[CIMC-working] Re: [IMC-Tech] Question of local color

[Ian Bicking]

On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 16:47, Elizabeth Fraser wrote:
> Madrid sure didn't look so pink last time I looked...
> but drop the pink, the script and the lipstick and the
> rest of the page is easier for me to read in a foreign
> language than the light on dark in English...
> 
> I can read German.  Note on their language//search bar 
> they have choices norm/mini/chic/mono -- which allows for  
> different looks, but sends a cookie to record your choice.  
> Don't like the pink for the mouse-overs on links, but both
> of these sites are very readable.  (Although as I mentioned
> before, I have got complaints on my own site about my
> penchant for blue typeface.) Baltimore sends a cookie 
> too--don't like some of the colors, but very readable.

I do like Baltimore for the yellow-on-red, which is quite readable
(compared to a good number of low-contrast links I see on a number of
sites).  But I also like a light gray background much more than a white
background -- that happy medium of contrast.  

My current preference is now a light-gray with black text body, with a
subtle color on the sidebars (not beige or anything like it, but
something that's not too saturated).  Then perhaps a stronger color on
the headlines, a color that goes with the sidebars but probably not the
same color.

> I like Santa Cruz although it is "so" plain.  But when I checked
> it out--what did I notice? I noticed the content and that's
> what I think is the problem with the current "look"--It would be
> nice just to have a bolder front or header look--but then
> a more readable, viewable article area.

Santa Cruz is just too, too plain.  I agree, though, that the headlines
should stand out above anything else.  Maybe the most striking colors
should be there.

> Has any kind of viewer survey been done by any of the 
> IMCs that anyone knows of???

A brief web search brings up a few notes, but nothing of substance
(except that people don't like white-on-black :).

  Ian