What is Digg?42 Comments
- Nightspark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33PNG is lossless. The JPG has so many compression artifacts that you can't tell what the actual colors are supposed to be; it's just a muddied mess. Usually it wouldn't be as big of an issue, but when precise colors are what the image is intended to convey, JPG isn't good enough.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28You dolts. PNG is lossless and produces flawless images. JPG is NOT lossless, and because of it, you'll notice that if you move an eyedropper tool around those "solid" blocks of color you'll find that they really consist of many shades of that color, and thusly the "solid" blocks are no so "solid," anymore.
EDIT: I see Nightspark beat me to it. - LlFT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Oh. Sorry. Thanks for the correction. At least I can appologize for my mistakes! (glances towards boss)
- goat77, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25Because PNG is what the cool kids use.
- goingstuckey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13they're named after their originating sites.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12For those interested, I upgraded it (if adding borders and making the title Web 2.0ish can be called, "upgrading") and making it a PNG, because that JPEG completely failed in terms of any quality at all, and I thought that only having a Photoshop colour profile was inadequate.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d185/masamunecyrus/web20.png - jhnshft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Yep. a png would definetly be great.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6whatever happend to being unique with web designing and colors these days? seems like everyone is designing the samething over and over everywhere, people running out of ideas?
- vafada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4what's next? Web 2.0 CCS? Web 2.0 icons? Web 2.0 icons? all this Web 2.0 is so overrated
- Haroldx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Tango colors are the best.
http://tango.freedesktop.org/static/cvs/tango-art-tools/palettes/Tango-Palette.png
.png of color guidelines^
http://tango-project.org/
official website^ - Friend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Or a GIF, even.
JPG is for photos and gradients, not solid colour... and anyone who knows anything about designing images for the web really should know that. - EmberX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Same title and content, different link. http://digg.com/design/Web_2_0_Colour_Palette
dugg down - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I agree. This seems very pointless. Why would you encourage designers to just regurgitate what is already out there?
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3^ Much better, I can't believe he used a heavily compressed jpg for that. You can easily see the artifacts and the messed up colors in it, especially around their borders. Which is kinda bad when the whole point is to show off colors. PNG (or even GIF if you feel like being an internet rebel; this has nothing to do with being the "PNG using elite" like some jerks here believe) is for line art and graphics like this. Save your JPG's for photos.
Having said that, the concept of a "web 2.0 palette" seems a bit ridiculous. I think time teaching people about color theory is better spent on exactly that, not just listing a table of these colors. You'd still need to know how to use them right and can't just mix them however you wish. - olddirtycr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Digg Blue Digg Light Green.
... - alej744, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I dont know why people hate Web 2.0 so much? It'z da awezumness!! 1337!
- m4v1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I actually downloaded these earlier today, before this story was posted, go figure.
- jiminoc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7you're soooo web 1.0
- Xolt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@EmberX
Yes, I saw this four months ago too, it's nothing new so I don't see why it front paged again... - thunderer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Its not all about the colors.
I've used this list: http://www.modernlifeisrubbish.co.uk/web-2.0-colour-palette.asp Just to get a couple saturation points down. - ogre2112, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yes there is, look again.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Programming colors but spelling colours will make your brain explode.
Please, for the love of God, when programming or using computer tools, spell "color" the way the Yanks do. - Adrianc333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This sucks.
Just because these sites use these colours, doesn't make it "Web 2", whatsoever.
Any site can be Web 2 with the right functionality, user interaction, and imagination used in the colours and design.
There is no "right or wrong" colours to use...
It's starting to get annoying seeing people "bragging" about their "Web 2 site", when all they have is a bright orange background and a few rollever links...
It's not Web 2.
Like i said, their's no right or wrong, just because people use colours some 13 year old has picked to get a few Diggs....
n00bs should really find out what "Web 2" is. - TheFoundry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I can't wait for my Digg Blue crayon!
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Anyone interested in Swatch Libraries for Adobe CS, I made them for PhotoShop, Illustrator and InDesign. All I need is a place to post them and a ship to sail her by...
- cygnusx197, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"scrumptious"? My god that's gay!
Please allow me to use my first comment post to say that. - ozonew4m, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1I have to agree with some of the above posts.... Web 2.0 does not mean 3 colors.. web 2.0 has absolutely nothing to do with color other than using as low amount of color as possible without compromising on design... Web 2.0 is more about simplicity and user interaction than it is about color
http://www.color-chart.org - addicted68098, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My eyes are bleeding from all this web 2.0 goodness!
- whalesalad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow thats funny, I was just looking at paint for my car... Tornado Red and Uni Black. Was interesting to see Technorati Red and Jotspot blue... kinda like the car companies.
- djgargamel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2dupe, dupe, dupe!
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't you mean scrumptious?
- moxx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Ugh, my eyesight has deceived me once again... :(
Hmm, my favorite color on there is the RSS Button Orange, I always liked that color/button... - JackAxe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Anybody that uses a jpeg to show a color pallete, doesn't get to pick the colors I use. Sorry, this is 2007, I've been using 24-bit color a long time now. I primarily use PNGs now days. If you do a bit of research, you'll find that a lossless PNG in some instances, is smaller than a gif. And if you use apps like Flah, you can import PNGs for their alpha, then compress them.
F* low-color contrsaints from the ninties. Don't support this *****, unless you're desperate. Web 2.0 is already obsolete IMO. - thunderer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Only if you'll allow me to dig your comment down for using discriminative language and stereotypes.
- jtrost, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10Uhh... why?
- zeptobyte, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5It needs a PNG version because PNG just needs to be encouraged all-around!
- mawhrinskel, on 10/12/2007, -22/+19Needs a PNG version.
- knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8yeah.... there's a jpg version, how would a png make it any better?
by the way this is way old, but i dont mind, since it's super helpful. - moxx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Nothing named for digg... :(
Personally I find it really easy to just print screen and then use the eyedropper tool for the color, that's if I really have the urge create a certain look...I usually like to be creative and go with my own colors. - Tredici, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I'm guessing he wants a .PNG version for the transparent background. Although, thinking about it, why on earth would you need the transparent background!?
- LlFT, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2Who comes up with those color names? Techies definitely wouldnt survive in the marketing world.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
