That's actually kind of ridiculous.
I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes.
You've probably got your brightness too high if you're getting after images.
I use darkmode when I'm inside and turn my monitor brightness down. When I'm outside, I switch to lightmode and max out my monitor display. Work for me.
I suspect this is an extremely difficult question to answer until we have a perfect model of humans. Maybe there is some gene/mutation that affects something to do with brightness/darkness. Maybe there is some adaptation that happens after staring at at dark/light mode.
Unfortunately we are extremely far from having good models of the human body :(.
Also, for programming I’m using not dark nor bright mode. Something like #ddd on #444 on well-calibrated settings. Almost all sites which implement dark mode are much closer to #neutron_star on #black_hole than that, so I hate them when they fail to follow an OS setting.
* reduce monitor brightness
* increase contrast between background and text
For me, light grey background (no blaring, eye smashing white) with black text works well. The only point of "grey not white" is again, to reduce a smashed-in-the-face white background.
If one keeps the contrast difference low, that is, slightly-lighter dark text on dark background, then the monitor must be brighter to discern difference between text and background.
(Of course, as you have stated, this may not work for you.)
It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark. That should be obvious.
It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evide...
You are simply repeating something enough that you believe it to be true. You are misinformed about the meaning of the word anecdotal [1] and appear to be playing word games between "anecdotal", "anecdotal evidence", and a misunderstanding of what I wrote.
> It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions.
What is the "it" in your comment? An experiment that someone performs is not anecdotal. [2]
Do you see a difference?
What part of "It's just a preference thing" are you disputing?
That wasn't part of my comment, which I why I didn't quote that.
> I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it.
You were not saying "it's just a preference thing" there.
That's exactly what anecdotal means: one person's account of something.
What did you think it meant?
And, you didn't see that here. That you would even think that shows that you didn't read what was written.
It is ridiculous to wait for what others say about whether dark or light mode strains one's eyes more, since each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them.
Not at all. I know people who tried homeopathic medicine and felt better afterwards, and swear by it. It is very much analogous.
The linked article is about objective measures of eye strain and health. Unless someone explicitly says otherwise, it's very reasonable to assume that they're also discussing those objective measures instead of subjective perception. If not - they're completely off-topic and they shouldn't be commenting here.
In particular, the comment earlier in this thread "I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes." doesn't say "my subjective perception of eye-strain", so we can assume that they're referring to the objective measurements, as is the actual topic for the thread.
The problem with "works for me" is not that that argument is invalid in and of itself. The problem is that homeopaths don't actually know that it works for them. What healed your infection and what did and didn't help is almost impossible to know.
Dark mode is very different. "do I have eyestrain after 4 hours of work" is easy to answer, and dark mode can be toggled with a single click to see how it affects you.
It shows just how people who see themselves as smart and scientific leaning can still fall to the same fallacies as any fool.
We all literally did. You said, quoted:
> I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes.
That is exactly the same as "I know this is true and I don't need researchers telling me otherwise".
> It is ridiculous to wait for what others say about whether dark or light mode strains one's eyes more, since each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them.
That's not how having eyes works - you are physically incapable of measuring eye strain yourself without external equipment and rigorous scientific process. Your subjective perception of reality is not objective reality itself, and your perceived comfort level is not consistent with the actual strain being put on your body, full stop.
Your logic of "each person already has a pair of eyes to test what works for them" directly implies that things that feel good are good for you, which is objectively not how the body works.
You're completely and categorically wrong here.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're one anecdata point without study.