.
> True, but IMO, the "Safari approach" (Color foolish*) is not the way to go. Either no color management, or FULL color management should be used.
I don't agree. I understand why they are honoring embedded profiles only. If Apple were to go it alone, and went full color management there would be a complete disconnect instantly for all Safari users compared to the remaining 90% of the planet that does not user Safari. Any solution needs to be coordinated or it makes the problem of color on the internet worse by making it more fractured.
Chris Murphy
>> Chris Murphy
>
> * http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/color-spaces-page3
>
> René Damkot
> www.damkot.com
> www.getcolormanaged.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden
>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden