Hacker News Reader

Comment by slingnow | Hacker News Reader

This is one of the most unreadable websites I've seen in a long time. Right off the bat you're assaulted with multiple levels of unreadable thin grey fonts, and it doesn't get any better from there. It almost seems like this was intentionally created to ruin eyesight.

View on HN

Remove the .light class from the <body> and apply these userstyles for this domain

        .post {
            font-family: unset;
        }
        .wrapper > center,
        .site-description,
        .site-navigation,
        #disqus_thread,
        .postNavigation,
        .site-footer {
            display: none !important;
        }

I also dislike light grey on a white background. Let alone how often the color and size change throughout. It is hard to see and feels noisy - maybe my eyes are already ruined, though I doubt it was from websites that are not to my taste.

If I really want to read something like this I usually copy it into a text editor (usually Sublime).

You're discussing pure form and no adding any value on discussing content.

contrast ratio is cruel

I wasn't aware that different bits of text in different shades of grey would 'ruin eyesight'. Can you provide a citation, or are you simply expressing "I don't like how this website looks" using hyperbole? Or are you using a hyperbolic way of expressing "I find it difficult to read this website"?

I have vision problems which are not correctable with glasses or contacts, like many people. (Fortunately, my issues are relatively mild.) For people like me, sites with poor contrast are fatiguing to read in a way that sites with good contrast are not. For people with more severe impairments, low-contrast may push past a threshold where a site becomes unreadable in practice.

This is not exactly news, there are whole guidelines on contrast published and backed by copious research.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/U...

I understand that some people are unaware of this issue. For those that are open to becoming part of the solution when it is brought to their attention, I hold no resentment.

But for those that belligerently minimize the problem, for example characterizing the challenge as "I don't like how this website looks"... not so much.

Same with organizations that surely know better but continue to present problematic low-contrast interfaces. (Discord, I'm looking at you.)

Do you believe that things that you find fatiguing to read are also going to 'ruin' your eyesight if you try? Is there any evidence for this?

No, I don't believe that would affect my particular impairment. Do you believe that the only valid metric for accessibility is whether a site is actively damaging eyesight?

No, but my original comment wasn't about accessibility (of which I'm a proponent, by the way), it was about whether the specific sentence "It almost seems like this was intentionally created to ruin eyesight" was unhelpful hyperbole.

OK, it makes me optimistic to hear you characterize yourself that way, and it would be wonderful if you are able to make a difference (acting locally).

A lot of times people will give you feedback with a lot of hyperbole because many designers (and developoers) will simply not do anything without the volume amped up to 104db.

People with disabilities often will not lead with, so I have this condition. They'll just say they are having a hard time reading your site/the fonts are too thin/the contrast is off.

If someone is saying your site is hard to read, listen, because many others are having the same problem.

Yup, if someone is saying your site is hard to read, listen. If someone facetiously dismisses a post because they claim that the parent website is intentionally designed to ruin, as in actively degrade, their eyesight, that's a different story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com