Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Contrast Rebellion

contrastrebellion.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Contrast Rebellion

#41

Post by krick »

DanBC wrote: post #33
krick wrote: post #30

Well, what I'm to say here… If you are site owner and you feel that colors hurt conversion/number of visitors/time spent on page/whatever else you care about — you probably should change the colors. If you are a visitor and you feel that colors of the site you'd like to use discourage you to do so — you probably need to help yourself and make a custom CSS of your own (using Stylish or something) to satisfy your very…

> If you are a visitor and you feel that colors of the site you'd like to use discourage you to do so — you probably need to help yourself and make a custom CSS of your own This attitude is hostile to a wide range of people who already have to fight the computer to get things done and shouldn't have to fight the stupid decisions made by bad designers. > nobody fucking cares. For various values of "nobody" including "…

Hostile? I would call it "fair". Because, ok, let's assume you win. I'm wrong, you're right, and some ultimate dictator decides that all websites now are coming in black-on-white only. What should I do, as a person that feels low-contrast is much nicer than eye-burning one? Exactly, I'm about to make my own customizations or suffer. And then you should be saying, that black-on-white is hostile to me, which wouldn't make much sense, as you (or somebody else for that matter) would have something to complain on either way.

Hence my first point about "if it hurts conversion/…". In other words, if it's your business — it's your business. If it's not — well, you are free to complain about other people coloring their stuff as they like all you want, but I hope they won't be upset about that, because they really shouldn't be, and believing that your point of view is the only right one (even if it's supported by some Nielsen or whatever) is simply ignorance.

Re: Contrast Rebellion

#42

Post by DanBC »

krick wrote: post #41
DanBC wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are a visitor and you feel that colors of the site you'd like to use discourage you to do so — you probably need to help yourself and make a custom CSS of your own This attitude is hostile to a wide range of people who already have to fight the computer to get things done and shouldn't have to fight the stupid decisions made by bad designers. > nobody fucking cares. For various values of "nobody" including "…

Hostile? I would call it "fair". Because, ok, let's assume you win. I'm wrong, you're right, and some ultimate dictator decides that all websites now are coming in black-on-white only. What should I do, as a person that feels low-contrast is much nicer than eye-burning one? Exactly, I'm about to make my own customizations or suffer. And then you should be saying, that black-on-white is hostile to me, which wouldn't m…

I agree that too high contrast is also wrong. Notice how the submitted website does not use black text on a white background anywhere? No one is asking for maximum contrast. People are asking for good contrast, and that includes "not black on white".

Re: Contrast Rebellion

#43

Post by ricardobeat »

mrob wrote: post #36

Despite praising high contrast, this site hypocritically throws away contrast for no good reason. I can understand using non-white backgrounds, because it can reduce glare, but using grey text is pure fashion. This site uses color:#191919 text. As always, the only good solution is user CSS to set it to #000000. I use the Stylish addon for Firefox to let me toggle this quickly for sites with light or dark color scheme…

Too much contrast is also bad, reducing blacks just a tiny bit reduces eye strain in the average screen.

Re: Contrast Rebellion

#44

Post by mrob »

ricardobeat wrote: post #43
mrob wrote: post #36

Despite praising high contrast, this site hypocritically throws away contrast for no good reason. I can understand using non-white backgrounds, because it can reduce glare, but using grey text is pure fashion. This site uses color:#191919 text. As always, the only good solution is user CSS to set it to #000000. I use the Stylish addon for Firefox to let me toggle this quickly for sites with light or dark color scheme…

Too much contrast is also bad, reducing blacks just a tiny bit reduces eye strain in the average screen.

There's no chance of too much contrast on an LCD displaying dark text on a light background. People have no trouble reading high quality print in sunlight, and that has much higher contrast. Grey text is harder to read, as demonstrated by the studies cited. Eg. this one finds pure 100% black on 100% white is most legible: http://www.laurenscharff.com/research/agecontrast.html

Black text is the default, and changing it to grey only makes things worse. This is superior web design to the vast majority of sites out there: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

But note that excessive contrast can harm legibility of light text on dark background (although that color scheme is less legible, so it should be reserved for cases where it has real benefits, eg. photo editing software, where it makes it easier to see shadow detail).

Re: Contrast Rebellion

#45

Post by Trombone12 »

dark background, Light Background!, dark background, Light Background!

Scrolling trough this page made my eyes hurt, did nobody test the transitions when they set really dark and light backgrounds right after each other?

Re: Contrast Rebellion

#46

Post by jkot »

DanBC wrote: post #35
jkot wrote: post #24

People should filter colors and fonts the same way they filter ads. Its easy.

A tiny number of people filter ads. Why should bad designers get to force a bunch of people to fix mistaken web design choices?

Why should people suffer because of bad designers?

Re: Contrast Rebellion

#47

Post by TheDong »

DanBC wrote: post #33
krick wrote: post #30

Well, what I'm to say here… If you are site owner and you feel that colors hurt conversion/number of visitors/time spent on page/whatever else you care about — you probably should change the colors. If you are a visitor and you feel that colors of the site you'd like to use discourage you to do so — you probably need to help yourself and make a custom CSS of your own (using Stylish or something) to satisfy your very…

> If you are a visitor and you feel that colors of the site you'd like to use discourage you to do so — you probably need to help yourself and make a custom CSS of your own This attitude is hostile to a wide range of people who already have to fight the computer to get things done and shouldn't have to fight the stupid decisions made by bad designers. > nobody fucking cares. For various values of "nobody" including "…

Asking visitors to make adjustments to their taste is far easier and less hostile than asking a webdev to create a webpage which uses colors that every person who visits it will like. In fact, it's not just hostile to the webdev, but impossible.

Re: Contrast Rebellion

#48

Post by [deleted] »

ricardobeat wrote: post #43
mrob wrote: post #36

Despite praising high contrast, this site hypocritically throws away contrast for no good reason. I can understand using non-white backgrounds, because it can reduce glare, but using grey text is pure fashion. This site uses color:#191919 text. As always, the only good solution is user CSS to set it to #000000. I use the Stylish addon for Firefox to let me toggle this quickly for sites with light or dark color scheme…

Too much contrast is also bad, reducing blacks just a tiny bit reduces eye strain in the average screen.

[deleted]

Re: Contrast Rebellion

#50

Post by bsder »

Yeah, and this website does grotty hacks to figure out my browser tab size and scale--which makes me scroll and scroll and scroll and scroll on a 4K monitor.

He's an brilliant idea: quit trying to turn the web from scrolling text into a damn slideshow. Thanks.

Post reply on HN