(Also when/where was this from? I can't seem to find the original thread anywhere.)

An interesting link defending those ideas with some examples: http://contrastrebellion.com/ Pau

I agree we should be very careful to preserve readability, but I find that site a little ridiculous.

background

On 13-11-09 03:08 PM, Steven Walling wrote: 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 http://www.snook.ca/technical/ colour_contrast/colour.html Readability is not just about contrast. In that very site, they also "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 target (http://contrastrebellion.com/public/images/page2-img1.jpg), and 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 https://www.squarefree.com/ bookmarklets/zap.html 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. :) _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design

On 10/11/13 10:01, Pau Giner wrote: I think that both extremes have negative consequences. Contrast is a tool for making more/less prominent what it is more/less important. If you make everything high contrast, or use a very similar grey palette for all text it becomes hard to communicate what it is more important and help users to perceive the visual hierarchy. Thus, the perceived complexity is increased. they also make controversial choices like pure white text on a pure Agree. Another interesting link on why to avoid pure black: http://ianstormtaylor.com/design-tip-never-use-black/ Amusingly, the text there is too light to be comfortably read, at least on my screen. Really, though, it strikes me as a case of taking a thing too far. You do need to be careful when to use black, but there are also some pretty clear times when it is appropriate, and it comes down to the same principle of context as anything else, or any other colour. With painting, shadows are a particularly strange example. They're almost never black unless the objects in shadow are black, sure, but thinking in terms of shadow colour instead of the colours of the things in shadow doesn't make sense for precisely that reason. All objects have their own colours, but it's the bits in light that stand out - they're the significantly brighter versions of the object colours, or the tinted versions if it's a coloured light. We only use black shadows in more abstract design because... well, why do we? Because we don't have real light sources/colours? Because we can't think in raytracing terms with everything? Just imagine a future when all our 2D interfaces are rendered by raytracing so they have exactly precise lighting, even matching the external lighting conditions... More to the point, I do find it a bit odd that folks are so afraid of black on white just in principle. How harsh is it really, with a good renderer? For issues of eye strain and such, is that really because of the palette? Or do perhaps the antialiasing, font itself, or size and boldness of the text have as much to do with it? _______________________________________________ Design mailing list Design(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design