On 13-11-09 03:08 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Pau Giner <pginer(a)wikimedia.org
An interesting link defending those ideas with some examples:
I agree we should be very careful to preserve readability, but I find
that site a little ridiculous. It's arguing that we don't have to
sacrifice aesthetics for readability... and it's ugly as sin. "High
contrast" pairings like #cfba58 on black don't help their case.
Aesthetic choices are subjective. I like their palette, but can see how
it wouldn't be universally appealing. (which is one of the reasons why
we've historically gone with a grey or muted palette in Wikipedia. It
turns-off the least number of people.)
Contrast (in contrast!) is objectively measurable, and #cfba58 on black
is high-contrast, as checked at
Readability is not just about contrast. In that very
site, they also
make controversial choices like pure white text on a pure black
background, which is not universally agreed to be easy on the
eyes. Part of the reason I understand that there's been a movement
away from 'pure white on black' as a standard for text is that high
levels of contrast can be hard on your eyes with extended reading...
such as reading long Wikipedia articles.
"extended reading" is not a factor in that site, though... ;P
However, I agree with the general point, and i think the creators of
contrastrebellion would too, but they concentrated on knocking down the
didn't go into the tangential topics of
very-high-contrast-in-large-quantities, or color blindness.
Personally, I've occasionally used the "zap white backgrounds"
bookmarklet (adapted to use a light grey) found here
for many years. Though
usually if I start to get eyestrain from reading too much Wikipedia,
that's a sign that I'm overdue for a stand&stretch, or I need to adjust
my room's lighting. :)