61–70 of 151 posts
1. user resizable text fonts
2. user zoomable regions
3. on screen: white on black, default. users can tweak
4. on paper: black on white, default.
5. (related to 3 and 4) when looking at a PDF on screen let user see it as white on black, if wishes
these are all in my own personal rulebook of software engineering best practices anyway
"Kids, get off my lawn."
For paper you'd like the maximum contrast, but screens emit light, and maximum contrast puts additional strain on the eyes. There's a big but, though. This is for people with normal eyesight. As far as I understand, some people require this hurtful (to me) level of contrast just to be able to read. Additionally, you can significantly lower contrast just adjusting your monitor's brightness, but there's a limit on how…
Depends on the screen. You don’t know if the viewer is using e-ink or something like that (or even printing to paper—though in that case especially, colours specified in your stylesheet are more likely to be just ignored). If they’re using an LCD or similar, you also have no idea about their brightness settings. They might be ridiculously overbright, as is stupidly common, or “maximum contrast” may actually be delightfully pleasant because they’ve got sensibly-set brightness. Certainly for me in my current lighting circumstances, simple black on white will look delightful, matching the ambient lighting neatly.
Weirdly, this site uses `color: #1b1b1b` instead of black. Why? The difference is barely noticeable, but black provides more contrast and IMO looks better than #1b1b1b. I've seen many designers assert that being slightly off-black is "better" for some reason, but isn't this the same argument that eventually leads to low-contrast designs? Why is a little bit of contrast reduction good, but a lot is bad? Pure black alw…
The irony is that “pure black” (#000) is already off-black on non-OLED displays. IPS displays in particular are relatively low contrast and have poor black levels, often further worsened by IPS glow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> especially with downvoted or text posts. I think making them unreadable is the point?
Why would text posts be made unreadable? As for downvoted posts, eh, it would be better to collapse them by default or something instead of showing them but making them unreadable.
It would be nice since they are advocating for readable text if the font sizes were appropriate on mobile. Even funnier is that lighthouse shows a multitude of accessibility problems in the page including.... low contrast. https://pagespeed.web.dev/analysis/https-contrastrebellion-c... Apparently the reason for the awful sizing on mobile is missing the responsive viewport meta tag... IDK, I agree with the content of…
This was not a website designed for mobile - that's why it doesn't look appropriate on mobile. Not every website is designed for mobile - in fact there are usually two completely different websites for mobile and desktop. This one is only for desktop. This complaint is like renting a sports car and complaining it's not doing a good job at transporting your piano.
There is one actually valid issue with the website though, which you do not bring up. It singles out websites for some reason, when the issue has zero to do with websites. Windows itself - all over the place - has ridiculous light gray on white, or light gray on dark gray (in dark theme). It's literally not readable half the time. Android has the same - now with more empty space, and page scrolling through 2 lines of tiny text and a toggle that changes description on toggle, so you don't know what it's doing. Heck, the service tag printed on the bottom of my silver dell laptop, is gray.
then we have things like expensive custom license plates with nature pictures and a tiny font. that all the drug dealers buy. and lastly - faces. the only way to tell a nose from a cheek from afar, is light-tan vs dark-tan (in the shadow). And with some people, the only way you can find them at night at all, is if they smile at your joke.
Also I understand that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,". In my personal opinion barely visibly text is not "beautiful" but rather ugly.
For paper you'd like the maximum contrast, but screens emit light, and maximum contrast puts additional strain on the eyes. There's a big but, though. This is for people with normal eyesight. As far as I understand, some people require this hurtful (to me) level of contrast just to be able to read. Additionally, you can significantly lower contrast just adjusting your monitor's brightness, but there's a limit on how…
That's just a problem with manufacturers putting displays with high dynamic range into devices and not putting decent HDR software implementations in.
Some apple devices are smart about it though. When you open up an HDR video, it cranks the backlight to make those highlights pop, but dims the LCD by lowering the contrast in software. This means high contrast websites don't sear your retinas while your media can still take better advantage of your display.
I am all for removing this light grey text on white background abomination. Also I understand that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,". In my personal opinion barely visibly text is not "beautiful" but rather ugly.
I'm always amused by HackerNews being presented as this awful, unreadable, low-contrast atrocity, when it is the most user-friendly, easiest-to-read, most seamlessly customizable thing I access on literally any given day. That being said, yes; awful low-contrast sites exist. But it's not, hah, black and white. There's certainly such a thing as too high of a contrast - depending on the person, monitor, and background…
What we often have instead is barely readable light gray text in the name of "clean" design. Well it is not clean, it is moronic. If creators disrespects potential readers that much they might as well present blank screen and be done with it.