While I am tempted to get some popcorn and watch you two bludgeon each other with fancy tech/design words, I think its better to re-focus, and try to explain my point more clearly.
With inset, outset, groove and so on, you choose one color *for each side of the border*, but then the final result is two colors for each side of the border. A darker or lighter color is chosen for me based on the color I choose. So if I made different color sides of the border, including top, bottom, and so on, each using groove for instance, then I would finally have 8 colors in the complete border. What I am saying, and I apologize for being unclear, is that I would like to be able to choose the relationship between those two colors in one side of the border, or at least have more options than I do now. Now, I can choose one color for one side of the border, and using groove or ridge will tell the browser to calculate the other color (again, just for one side of the border) based on some formula. I don't see why another formula can't be substituted, or indeed why I can't just specify 2 colors for the one side of the border. But just to be serious for a second, I do enjoy the discussion. HTH, Andrew >________________________________ >From: Barney Carroll <barney.carr...@gmail.com> >To: Alan Gresley <a...@css-class.com> >Cc: Andrew C. Johnston <attyjohns...@yahoo.com>; "css-d@lists.css-discuss.org" ><css-d@lists.css-discuss.org> >Sent: Monday, June 6, 2011 11:17 PM >Subject: Re: [css-d] A question about 2-color borders (grooved, ridge etc.) > > >On programmatically achieving abstract optical effects with an eye to beauty >and design standards (warning: huge philosophical digression)… > > >On 6 June 2011 07:48, Alan Gresley <a...@css-class.com> wrote: >I guess you're learning..... > > >Not to start qualitative debates on CSS lists? Veeeery slowly. People giving >me the time of day certainly isn't helping ;) > > > > >I thought inset and outset borders were in CSS2. Why are you cynical of CSS3? > > >Inset and outset borders are a great example of an abstract optical effect >getting a programmatic definition in CSS2. CSS3 offers many more opportunities >(border-image, double border, gradients, box shadow, etc). I was basically >being a design snob, inferring that these were a slightly less dramatic >analogy of giving Comic Sans and Papyrus fonts to somebody making a business >presentation. The properties described can be created using long-established >alternative means by someone sufficiently dedicated to use graphics software >and experiment with the desired visual outcome regardless of what can quickly >be written in CSS. With specific regards to plain old CSS2 borders, I would >test and adjust each combination of colours individually. > > > > >So if you haven't tested, how is it that you can express such an opinion? > > >I've done plenty of testing, but mostly with the purpose of achieving designs >to a certain standard for extensive public-facing sites, as opposed to >arbitrary quantitative feature-detection (ie does the inset border style >exist? check; can we use a variety of colours? check; problem solved). >Basically it comes down to your ambition of vision and extensible replication >with regards to artistic control. This is not to say I won't use purely >ornamental CSS3 extensions at all, but they are abused by programmers too lazy >to create the same effects to a better standard without said extensions. > > > >Can you prove that absolutely? > > >This is the crux of the matter: there's no automated unit test for aesthetic >value and optical illusion effectiveness. > > > >In short, when you're >>>talking about optical illusions and a certain level of detail with coherent >>>aesthetics, I don't believe it's possible to algorithmically generate the >>>lot based on small input values. >>> >> >> I don't follow what you are saying here. > > >Basically, while the CSS your provided effectively achieves an optical >illusion that suggests an embossed panel by virtue of consistent lighter and >darker geometric shapes suggesting a light source over a 3 dimensional object, >I don't believe the 21st century man on the street would ever consider this >worth representing as a standalone 'feature'. In the early 90s it might've >invoked a sense of cool because it implied the upper limits of popular >emerging computer graphics interfaces of the time. I'd struggle to find a >client who would take me seriously if I proposed this as a design. > > > >Yes, I have. See the example above and the example in my reply to Andrew. I'm >still working on the maths but I believe I have hit the most aesthetic values. > > >Again, I'm very intrigued in the notion of 'working on the maths' to get the >'most aesthetic values', especially seeing as you believe that target has >already been achieved by a 4-tone blue box whose inset panel has a higher hue >saturation than the outer surface. But it is all relative — it *is* possible >to achieve a certain standard of raised box effect based on >procedurally generated code. It's just that in the world I inhabit, that >standard isn't remotely good enough for any serious application — to the point >where it's a bad idea to entertain it. > > >All sniping aside, I'm genuinely interested in how far people can get with >this exercise precisely because from where I come from it's a false idol — but >it's the insistent and the adventurous that set the standards after all and >I'm keen on following any technical developments on this thread… > > > > >Regards, >Barney Carroll >barney.carr...@gmail.com >07594 506 381 > > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
