111–120 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flagged posts are completely removed now. They just say "[Flagged]." E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35852495
You need to enable showdead in your profile.
A few things worked out of the box like Office 365.
Anyway, high contrast mode looks OK on Windows 11 but the apps integration is a sad state of affairs right now.
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…
The default font size on HN is unreadable, and has issues with contrast, especially with downvoted or text posts.
Arguably the best feature of the web is that any content can be zoomed in and out as much as one pleases without problems. It does break on some websites, but as someone who zooms in most content I find it's relatively rare.
If you make text large you will have people complaining the text is too large. If you make text small you will have people complaining the text is too small. You you make text somewhere in-between you will have people complaining from both ends. So as long as you ensure it can be zoomed it doesn't really matter.
This is a huge pet peeve for me. Shouldn't this be a “solved” style problem in 2023! I'd gladly fire every tenth web designer responsible for this problem regardless of their other merits. Small fonts are one thing. There are browser hot keys to change the font size. And I'm a huge fan of the "Zoom Text Only" option in Firefox where the rest of page doesn't go flying off the edge of my viewing area. But low contrast…
I wrote a bookmarklet a few years ago that doesn't always work, but does work most of the time.
javascript:(function() {
document.querySelectorAll('p, li, div').forEach(function(n) {
n.style.color = '#000';
n.style.font = '500 16px/1.7em sans-serif';
});
})();
Biggest downside is that it doesn't work well for "dark mode" websites, where low-contrast seems the most prevalent, but I find "dark mode" very hard to read even with good contrast so I typically tend to just not read those sites unless I really need to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree for downvoted posts, but why do text submissions need to be unreadable?
I think it originally was meant to discourage those too (they also get a ranking penalty afaik), since HN should primarily be a link site. It's a bit off though, since it e.g. also applies to the "officially selected" Launch HN: posts.
For the designer it might be "a bit inconvenient to read", and for somebody else it might be "literally impossible to read".
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…
It's funny, because I've never really thought hard about this, but I made a similar decision on my personal site. My site has a "dark mode" style theme - dark background and "white" text. When I was initially designing the theme, I opted for a slightly-less-white text color, and as I've spent more time on it, I ended up bumping that color to be closer to pure white. (I'm using Tailwind, so this change amounted to "te…
This part of your problem: if you're doing any design work, understand the specification you're designing for. This goes for any photographer, print designer, or web dev.
sRGB, bt709, rec2020, and SDR content in rec2100 contexts define the brightness of white as 100 nits, and is generally considered acceptable to be between 100 and 120 (as you often need to offset for ambient lighting to maintain perceptual white).
Your perception of both luma and chroma contrast, but also your perception of color itself, changes over the range of brightness your eye can perceive; the organic gamma curve of your eye also changes. Example: sRGB gamma and bt1886 EOTF are intended to be used with content that has a 2.4 gamma and a near-D65 whitepoint at around 100 nits; the same content at "theater darkness" (48 nits) will be encoded with a warmer/yellower white point, at 2.6 gamma, to maintain perceptual similarity.
And why is this? The rods (low light vision) and cones (bright light and colors vision) in your eye have different organic gamma curves (incl. each of the three cones have different curves in-of themselves), and the rods do not respond to all visible light equally and have a broad "color" of their own and rods continue to function and influence perception in bright light situations.
You can argue, "but Diablo, most people do not calibrate their displays", which is absolutely true; most displays, however, are manufactured with defaults that mimic the intended use of sRGB and bt709 content, and users, left to their own devices, generally will choose a brightness that approximates 100 nits plus an appropriate offset for ambient.
However, even for your own personal website, buy a colorimeter, whip out the DisplayCal software, set your profile to "Video (D65, BT1886)" (not "sRGB" due to modern content being mastered entirely for displays manufactured in the past 15 years; BT1886 handles perceptional similarity and better in dark values than sRGB's weirdly defined ramp), and then enjoy being able to author content for a wide range of displays.
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…
That's more statement due to how terrible other sites are; for example's HN utterly fucking idiotic idea of making any "Show HN" posts text body light gray
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was written in 2011. Was that tag in regular use at that time? I have no idea.
For reference the iPhone 4 had already been released, so mobile design was already a thing. The viewport meta tag wasn't a thing though, or at least not widespread as HTML5 release spec was finalized by W3C in 2014. I did not see that the website was this old when I first saw it. Still, I've used websites from the 90s that worked better on mobile lol (I also used websites in 2023 that were awful, to be fair).