People over the age of 30 can mostly read books and newspapers just fine, and when they can't it's rarely the fault of the off-white paper and slightly faded ink.
People over the age of 30 can mostly read books and newspapers just fine, and when they can't it's rarely the fault of the off-white paper and slightly faded ink.
Do you have any links to the studies by those researchers? My own understanding is that yellow-on-blue is traditionally meant to be the most visible option, but that there's not actually a huge amount of evidence to back this up, and it's more tradition than anything else right now.
Too much contrast has never been an issue, which is why no one uses flux or dark themes, right?
f.lux is for increasing color temperature. Dark themes are for reducing the ratio of bright to dark. Neither is primarily intended for reducing contrast.
It's relatively easy, by turning #ffffff and #000000 both closer to #ff0000, or in other words, by reducing the contrast.
Dark themes (excluding amoled themes) exist to reduce the perceived contrast between the screen and the environment.
In both cases, either directly or indirectly, contrast is reduced.
Yes, but decreasing contrast is an unfortunate side effect, not the goal. This is like saying that the purpose of a light bulb is to increase your electricity bill.
> Dark themes (excluding amoled themes) exist to reduce the perceived contrast between the screen and the environment.
Yes, but not the contrast between text and background.
font-weight: 300, color: #555
nightmare that we see everywhere on the modern web.So lets just not.
Also, a backlight-based screen is not the same thing as a newspaper, where you can easily increase contrast by improving your light source almost infinitely. I can always decrease my screen brightness quite a bit, but there is an upper limit of increasing it.
That said, even though monitors like laptops and phones increase brightness, that’s not enough when in direct sunlight. There, black in white would make sense, but of course comes at a cost of reducing range (it’s physically impossible). Screens that are incapable of keeping up with direct sunlight should probably increase contrast in those conditions.
(Incidentally I'm a big gamer but I generally prefer to turn off HDR because it hurts my eyes. It's actually really annoying. I don't want certain parts of a scene to be extra-extra-bright.)
If you're giving me text, please don't second-guess whether I've set my monitor brightness appropriately. The vast majority of text I look at is already black-on-white. By reducing the contrast of your text you're assuming that everything else I look at is blinding me and somehow you're saving me with more appropriate contrast. No, I've set my monitor so everything else I look at looks right and what you're showing me is too washed out.
Why would #000 text on #fff be the correct way? It’s common but not at all ubiquitous, there’s no standard for this.
> No, I've set my monitor so everything else I look at looks right and what you're showing me is too washed out.
If you don’t like the extra range you can easily increase the contrast and reduce the brightness, but the other way is very destructive. You can go from #def -> #fff with a simple transform but you can’t go the other way. And if you use 100% of your range in a single element, you have no room for using color, shadows and background, which is a critical tool for all complex design, including old school Windows and Mac UIs from the 90s.
That said, there should be better APIs/standardization and monitors should be better at adjusting brightness and contrast to lighting conditions. I don’t mind at all that people change to whatever suits them, in fact I wish it was easier to use things like reader mode (which ad-tech has been fighting against, hard). Lots of web sites suffer from all kinds of design issues these days, sometimes too low contrast, even for me.