|
|
Posted by dorayme on 11/02/07 07:03
In article <Xns99DBEDF0170E3boneurhyphe@85.214.62.108>,
Bone Ur <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 04:37:53
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > In article <Xns99DBD8122C439boneurhyphe@85.214.62.108>,
> > Bone Ur <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Strictly for experimental purposes or on those occasions when I
> >> suffered from key finger fatigue.
> >
> > What is the problem with 3 digit specs that you have ever found?
>
> I don't like them because they promote sloppy coloring. Standard colors
> don't have 3 groups of repeated digits; they're more like #808080 or
> #c0c0c0 or even #d4d0c8. What color is #aa8844?
well, I have not been following closely the context of all this
but if it were to promote such a thing then I am sure it would be
bad and you would be quite right to point this out.
But the real question is: Does it promote sloppy colouring? The
answer to this depends on what the "it" in the last question
refers to: if it refers to a person who mindlessly fixes to use
*only* 3 numbers always, then yes, you are right. But at the cost
of strawmaning your target.
If the "it" refers to someone who sees no point in going #ffffff;
when they can type #fff; but who has and succumbs to frequent
desires to use such as #FFDEAD (NavajoWhite), then your case is
not advanced.
Perhaps the tendency to short form the colours does invite a lazy
tendency in some people? But, you, being aware of the problem
will not succumb. Be a devil and use the short where you can and
not where you want nicer...
There is an argument to say you should use the shorter. It is
this: if you don't you will spend more time typing and reading
longer code and this will sap energy that could be better devoted
to choosing really nice colours when it would be appropriate.
So, in other words, and to sum up, without any empirical evidence
one way or the other, it is as likely that your colour judgements
could be impaired by going one way as it is by going the other
way.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|