This is actually an old version of For the latest and greatest, check out the new site.


Imagine that the world’s most popular monitor makers decided to revolutionize CRT monitors. From now on, monitors would ship without the color Blue.

“That’s outrageous,” you might say. But imagine that they would promise a bright future—no pun intended—through red and green. Scenes of jungles and forests will be crisp and alive. Meals featuring crustaceans or pizza will be terribly enticing. Apples will have never looked better.

However, we’re not leaving you high and dry. To replace blue phosphor in monitors, we’ve decided to add Glitter. RGGlit is the new RGB.

“I’m excited to play with the new RGGlit scheme, but there are some instances where I really do need and want to use Blue!” Not to worry. Blue has always been a corporate color, the most common among Fortune 500 companies. By focusing on red and green, you’ll be liberated from corporate mandates and encourage to explore newer, exciting opportunities. In addition, our conglomerate would start a support group for those struggling to deal with the transition into a blueless world.

“But my Blue Man Group: How to Be a Megastar Live! DVD is my favorite!” Again, we’ve got you covered. The up and coming Red Man Group will be a great substitution for you. Though not as popular and not as experienced, their time will come.

“Some of the designs I made for older clients use Blue. How will they work with the new monitors?” Sorry; because we’re no longer concerned with Blue, our new monitors have been set to ignore it. Not a big deal though, as you probably would have had to redesign those pieces anyway to work with our new monitors.


Blue is a thing of the past. It has worked to great success, and we understand why you would want to continue with this route. However, we live in a time where innovation is necessary, where people want new visual stimuli. Blue just can’t handle those demands.

The hundreds of thousands of newly created RGGlit designs prove that Blue isn’t necessary to create stunning work.

Perhaps you should focus more on creating a great blueless future.


Eugene said:

I'm not sure I get this but it sounds like you're saying something about the future of Flash. Is that correct?

Posted on May 11, 2010 10:34 AM

travis said:

if flash equals a color it would be something along the lines of yellow and red polka-dot

Posted on May 11, 2010 10:38 AM

Jay Fanelli said:

I like it. "A Modest Proposal" for the HTML v. Flash debate.

Dan, I understand what you're saying, and by abstracting the debate to a metaphor, it make things seem more black-and-white (or in this case, RGB) than they really are.

Suppose that Blue was an imperfect band-aid from the beginning...that computers always had to download a special plug-in to display Blue...that Blue made your monitor work much harder...that Blue occasionally made your monitor crash...that Blue was a crutch for certain people to ignore how to use Red and Green properly...that even after a few years, still no one could figure out how to make Blue display correctly on mobile devices. See what I'm getting at?

On the other hand, we have a dilemma. A good amount of web infrastructure is built on Blue, and we're asking a lot for web developers to rebuild using RGGlitter. Also, we're caught in the valley where Glitter isn't quite ready for primetime as a Blue replacement.

But I tell you what...Glitter's predecessor, Sparkle, has been around for a *long* time—longer than Blue—and Blue developers should've been building functional backups with Sparkle the whole time.

Posted on May 11, 2010 10:40 AM

Josh said:

If anything Flash would be the glitter. It has never truly been a "staple" in web design, it just enhances an experience for users who are able to view it. To claim that is it one of the three necessary elements of the web is just absurd.

Posted on May 11, 2010 10:42 AM

Le Cowboy said:

Computers are not as ubiquitous to mankind as the visible color spectrum is. Blue is available to anyone, anywhere, at any time. These new monitors would be the one exception to the rule, as they purposefully leave out Blue. Flash on the other hand, exists no where, is available to no one, at no time _unless_ they have a computer. On top of that, Flash is not even ubiquitous to all computers.

Posted on May 11, 2010 11:20 AM

Chad said:

Well spoken Daniel. I think the metaphor you've chosen is a great way to paint how ridiculous the debate (and it's accompanying misinformation) has become.

Posted on May 11, 2010 11:26 AM

Shane Guymon said:

I'd have to agree with what jay fanelli said up there. I get what you are attempting to say, I just think you chose a bad metaphor to say it.

It would work better if you said you can't eat your corn dog with mustard anymore, because ketchup, and ranch is better. See because some people already don't like mustard on their corn dog. Some people are already selling and eating corn dogs without it, and have been for quite some time. However some people can't live without mustard on their corn dog.

I'd have to wager that everyone enjoys blue in their monitors.

Posted on May 11, 2010 11:39 AM

Dan Mall said:

Great points all around. I posted an update about my thoughts on Adobe vs. Apple.

Posted on May 14, 2010 12:04 PM

Jake said:

Posted on May 14, 2010 04:45 PM

Sorry: comments are closed.