Abstract
The IT world – i.e. IBM or Intel just to mention some of the most popular and elderly companies – seems to have always favoured some colour ranges identified – among all the possible palettes – in blue/cyan variants and grey scale, making of them a sort of chromatic commonplace. This choice apparently perpetuates itself and become even more recurrent in the Web 2.0. Virtually all brands and interfaces of social networks and sharing platforms first generation elected light blue not to be a differentiating element rather of similarity. From the Facebook blue to the Twitter or Vimeo cyan, colour seems not to be part of the visual language aimed to distinguish the company corporate communication, on one hand, nor the user experience of these platforms, on the other. If the physical impairment of Zuckerberg – that made him choose a specific light blue visible also to people with a partial colour blindness – has become almost a urban legend, is not so clear why other brands and entrepreneurs decided a similar chromatic approach, not to say mimetic and plagiarized. Conversely, the mobile Web 3.0 in its variations – for example iOS7 – breaks this pattern opening up to a more wide variability of expression and connotation. But in this re-appropriation of a key component of the visual language does not apparently correspond consistent design awareness. However the lack of constraints – instead of being a challenging opportunity to experiment knowingly with new uses of chromatic codes and meanings – is letting forget the basics of the colour language even in its most basic and semiotic consolidated design guidelines. The paper suggests a critical review by the exemplification and comparison of the major players in the Web 3.0 market referring both to the design of colour principles – as part of the graphic culture and the user experience – and to the Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines and to W3C standards.