White (Light) vs. Black (Dark) Backgrounds: Health Effects | Hacker News Reader

White (Light) vs. Black (Dark) Backgrounds: Health Effects

stackoverflow.com

27 pointshiteshiitk14 comments

I've tried all kinds of combinations for coding over the past 10 years. The only combination which didn't start to hurt my eyes over time was a light grey background with dark text.

http://jlongster.com/media/images/screen.png

I absolutely love this scheme. It may not look pretty at first, but it's very very easy on the eyes, and also very clear. Colors are easy to make out and there's no glare anywhere.

Interesting. I stick with default backgrounds (white, usually) but I tend to turn my screen brightness way way down when I'm working... which ends up looking indistinguishable from your screenshot.

I do exactly the same. I suppose using a darker background with black text has essentially the same effect as dimming the screen. One is limiting the light emitted from the backlight, the other is limiting the light transmitting through the liquid crystals. Both result in less light reaching your eye.

However, I suppose the dark background allows for immediate switching from low brightness to high brightness. If you're doing the 30/30 work cycle, you could easily switch from a dark coding screen to a proper brightness game or tv show.

A nice trip to kuler would probably spruce it up a bit (for new users). I've always liked the idleFingers theme for Textmate.

I think one of the reasons your theme works so well is that it's not so high-contrast, which is better for the reflective qualities of print, and less for the luminous properties of a giant matrix of glowing dots.

I like dark on light; it's literally easier for me to read (though there is a medical cause for my choice).

I have Keratoconus, so there are very few corrective lenses which can actually help me have good clear vision. Light screens with black text cause my pupils to contract, which results in better focus (it's related to the reason that pinhole cameras work without any lenses).

If I do light on dark (my favorite colorscheme was Zenburn), the text gets too fuzzy to read at anything smaller than 14 point. On the other hand, if I use dark on light (I prefer bclear now) I can read text comfortably at 8 point.

It's certainly painful on the eyes if the rest of the environment is dark, but if you have a reasonably well lit room, I've noticed very little eye strain.

While my experience obviously does not carry over well to the population at general, it could help explain why dark on light is easier to read - it's easier to make out the details.

I wonder how much of the effect is because black on white is actually superior, and how much is because people have so much more practice at reading black on white. It would be interesting to see the studies repeated, using sub-groups that are used to black on white and white on black, respectively.

My thoughts exactly. It would be hard to find many people who almost exclusively read white on black, though. I think the groups people break down into are likely the average people from "book-land", where all is black on white, and techies who use dark background terminals, but are fluent in both. In which case, it would make the most sense to test people who have extensive exposure to both (techies) for comprehension, etc.

An interesting experiment would be to test with close captioning which, in North America at least, uses white on black. Another side experiment could be conducted to see if it has any impact on how much attention the show receives (if white on black is simply better at retaining attention than black on white).

While this only tests a certain setting where subjects are used to seeing black and white it would provide what you are looking for. A long term experiment where people recognize black on white as the norm would be difficult to carry out.

I find it easier to read prose when it's dark text on a light background, but I find it easier to read code when it's light text on a dark background. Maybe it has to do with proportional vs. monospace fonts?

I do, too. I suspect it's just habit.

Which ever background you pick, I find f.lux ( http://www.stereopsis.com/flux/ ) to be invaluable when using computers for extended periods of time (especially in the winter when the sun sets early). The quick rundown is that based on your location is adjusts the brightness and color temperature of your screen to match the lighting around you as it transitions from daylight to inside lighting. It's a slow transition so you don't really notice it until you look at someone else's screen and notice that it's looks really blue. The biggest downside I've seen is that it can't control the brightness of all displays (my MBPs screen gets dimmed but the Dell 2405 stays at the same level). It still does adjust the color temperature on external screens (at least on mac laptops it seems) which is better than nothing.

I've known people with vision problems who have to skip light-on-dark web pages because it's just not tenable for them to try to read. (This was before Readability, though keep in mind it's nobody's obligation to find a work-around for your eye-straining website.)

I suspect there's an objective benefit, there.

Everything seems to indicate that dark-on-light is better than light-on-dark, and both are better than light-on-light or dark-on-dark. (Or, in other words, contrast is vital, and dark text is preferable.)

I've always liked the way flarp looks (https://github.com/mikecrittenden/flarp-gedit) . It's light on dark, but using colors that are easier on the eyes than plain white-on-black. There's a screenshot of it here: http://mikethecoder.com/post/861539191/flarp-a-gedit-color-s...

I've always preferred dark backgrounds/light text.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com