Geez, have you heard of a contrast checker before?
> author here — sorry about that. I don't use/didn't test with Firefox, but it looks like it's not setting the page background properly in dark mode. I'll get that fixed!
Hey, it's awesome that you were so quick to address the issue. But I think you might want to take this one with a little grace. Putting aside the contrast you intended and missed by mistake, try to understand that accessibility is a pretty sore spot for people who need it. It's often ignored completely, or just jammed into a Lighthouse or similar score/checklist without regard for whether people can actually... access things. When people have difficulty with vision or hearing or any other sense, and when it's commonplace for that to be disregarded in very pronounced ways, it's not uncommon to feel invisible and react that way.
Edit: oh my god please downvote this. I definitely need more people telling me they don’t approve of me clearly stating what actually helps my sensory limitations and offering nothing constructive at all.
Don't just quote some automated tool at people who very clearly experience something else.
Maybe that’s why CSS was originally made to be overridden client side, so everyone can make their own choices about font and background.
I don’t think it works like that. Generally speaking most people with good or limited vision share the luminance spectrum and portions of the color spectrum. Increasing contrast doesn’t hurt anyone (though dark mode users generally prefer slightly lower contrast for lower luminance overall). Increasing type size doesn’t hurt anyone but might make HN users complain about information density.
> Maybe that’s why CSS was originally made to be overridden client side, so everyone can make their own choices about font and background.
It still can be! In fact it’s standardized in web extensions. As an example you can try my HNDarkMode theme on my GitHub (same handle).
I think there's enough human variation that it can be hard to say anything general like this. Setting aside the semantic debate about what is a disability, or what is accessibility, let me take for granted that "attention disorder" is a thing and anything that anything that distracts a reader could hurt. It is hard to determine flat-out which complaints are valid.
I like to watch captioned content. Others find it distracting, or hate having the punchline to a joke come early (usually due to bad captioning!). I am hearing and AFAIK don't have an audio-processing disorder. I don't "need" captions, otherwise it would probably be a clear case of definitely my needs override someone who just doesn't "want" captions. But that's also another semantic debate.
I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve.
This is true and I have ADHD so I can speak to it from experience, although not for everyone with ADHD of course. At least for me, motion is far more distracting than contrast as such. The places where contrast may distract me tend to be places where there are already accessibility issues for people with color blindness.
You’re right to say I’ve overgeneralized a bit. But for the vast majority of people with vision suitable enough for them to choose to read, the things I said tend to be true.
> I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve.
Full agree here!
I don't think that's a fair response to my comment when it was GP who specifically brought contrast into the discussion and even linked to a contrast checker that also checks two colors against the WCAG guidelines.
I wasn't I claiming that everyone is able to read it. I was just saying that according to the standard they themselves referenced it was fine. The fact that it actually was not fine for certain dark mode configurations is orthogonal to that and was not taken into account by both of us.
E: Edge F: Firefox C: Chrome