Re: where are some great backgrounds?

In article <vkqf0k9a56jpca (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, mikeirvan@cox-
internet.com says...

Hello. I'm a fellow webmaster who is wanting to know where I can go to get
wallpapers/backgrounds for websites. if anyone knows of any good websites i
can go for any of that, please let me know.

Plain white makes a very good background.
For wallpapers and backgrounds, try Google. Enter "wallpapers" and
"backgrounds".

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:25:37 +0200, Philipp Lenssen
<philipp.lenssen (AT) bb-k (DOT) com> wrote:

In article <vkqf0k9a56jpca (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>, mikeirvan@cox-
internet.com says...
Hello. I'm a fellow webmaster who is wanting to know where I can go to get
wallpapers/backgrounds for websites. if anyone knows of any good websites i
can go for any of that, please let me know.


Plain white makes a very good background.

Plain white sucks. Shows no imagination or flair. The real world is in
color.

In article <jtkrkvodii5ocj7op14im8l6hv6cue726e (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
wsmoake (AT) yahoo (DOT) com says...

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:25:37 +0200, Philipp Lenssen
philipp.lenssen (AT) bb-k (DOT) com> wrote:


Plain white makes a very good background.

Plain white sucks. Shows no imagination or flair. The real world is in
color.

When it comes to presenting text or images, white is well-suited. You
should rather compare to books, magazines, art books, then the real
world (which also is in stereo vision, consists of fragrances, and so
on). Mostly, books have a white background. While this cannot be
directly translated to screen (some might argue gray makes for better
reading, or white-on-black), it's an indicator that plain white doesn't
"suck". I find it makes for good reading (if it's the best might depend
on your personal preferences -- in fact, a good site would allow you to
set your own browser preferences without any harm done).

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:55:41 +0200, Philipp Lenssen
<philipp.lenssen (AT) bb-k (DOT) com> wrote:

In article <jtkrkvodii5ocj7op14im8l6hv6cue726e (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
wsmoake (AT) yahoo (DOT) com says...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:25:37 +0200, Philipp Lenssen
philipp.lenssen (AT) bb-k (DOT) com> wrote:


Plain white makes a very good background.

Plain white sucks. Shows no imagination or flair. The real world is in
color.


When it comes to presenting text or images, white is well-suited. You
should rather compare to books, magazines, art books, then the real
world (which also is in stereo vision, consists of fragrances, and so
on). Mostly, books have a white background.

The reason books are printed on white paper is economic, not
aesthetic: to save the cost of colored ink.

The same old arguments...
time and again...

I find myself laughing :P

There is inevitably a big difference between design for printed media and
designs for the web.
Im not as experienced as some, but nonetheless have been authoring pages for
the web for around 8 years.

When I first started out I thought - yes!!! - YES! - Great..fantastic...
coloured backgrounds on pages - looks so cool.
Wasnt too long before I heard different views from different people - even
the rest of the guys on the webteam couldnt decide.

So many different tastes for different people.

The upshot - to cut a very long story short. Eventually we looked at other
"professional" sites.. the sorts of sites that have a reputation to keep -
where image is everything. There are several sites I could point you to, but
the one I refer to most often is the BBCs website http://www.bbc.co.uk
I would tend to agree that white (or some pale/pastel shade - an off-white)
is the best colour to have as a background for the web.

I dont necessarily approve of all the comments, but you could try looking at
http://www.worstoftheweb.com/
An eyeopener for sure ;-)

--
Keith




"David Dorward" <dorward (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Philipp Lenssen wrote:

Plain white makes a very good background.

Not really, the glare can be uncomfortable to read against. Off-white is
better.

--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/