I dispute the premise that CRTs were easier to read.
The flicker in particular was problematic.
Ask HN: Why were green and amber CRTs more comfortable to read?
11–12 of 12 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why were green and amber CRTs more comfortable to read?
#12First thought: Development of amber & green CRT's was driven by real-world use - not consumer preferences. The military was especially focused on ergonomics in the decades after WWII - and for them, the failure of a fatigued operator to notice and process some data on a crummy display could get everyone killed. Second thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell#Difference_... And slow reaction helps red…
That’s a really good framing. I agree the driver was real-world operator endurance (military/industrial), not consumer preference. In those contexts, “fatigued operator misses something” is a real failure mode, so readability/comfort gets treated like performance.
Also +1 on photoreceptors. The rods/cones split and sensitivity shifts in low light are a big part of why certain wavelengths and lower absolute luminance can feel disproportionately readable at night. I’m less confident that “slow reaction” is the main fatigue reducer (persistence trades off smear vs flicker/visibility), but the broader point about temporal characteristics affecting comfort is spot on.