<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Color optimization, take two</title>
	<atom:link href="http://david.navi.cx/?feed=rss2&#038;p=99" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://david.navi.cx/?p=99</link>
	<description>trivial dissertation on trivial subjects</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:51:34 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://david.navi.cx/?p=99&#038;cpage=1#comment-13118</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2007 05:59:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://david.navi.cx/blog/?p=99#comment-13118</guid>
		<description>Given Madeleine&#039;s 2nd comment on your last post about this (luminescence delta being the key factor affecting readability), it seems like a bad idea to include named variants of the same colour region with luminescence differentials implied in their names. I.e. Don&#039;t use light-foo and dark-foo or you&#039;ll be in a rough spot when you have light-foo text on a light-foo background.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given Madeleine’s 2nd comment on your last post about this (luminescence delta being the key factor affecting readability), it seems like a bad idea to include named variants of the same colour region with luminescence differentials implied in their names. I.e. Don’t use light-foo and dark-foo or you’ll be in a rough spot when you have light-foo text on a light-foo background.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Announcing libcontrast &#124; david&#8217;s bloggy journal!</title>
		<link>http://david.navi.cx/?p=99&#038;cpage=1#comment-13110</link>
		<dc:creator>Announcing libcontrast &#124; david&#8217;s bloggy journal!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:20:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://david.navi.cx/blog/?p=99#comment-13110</guid>
		<description>[...] Color optimization, take two [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[…] Color optimization, take two […]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Trowbridge</title>
		<link>http://david.navi.cx/?p=99&#038;cpage=1#comment-1670</link>
		<dc:creator>David Trowbridge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://david.navi.cx/blog/?p=99#comment-1670</guid>
		<description>As far as which is easier to read, I agree with your list.  Readability should be (almost completely) determined by lightness.  Lightness isn&#039;t really something that can easily be reduced to an equation (for any color space), and I&#039;m not sure how colorblindness impacts perception of lightness.  As far as improving the readability of things like dark blue, the color regions for CIELAB (especially the script you have) are just my first attempts.  I&#039;m sure to be tweaking them for a while as I do more testing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as which is easier to read, I agree with your list.  Readability should be (almost completely) determined by lightness.  Lightness isn’t really something that can easily be reduced to an equation (for any color space), and I’m not sure how colorblindness impacts perception of lightness.  As far as improving the readability of things like dark blue, the color regions for CIELAB (especially the script you have) are just my first attempts.  I’m sure to be tweaking them for a while as I do more testing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Perry</title>
		<link>http://david.navi.cx/?p=99&#038;cpage=1#comment-1624</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Perry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:42:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://david.navi.cx/blog/?p=99#comment-1624</guid>
		<description>I finally got to sit down and play with the cielab implementation a bit, and I wanted to throw in the colourblind perspective:

http://numist.net/images/cielab-vs-hsv.png

black:  doesnt matter.  the background colour doesnt do much to it
brown:  cielab is much easier for me to read, but harder for me to tell that it&#039;s brown.  Then again, the hsv brown looks pretty reddish to me.
cyan:  light enough to not matter either way
dark blue:  WAY easier to read on hsv
dark green:  easier on cielab.  On hsv, I can&#039;t even tell that it&#039;s supposed to be *dark* green
dark red:  both are decent.  I kinda like cielab&#039;s because it&#039;s lighter; easier to spot that it&#039;s red
grey:  cielab is far easier to read.
light blue: both results look about the same, but cielab&#039;s is just a touch lighter and easier
light green: doesnt matter
light grey:  is the hsv light grey even light?  looks far too dark...
orange:  the hsv one is richer, cielab&#039;s is easier to read
pink:  cielab&#039;s is richer, hsv is easier to read, but it doesnt look pink
purple:  cielab&#039;s is hard to read, and the hsv one doesnt even really look very purple
teal:  cielab better
white is white.
yellow is close on both too.

I&#039;m rather curious how much of these results depends on the slices that were cut out for each colour, and how much depends on my eye perception.  How do you see it?

./scott</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I finally got to sit down and play with the cielab implementation a bit, and I wanted to throw in the colourblind perspective:</p>
<p><a href="http://numist.net/images/cielab-vs-hsv.png" rel="nofollow">http://numist.net/images/cielab-vs-hsv.png</a></p>
<p>black:  doesnt matter.  the background colour doesnt do much to it<br />
brown:  cielab is much easier for me to read, but harder for me to tell that it’s brown.  Then again, the hsv brown looks pretty reddish to me.<br />
cyan:  light enough to not matter either way<br />
dark blue:  WAY easier to read on hsv<br />
dark green:  easier on cielab.  On hsv, I can’t even tell that it’s supposed to be *dark* green<br />
dark red:  both are decent.  I kinda like cielab’s because it’s lighter; easier to spot that it’s red<br />
grey:  cielab is far easier to read.<br />
light blue: both results look about the same, but cielab’s is just a touch lighter and easier<br />
light green: doesnt matter<br />
light grey:  is the hsv light grey even light?  looks far too dark…<br />
orange:  the hsv one is richer, cielab’s is easier to read<br />
pink:  cielab’s is richer, hsv is easier to read, but it doesnt look pink<br />
purple:  cielab’s is hard to read, and the hsv one doesnt even really look very purple<br />
teal:  cielab better<br />
white is white.<br />
yellow is close on both too.</p>
<p>I’m rather curious how much of these results depends on the slices that were cut out for each colour, and how much depends on my eye perception.  How do you see it?</p>
<p>./scott</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stefan</title>
		<link>http://david.navi.cx/?p=99&#038;cpage=1#comment-1526</link>
		<dc:creator>stefan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://david.navi.cx/blog/?p=99#comment-1526</guid>
		<description>I might me color-dumb or what-s-the-point-dumb, but the 2nd example is actually harder to read for me (on one of those new shiny-glossy LCD laptop screens) than the 1st... in other words, light-green on green in screenshot #1 is better than on #2.

Anyway, I guess it&#039;s really hard to tell since #1 includes very readable stuff just a few pixels right and left, maybe it&#039;s all subconscious and blah (reminds me of this weird solarized picture that turns black and white onmouseover, while you think you &#039;see&#039; colors)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I might me color-dumb or what-s-the-point-dumb, but the 2nd example is actually harder to read for me (on one of those new shiny-glossy LCD laptop screens) than the 1st… in other words, light-green on green in screenshot #1 is better than on #2.</p>
<p>Anyway, I guess it’s really hard to tell since #1 includes very readable stuff just a few pixels right and left, maybe it’s all subconscious and blah (reminds me of this weird solarized picture that turns black and white onmouseover, while you think you ‘see’ colors)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
