Site layout is broken in firefox, the irony.
Contrast Rebellion
141–150 of 151 posts
Re: Contrast Rebellion
#142It 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…
Well, the reason it shows "low contrast" on the page, is because the purpose of the page is to illustrate the low contrast problem. There are many sections that show the contrasting example of good contrast. What you're doing is running two virus scanners, and the second one finds the quarantine folder of the first one. You then claim the first antivirus is a virus. Nope. This was not a website designed for mobile -…
> Well, the reason it shows "low contrast" on the page, is because the purpose of the page is to illustrate the low contrast problem.
No, those parts are done as screenshots. The places it’s complaining of low contrast are in the actual document and supposed to be high enough contrast.
> Not every website is designed for mobile - in fact there are usually two completely different websites for mobile and desktop.
This was never true. Websites that split desktop/mobile completely were always a tiny minority across the entire web, though a decade or so ago it was certainly absurdly common among big players. But fortunately those days are past, and the considerable majority of sites that ever had a hard split have unsplit.
No, in this case it’s just a badly-implemented website from an era where that didn’t matter quite so much, and they haven’t fixed it in the decade since.
Re: Contrast Rebellion
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they definitely not? I've been thinking the same thing.
It's both. It happens for both downvoted comments [0] and any text posts, regardless of voting score. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
That only seems to mention the downvoted comments?
Re: Contrast Rebellion
#144Weirdly, 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…
First time I read an argument against all black in design was this 2012 article. Something about it not being a color found in nature. Then, yeah, some people seemed to interpret it as “use gray on gray”. https://ianstormtaylor.com/design-tip-never-use-black/
I don’t get the “found in nature” arguments. We’ve likely been using black (carbon) markings for thousands of years.
Re: Contrast Rebellion
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. This is a very problematic take, and is simply inacc…
> It's all the violence of designers that makes things both less device friendly "violence"? seriously? You should maybe dial back the hyperbole a bit.
And there it is, a low readability low contrast example..
Re: Contrast Rebellion
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
You believe some of these sections are _meant_ to be bad contrast, while others are meant to demo good contrast? Which are which? I can't understand exactly which sections the lighthouse report is flagging. I also thought I wasn't sure some of those sections were sufficient contrast, but all the ones I tested actually did pass WCAG contrast test. If the web page has chosen to make some sections intentionally bad cont…
lol I don't need a piece of text to tell me which sections are good contrast and which are bad. my eyes do that all on their own. but yours do not? yes, i'm convinced that an article that talks about good and bad contrast, gives examples of varying contrast. because, again - eyes.
No, mine apparently don't.
Although to be sure, there are a few sections that looked low contrast to me. When I checked them with a WCAG altorithm contrast checker, they all easily exceeded AAA limits.
I concluded that the page might have been intending to show that you still had a lot of flexibility in color choices, while meeting WCAG standards. (The WCAG standards are mentioned on the page).
Of course, it's possible the WCAG algorithm/standard is at fault -- it is hard to totally capture human perception in a measurement (not to mention different humans are different), and there are other times I have had color combinations that I find hard to read but which pass the WCAG measurement.
But the WCAG standard is, again, mentioned on the page, with no disclaimers.
I think there may be something worth talking about going on, but I'm definitely not convinced it's what you think.
There are sections of the page that _say_ they are showing you screenshots of _other_ people's pages that are too low-contrast, that part is clear. But you are convinced sections of the page itself with the authors words are supposed to be obviously hard to read due to contrast?
Maybe. I guess we'd have to ask the authors. Seems a weird choice to me, to do that without mentioning you are doing it.
But either way I still am curious if you wanted to identify which sections of the page you are identifying as deliberately too-low-contrast. I'm curious if they are the same ones that looked hard to read due to contrast to me, and I'm curious how they do on the WCAG metric (I didn't look for every single section myself).
Re: Contrast Rebellion
#147Ironically, that "NO CONTRAST" floating bubble label they put on the image is almost unreadable in Dark Reader (browser extension for dark mode everywhere). If I turn dark reader off, it looks like white letters on a nearly black background. If I turn dark reader on, it looks like very faint gray on a nearly white background.
I say, use bad contrast if you like; just don't make things hostile to extensions that fix it.
Re: Contrast Rebellion
#148I'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.
> The default font size on HN is unreadable
There's something ironic about the fact that I am reading your statement, then.
Re: Contrast Rebellion
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's both. It happens for both downvoted comments [0] and any text posts, regardless of voting score. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
That only seems to mention the downvoted comments?
Yeah I was talking about the posts too not the comments but yeah it seems the showHN posts are grey on grey normally not just downvoted!
Re: Contrast Rebellion
#150It 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…
Well, the reason it shows "low contrast" on the page, is because the purpose of the page is to illustrate the low contrast problem. There are many sections that show the contrasting example of good contrast. What you're doing is running two virus scanners, and the second one finds the quarantine folder of the first one. You then claim the first antivirus is a virus. Nope. This was not a website designed for mobile -…
> in fact there are usually two completely different websites for mobile and desktop
Only if your designer is too clever for his own good.
Plain HTML works fine on mobile (with the meta tag added to tell mobile browsers no to be stupid) so if your website doesn't then it's because something YOU deliberately added.