Closed Bug 717226 Opened 14 years ago Closed 13 years ago

Background color for standalone images should be a lighter gray rather than almost black

Categories

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Product:
Core
Component:
Layout
Version:
11 Branch
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED WONTFIX
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
firefox11 - ---
firefox12 - ---

People

(Reporter: rob64rock, Unassigned)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Horrible.
37.34 KB, image/png
Details
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0a1) Gecko/20120110 Firefox/12.0a1 Build ID: 20120110031111 Steps to reproduce: This is a follow up to bug 376997. Actual results: The Image background color chosen in bug 376997, isn't no way a "neutral background (gray?)" it's more of a (light black?). Expected results: The Image background color should been an actual neutral gray similar to color #D7D7D7.
Component: Untriaged → Layout
OS: Windows XP → All
Product: Firefox → Core
Hardware: x86 → All
Blocks: 376997
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Summary: Images should be rendered against an actual neutral background (gray?), not (light black?) → Background color for standalone images should be a lighter gray rather than almost black
Nominating this for tracking Firefox 11. I do not see why we would we want to release with the state of bug 376977 as it is.
tracking-firefox11: --- → ?
tracking-firefox12: --- → ?
instead of using another random shade of grey: use the one you are using on standalone videos, videos also have some sort of textured background using a background-image. this has to be disabled while printing the image of course but i guess thats what bug 713383 is for..
Unless the color isn't to-spec, no need to track.
tracking-firefox11: ? → -
tracking-firefox12: ? → -
The color should be not just lighter, it should be tweakable via at least about:config pref or, better, be tweakable in live mode right in main browser-window when viewing specific image. By default, the background probably should be exactly in the middle of white and black: #7f7f7f or #808080. Or maybe even lighter like #ccc.
I think that arguing about which color is better is pointless. It should be possible to set by user. Not necessarily by GUI: about:config should be fine. Of course default color can be choosen, but it should be possible to change it. It can be even #0000FF - as long as I can change it I don't care... Frankly I'm quite amazed (not in the good sense) - during 5 almost years of working on this (original bug report was from 2007) authors hadn't thought about allowing to customize that setting and simply have choosen an arbitrary one.
This bug is a result of bug #376997. That earlier bug was based on a very wrong assumption that stand-alone images are displayed against a white background. That is very false. Prior to implementation of bug #376997, stand-alone images were displayed against whatever the user specified as a default background color. For me, I have browser.display.background_color set to #D2EDD1, which is a pale mint green. This is the color used in the background of stand-alone images before I upgraded to SeaMonkey 2.8. Rather than argue about the appropriate background color for stand-alone messages, bug #376997 should be removed. This is because the only appropriate background color is what the user chooses.
Another voice here for letting the colour be user changeable but ALSO the default needs to be adjusted to something more neutral. Let's be honest, only a SMALL percentage of users ever get into deep customization, especially if it's in about:config. This may make sense for people savvy enough to find their way here but for most users they won't know how to do that. So to me, both items need to happen. The default needs to be something like a 50% gray, and there should be a way to edit it for the more advanced user. (about:config is fine by me)
Note that I set my default background color, not via about:config, but via the SeaMonkey menu bar: [Edit > Preferences > Appearance > Colors]. I originally did this for Netscape 4 (or was it Netscape 3?).
This new background is ineffective when looking at images with transparencies, like pngs. An example: Read this, if you can. http://i.imgur.com/wpkpb.png Make the image background USER changeable, or make it white again.
(The comic was just the first I saw that had this issue, someone pointed me to it. It carries neither my views or anyone else's that doesn't actively claim them. It's just an example of the problem this UI change brings.)
Make the image background USER changeable, or make it white again. This I don't understand why you would change it the first place..
Default background color arguments were bug 713230, and WONTFIXed. I even opposed before changing (see bug 376997 comment 87). So I'm confident it will never reversed. Use Old Default Image Style add-on. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/old-default-image-style/
Why is it wrong to allow the user to set the background color? Given that I have set a default background color, I then make the mistaken inference that any other background color is part of the image and not actually part of the background. This can only be confusing to the user.
WONTFIXing this bug as there are no plans to change the default color that was chosen. Masatoshi has pointed people to an add-on that reverts the look-and-feel to the Firefox 10 and earlier behavior, as well as allowing users to change the background-color to their own liking: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/old-default-image-style/
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
I have to comment again that the colour that was chosen was not in the intent of the original feature request to change the way images are displayed. It is not considered "neutral" and makes a poor background for a large number of images. Users shouldn't have to go digging up extensions to restore functionality lost due to poor choices because they won't be reconsidered.
It really doesn't matter which color it is. There will always be cases where the dark background is not the best choice. The same goes for white or a lighter grey. A dark background makes the images/video look brighter and that's a good thing.
Firstly I was told to file this bug, because I was one of many others that found the (dark grey) color chosen to be a non neutral background color like bug 376997 originally stated. Bug 717226 being MARKED RESOLVED WONTFIX. My view on this: 1a.) Before the Background color for Standalone Images was White, but we had an about:config preference to change it if so desired. 1b.) Mozilla's desire to changed it due to the color White not being suitable for viewing certain Standalone Images types, I agreeded with Mozilla's assessment on that point. That's why the bug 376997 was filed that originally stated to change it to a more 'neutral background color'(grey?), but after the bug 376997 was Marked Resolved Fix they changed the bug 376997 description to state to change it to a more a dark gray(actually is almost black). Those that were opposed to the dark gray(almost black) color chosen then were told to file a new bug to properly address the change it to a actual neutral background color(light-medium-grey), which I did bug 717226. 2a.) Now we have the same situation, but worse. 2b.) Since the new chosen color dark gray(almost black), isn't suitable for viewing certain Standalone Images types and the the fact that the about:config preference to choose own color no longer works(broke). 3.) What makes this even more irritating is Mozilla suggests to solve this issue with yet another Add-on, rather than actually fixing this issue by either changing the color to a more neutral background color or by providing a new about:config preference to change it if so desired like before. Note: From what multiple thread topics on (forums.mozillazine.org) that I've read on this change from Beta, Aurora and even Nightly testers and even topics on some web sites all come one come down to one thing that the change by bug 376997 has been getting negative responses and reviews. In my opinion is that Mozilla needs to reconsider this decision before they start receiving complaints from main stream stable Fx release users otherwise the backlash may greater than Mozilla anticipated.
Agree with the above. Currently CSS fixes will suffice for many users but not all users are going to that level. In fact, many users don't even use about:config so an option in "Options" might even be better.
(In reply to mikedl from comment #18) > Currently CSS fixes will suffice for many users but not all users are going to that level. “Install yet another extension for this regression we don't intend to fix” is the official solution. Of course, users who aren't technically-minded may not even know what extensions are, much less that this one exists, but that's not a concern either. > In fact, many users don't even use about:config so an option in "Options" > might even be better. That has been brought up repeatedly and ignored as well (e.g. bug 713230 comment 41). Still no answer to this question: (In reply to David E. Ross from comment #13) > Why is it wrong to allow the user to set the background color?
(In reply to Gingerbread Man from comment #19) > Still no answer to this question: > (In reply to David E. Ross from comment #13) > > Why is it wrong to allow the user to set the background color? It is "answered" in bug 376997 comment #88. I didn't ask further because experience tells me that further responses will never come (and indeed didn't).
See bug #738948.
QA Contact: untriaged → layout
To simply brush off all criticism of color choice and point to an add-on fix is a huge reason for me to loose faith in the intentions of firefox development. This "Old Default Image Style" add-on is not a viable easy fix for someone like me using a version higher than 12.0a1. At least point to a regularly updated add-on. I expected better from this community.
(In reply to mixxster from comment #22) > To simply brush off all criticism of color choice and point to an add-on fix > is a huge reason for me to loose faith in the intentions of firefox > development. > > This "Old Default Image Style" add-on is not a viable easy fix for someone > like me using a version higher than 12.0a1. At least point to a regularly > updated add-on. > > I expected better from this community. Since, The Fx10+ feature "Add-ons Default to Compatible" landed if you are using any version past Fx10 can still select to install "Old Default Image Style" extension on AMO, but it will give you an warning with the option to install it any ways. Note: I have "Old Default Image Style" add-on install on Fx13 and Fx14 builds and it works with no problems, so if any extension's max-compatibility is Fx10 or later, but lower than the Fx version you are currently using you have the ability to install it and should work without problems unless indicated by Mozilla(Not the add-on developer) or user reviews.
Attached image Horrible. —
As pointed out this causes severe limitations to students who are actually trying to learn something by looking at a png. (bug 376997, comment 138) To the stubborn developers who refuse to make "plans" to change the color: I wish you would try to study organic chemistry in these conditions.
I apologize if this has already been stated since I have yet to read all the comments... but if you really want to paint the bike shed a different color, why doesn't someone just create a Firefox extension that allows you to customize how the images are presented?
(In reply to Matthew Wein from comment #25) > I apologize if this has already been stated since I have yet to read all the > comments... but if you really want to paint the bike shed a different color, > why doesn't someone just create a Firefox extension that allows you to > customize how the images are presented? Read comment 12 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=717226#c12
What seems like the same issue has been raised in bug 743474.
The difference is that that bug proposes retaining the overall dark background, but just changing the background behind the image itself to something neutral.
the point is that there is already a preference specifying what background the user wants, aka "browser.display.background_color". why was it not used in bug 376997 ? why was it hardcoded in "omni.ja:res/TopLevelImageDocument.css" ? that should never have been allowed. how did that slip through code review ? one of the advantages of firefox over other browsers is, that everything is configurable in "about:config".
Sorry, but this is all nonsense. The background colour is *not* supposed to be the background colour of your black-line-drawings. The attached comic and organic chemistry slide are both BROKEN by using PNG transparency in that they are clearly designed to have a white background (so that the black is visible) and, as such, they should actually have a white background rather than just assuming that the target medium will do it for them. Instruct your sources to fix their images.
Yes, I wish we could press a button to make everybody fix their images. But this is reality, and many people either don't care because they're using another browser that doesn't exhibit this behavior or they just don't care (e.g. because they didn't intend for the image to be viewed on it's own.
Perhaps, then, we have an opportunity to educate people about this Bug In People. It's not a Firefox bug.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: