Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomschlick | Hacker News Reader

Still doesn't make it look good. If thats an issue they could always have an optional setting to enable colorblind mode.

View on HN

I think we should give it a few months to see if the fact that it doesn't look good is inherent to the color or just because we've become accustomed to it looking one way for so long. I can't count the number of interface redesigns I've seen in services I used that I hated at first and now I look back at the old design and can't fathom how I ever thought it was better.

And if colorblind people aren't inconvenienced (and don't have to navigate to a menu to de-inconvenience themself) then that's enough of a reason for me.

Fair enough.

Side note: I'm surprised there isn't a specific header browsers could send for something like colorblindness. That would allow sites to react to that header and serve up a different stylesheet.

Isn't that what the accept header is for? Telling the server what content types you're willing to accept, including relevant parameters. Something like:

    Accept: text/css; color-blind=trichromatic

Of course no server would recognize this today, since afaik the CSS media type doesn't define any parameters other than perhaps `charset`, but the mechanism is there at least. Also any self respecting web server would just ignore the parameter so it shouldn't break anything, just cost a few more bytes of bandwidth I guess. No need to invent a new header I don't think.

Why not have colorblind mode be the default? Much more courteous to make the nitpickers change their mode than casual browsers who just want to be able to use the site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com