Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a shame that the "readable" mode has #333 body text instead of #000.
Why?
#000 is easier to read on devices with that have dim backlights.
Firefox 36.0 released
231–240 of 256 posts
Re: Firefox 36.0 released
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a shame that the "readable" mode has #333 body text instead of #000.
#000 needs to be used tastefully, otherwise it can be visually overbearing.
Do you find this page visually overbearing because all of the non-downvoted comments are #000? I have never seen a page of text on a computer screen look overbearing because its color was #000 and not lighter.
Re: Firefox 36.0 released
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://ianstormtaylor.com/design-tip-never-use-black/
That is poor advice which doesn't account for the difference between computer screens and ink on paper. The deepest black you can get on a monitor will not be as dark as certain inks on a page.
I'd argue that it does account for that difference, just not in an immediately obvious way. Screen displays are an additive color model and print is a subtractive one; screens shine light at you, paper has light shined on it. This makes for a very different perceptual feel; (completely) black ink on white paper is way less "contrasty" than #000 text on an #FFF background. WCAG accessibility guidelines suggest a minimum contrast ratio of 7:1 luminosity -- #000 on #FFF is a 21:1 contrast ratio!
In practice, I think we'd be better off darkening the background a little and lightening the foreground just a touch; #333 text on #F8F8F8 background still "feels" like black and white, but (assuming you've chosen a reasonable text size) it'll be a lot easier to read if you're dealing with long-form text.
Re: Firefox 36.0 released
#234cool
Re: Firefox 36.0 released
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is poor advice which doesn't account for the difference between computer screens and ink on paper. The deepest black you can get on a monitor will not be as dark as certain inks on a page.
I'd argue that it does account for that difference, just not in an immediately obvious way. Screen displays are an additive color model and print is a subtractive one; screens shine light at you, paper has light shined on it. This makes for a very different perceptual feel; (completely) black ink on white paper is way less "contrasty" than #000 text on an #FFF background. WCAG accessibility guidelines suggest a minim…
I find it difficult to believe that the relative difference between #F8F8F8 and #FFFFFF matters at all relative to the the widely varying screen brightness settings on everyone's very different computers, tablets and phones in very different lighting conditions.
Re: Firefox 36.0 released
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
#000 needs to be used tastefully, otherwise it can be visually overbearing.
Do you find this page visually overbearing because all of the non-downvoted comments are #000? I have never seen a page of text on a computer screen look overbearing because its color was #000 and not lighter.
What stands out more? The comments, or the names of those who comment?
Experiment, write this css into your dev tools:
body * {
color: #000 !important;
}Re: Firefox 36.0 released
#237Re: Firefox 36.0 released
#238Re: Firefox 36.0 released
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a shame that the "readable" mode has #333 body text instead of #000.
http://ianstormtaylor.com/design-tip-never-use-black/
It's (generally) bad 'design' to fill areas with black, sure- but #000 outlines and text is just getting proper use of the limited dynamic range we're provided with.
Re: Firefox 36.0 released
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
#000 needs to be used tastefully, otherwise it can be visually overbearing.
Do you find this page visually overbearing because all of the non-downvoted comments are #000? I have never seen a page of text on a computer screen look overbearing because its color was #000 and not lighter.
No, but I probably would if the background were white.