Hacker News Reader

Comment by trajing | Hacker News Reader

I feel as though this is at least somewhat relevant: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com

Then surely, so is this http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

They made it washed out with poor contrast and made the lines annoyingly short. Seems like the first site is more readable to me.

Everything we know from centuries of design experience and all science knows about the eyes and how we read, tells us they made it better than the first site.

There's not even a parallel universe where the first one is better -- and it's not a subjective issue either.

What papers say that low contrast is better than high contrast black on white? There is research to show that black on white is better than white on black, but I doubt there's any to show that poor contrast dark grey on light grey is better than black on white.

It is just a fashion, there's no science to say that low contrast is better. http://contrastrebellion.com/

Shorter lines I might grant you, though.

>What papers say that low contrast is better than high contrast black on white?

Not about low contrast being better -- only about (slightly) reduced contrast than full on white on black blaze.

Black on white is better for readability, but the brightness can induce fatigue for longer term use (and people use computers all day long) and also hurt knowledge retention (according to educational related research).

A slightly off-white is better there than shining a white backlight on your eyes for hours on end (and adjusting monitor brightness achieves the same effect, color-wise as having a "less white" background in the first place, and is recommended by doctors).

Note that the website you linked doesn't have any sharp black on white.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com