Yet ANOTHER New Team Colors Format

[TruColor]

I flew to my hometown of West Lafayette, Indiana on Thursday, and am now online for the first time since Wednesday night.

I agree with the space between rows...I'll increase it for readability.

I'm using Univers for most of the text, Univers Condensed for the swatch color name labels.

BallWonk - I hear you on the swatch chip outlines. I'll think about it.

As far as the pie-chart representations - very cool idea, but it would prequire me to evaluate the percentages of each color use. That makes me a bit weak in the knees (!).

[spyboy1]

Horizontal format good, smaller swatch color names less good.

[TruColor]

Some modifications:

I still have a problem with lining up the color swatches when they wrap to the next line...once that's completed, I'll be ready-to-go (I think).

[BallWonk]

I don't mean to belabor the point, but precisely what information do you intend to communicate by putting outline boxes around each color? I honestly cannot think of anything at all that the outlines communicate that is not already communicated by your layout choices. I mean, it's not like there are readers who will be confused about whether the word "Red" that appears immediately blow a red square is meant to describe the red square rather than to describe the blue square next to it with the words "Dark Blue" immediately below it.

The outlines do not add any value, but they do add noise and clutter. "Noise" and "clutter" are not, in this case, good things. In addition, the aspect ratio of the extraneous boxes you surround everything with adds distracting white space between swatches and descriptive notes about the swatches ("logo only"). So the outlines are not even harmless clutter; they are clutter that reduces the clarity of the information you're conveying and increases the chances that your work will be misread or misunderstood.

Still, love the new format!

[TruColor]

I don't mean to belabor the point, but precisely what information do you intend to communicate by putting outline boxes around each color? I honestly cannot think of anything at all that the outlines communicate that is not already communicated by your layout choices. I mean, it's not like there are readers who will be confused about whether the word "Red" that appears immediately blow a red square is meant to describe the red square rather than to describe the blue square next to it with the words "Dark Blue" immediately below it.

The outlines do not add any value, but they do add noise and clutter. "Noise" and "clutter" are not, in this case, good things. In addition, the aspect ratio of the extraneous boxes you surround everything with adds distracting white space between swatches and descriptive notes about the swatches ("logo only"). So the outlines are not even harmless clutter; they are clutter that reduces the clarity of the information you're conveying and increases the chances that your work will be misread or misunderstood.

Still, love the new format!

I do hear you; however, I guess my best explanation is that the outlines are for artistic value. They're similar to Pantone, Inc.'s color swatch representations, and will provide some congruity with other reports I plan to create that will replace the color description ("Red", "Dark Blue") with Pantone/PMS information.

Another reason is for examples like this:

When teams have specialized color descriptions like these, it sometimes might make sense to have the individual colors correctly identified.

[slapshot]

The extra outlines don't bother me...they reinforce the idea that they are "swatches".

[andrewharrington]

Agreed. They don't bother me, either, but the look would be improved if the outline were tightened so that it is closer to the color area (like it was in the smaller, vertically oriented swatches). Currently, you have more space between the color area and the outline than you do between swatches, which does clutter it up a bit. Space it out a bit and it's nearly prefect.

[Wasatch]

ColorWerx, there?s no doubt your information is visually appealing when one wonders what shades of colors a franchise of university uses; but what originally made you compile this information to display it in this format, especially when it doesn?t list any RGB values or Pantone values? It would seem to me that if someone were to come to your site, they would at least be seeking some kind of information outside of looking at the color itself.

[TruColor]

I agree as well - here's the report with the white space tightened up:

[TruColor]

I have corrected an issue I had with the wrapping of the swatches on multiple lines:

I'm just about done modifying this particular report.

Wasatch - my intent is to present this information visually, without getting in trouble with the leagues or the individual teams. I know from experience that a lot of these organizations do NOT like Pantone information displayed on public websites, and from what I can gather, they seem to be OK with what I am doing.

[Wasatch]

Wasatch - my intent is to present this information visually, without getting in trouble with the leagues or the individual teams. I know from experience that a lot of these organizations do NOT like Pantone information displayed on public websites, and from what I can gather, they seem to be OK with what I am doing.

That?s cool and I can respect that. Ever thought of displaying the closest RGB or CMYK values though? I know, in some cases it?s hard to determine those values, but the closest match is good enough for most people out there.

[TruColor]

Wasatch - my intent is to present this information visually, without getting in trouble with the leagues or the individual teams. I know from experience that a lot of these organizations do NOT like Pantone information displayed on public websites, and from what I can gather, they seem to be OK with what I am doing.

That's cool and I can respect that. Ever thought of displaying the closest RGB or CMYK values though? I know, in some cases it's hard to determine those values, but the closest match is good enough for most people out there.

I certainly COULD do that (all of these swatches are based on actual Pantone values, and I can cross-reference any and all color information), but that would definitely be something the teams and leagues would have a problem with.

[Wasatch]

Wasatch - my intent is to present this information visually, without getting in trouble with the leagues or the individual teams. I know from experience that a lot of these organizations do NOT like Pantone information displayed on public websites, and from what I can gather, they seem to be OK with what I am doing.

That's cool and I can respect that. Ever thought of displaying the closest RGB or CMYK values though? I know, in some cases it's hard to determine those values, but the closest match is good enough for most people out there.

I certainly COULD do that (all of these swatches are based on actual Pantone values, and I can cross-reference any and all color information), but that would definitely be something the teams and leagues would have a problem with.

I had no idea teams were that picky; especially when you could take a print screen, then use the Eyedropper tool in Photoshop and get the RGB value yourself, where as the Pantone information is much harder to obtain.

[slapshot]

Every monitor is different. Taking an eyedropper to an RGB image is not going to get you the exact printed match, no matter how close it is. Specific Pantone/CMYK color values of a color set are closely guarded information, because making it universally available makes it more likely for the logos and trademarks to appear on counterfeit and unlicensed merchandise.

If one is crafty enough, the information can be obtained. But not through ColorWerx

[Wasatch]

Again, all this paranoia of ?Oh no, someone has our RGB values!? is a bit over the top, but I guess in a world like today, they need to prevent counterfeiting as much as possible.

[TruColor]

Every monitor is different. Taking an eyedropper to an RGB image is not going to get you the exact printed match, no matter how close it is. Specific Pantone/CMYK color values of a color set are closely guarded information, because making it universally available makes it more likely for the logos and trademarks to appear on counterfeit and unlicensed merchandise.

If one is crafty enough, the information can be obtained. But not through ColorWerx

Pantone-supplied RGB values (in the sRGB color space) are a heck of a lot closer to the actual spot colors than CMYK values are anyway.

And yes, I am using the (s)RGB values to represent these colors.

[andrewharrington]

Wasatch,

RGB values are not really an issue. It's the PANTONE® numbers and, to a lesser extent, the CMYK information that is valuable because of bootleg printing and merchandise fraud. It's well known that you can simply eyedrop a color to get its RGB value, but not all (in fact very few) web images use optimized RGB values to correctly display the color on screen like ColorWerx does with his images. Furthermore, that RGB value can differ between MSPaint, Photoshop, Illustrator or whatever software you're using to open it because of the different native color spaces each may be using (contrary to popular belief though, your monitor doesn't alter the RGB value of a color, only how it is visually displayed, which means if you and I open the same image in the same software and eyedrop the same color, they will have the same RGB value regardless of how they compare visually, i.e. mine looks darker than yours).

If you want good RGB values, your best bet is to use the .pdfs from SSUR.org, open the page you need in Illustrator and eyedrop the swatches.

More on topic, I think you've got the horizontal display just about perfect.

[Wasatch]

Wasatch,

RGB values are not really an issue. It's the PANTONE® numbers and, to a lesser extent, the CMYK information that is valuable because of bootleg printing and merchandise fraud. It's well known that you can simply eyedrop a color to get its RGB value, but not all (in fact very few) web images use optimized RGB values to correctly display the color on screen like ColorWerx does with his images. Furthermore, that RGB value can differ between MSPaint, Photoshop, Illustrator or whatever software you're using to open it because of the different native color spaces each may be using (contrary to popular belief though, your monitor doesn't alter the RGB value of a color, only how it is visually displayed, which means if you and I open the same image in the same software and eyedrop the same color, they will have the same RGB value regardless of how they compare visually, i.e. mine looks darker than yours).

I know, which is why it would be nice to have the Pantone supplied RGB values displayed. It's not a perfect match but it's close enough.

[andrewharrington]

They are displayed. All you need to do is eyedrop them. The optimized sRGB values are right there.

[spyboy1]

I'd still like to see the font under the swatch to not be condensed and bolder as they were in the old format.