Please read the entire bug report before making any decisions to close as a duplicate. This bug depends on Bug 376997, Bug 713230 and possibly others, which I apparently can't set as a non-developer. Description: I am filing this bug because it has not quite been addressed the other bugs. While several bugs exist asking for a reversion or user option to revert Bug 376997, it seems none of them address the pure usability problem with the fix for that bug. Centering and a dark gray border for images may be aesthetically displeasing to some, but do not cause actual usability problems. However, this change does have the side effect of making the actual background of images also be dark gray. This is fine for opaque images, but causes unexpected behavior on many images with transparency, as many are designed from the ground up with the old behavior (and the behavior of every other web browser) in mind. Images with black or dark gray portions on a transparent background have that portion obscured or invisible. This covers a lot of images, particularly those at Wikipedia, which sees lack of transparency as an artifact. My proposed solution is to put the image in (the equivalent of) a div of its own that has a light background (defined as #CCCCCC or greater), while preserving the dark borders that were implemented in Bug 376997. This solution is not only mine, but was also offered by developer Boris Zbarsky in Bug 713230 Comment 44. STEPS TO REPRODUCE: Open an image with dark portions surrounded by transparency. A large number can be found on Wikipedia in this Google Image search: http://goo.gl/ad05q Actual result: Portions of the image are obscured due to the dark background. Desired result: Change the IMAGE background to a light color (greater than #CCCCCC), while preserving the dark gray (#333333) border.

In case of PNG what about the bKGD chunk?

This is bug 713230 and even a patch was submitted, but rejected. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=713230#c7

It sounds more like a duplicate of bug 717226. There's a nice summary of the various issues in bug 376997 comment 140. The continuing resistance to fixing these issues is baffling.

This is not a duplicate of either of those bugs. I was very clear that I'm asking for a completely different resolution--a kind of compromise, really. I'm saying make the background of just the image be light, but keep the borders dark. This won't affect any opaque images, but will fix the PNGs. And, no, you are absolutely not supposed to render the transparent areas in the PNG. It's in the spec. The only thing you guys have ever put above what the users want is staying with the spec. Plus PNGs are just not designed to be seen this way. In summation, you get to keep the cool new feature you are so attached to that you are closing down bugs left and right, but the functionality for transparent images is restored.

Forgot to mention: Why keep closing bugs after telling people that we need a new bug away from all the ranting?

Last time, I promise: If you guys do intend to actually use that bug as intended, and ignore hijack and ranting, I guess you can reclose this as a duplicate. But I honestly think the hijack overtook the page and you need a new clean slate.

(In reply to Terrell Kelley from comment #0) > Images with black or dark gray portions on a > transparent background have that portion obscured or invisible. This covers > a lot of images, particularly those at Wikipedia, which sees lack of > transparency as an artifact. But it's also true that there are many images with exactly the opposite problem -- transparency that works poorly with a white background. I've not seen an acceptable solution proposed that addresses all cases. And it's worth noting there there are plenty of such images despite browsers generally using a white background. And given the lack of bug reports (and flames :) about that, I'm not inclined to believe this is a serious problem. > My proposed solution is to put the image in (the equivalent of) a div of its > own that has a light background (defined as #CCCCCC or greater), while > preserving the dark borders that were implemented in Bug 376997. This > solution is not only mine, but was also offered by developer Boris Zbarsky > in Bug 713230 Comment 44. I commented in some bug about this... The downside of that is that you still have to choose a single color, and now all transparent images have an unsightly bright rectangle behind them.

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".

That's because said images designed to be displayed on a dark background are never displayed in this manner, assuming they exist. I provided a ton of links to prove my point, so why don't you actually prove what you say? I know I've been working with PNGs on the Internet for years and I haven't encountered any. Generally, if you intend it to be on a dark background, you design the image with that background, not wasting the bytes on transparency you don't need when you can control the background. Oh, and if there were no complaints before, and there are now, obviously the solution is to return behavior to its previous use. That's just basic logic. When two options both may have problems, the one that produces the least complaints is the correct solution. That's kinda your goal: **** off the least number of users. I mean, you are contradicting your own logic: people don't want to change this because it affects so few users, but yet, when I propose a change, it has to satisfy an even smaller number of users. Users who put up with a white background for years and didn't complain. Users that may not even exist. My proposal actually gives you a third option--one that hopefully will **** off even fewer users, since it deals with both parties that care enough to voice complaints. If there's some third party out there that isn't going to complain at all, then we have no reason to worry about satisfying them. If you must also have a fourth option: it's kinda obvious. Give that third party the ability to change a setting to get a dark image background. Just leave the light one as a default. But since so many people think giving people another option is such a horrible idea, I thought that was off the table.

(Bob - also see responses to your duplicate comment: bug 713230 comment 63)

(though I assume Terrell was actually replying to comment 7)

Showing images centered on dark background is good, but if the image is black-on-transparent, it becomes unviewable. It would be best if the image had a white box background behind it, and the dark borders around it, then have a link in the corner that toggles the box's background color from light to dark for the occasional white-on-transparent images that will rarely be encountered.

+1 for this. Black on transparent pngs is a problem. Either introduce a feature (or logic) to switch background color or simply just revert back to the old way of displaying images. This is no good: http://vola.com/pngfail.png

(In reply to Terrell Kelley from comment #0) > Desired result: > Change the IMAGE background to a light color (greater than #CCCCCC), while > preserving the dark gray (#333333) border. It sounds like they've opted for a really light colour: #FFFFFF - see bug 754133. Presumably this bug will be resolved as a duplicate, even though it came first.

I don't care how they resolve it if they've fixed the problem. Heck, I'll do it myself.

(In reply to Jon B from comment #12) > Showing images centered on dark background is good, No. Give me the FF10 behaviour, possibly with a toggle for a (user-selected) alternative background colour, and I'll be happy. Anything else is just asking to be hacked to restore that behaviour.