This looks like yet another case of designers not "getting" the needs of anyone who wants to use the software for any length of time. I took a gander at the co

This looks like yet another case of designers not "getting" the needs of anyone who wants to use the software for any length of time. I took a gander at the comparison on http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2007/06/terminals http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2007/06/termin... , and the whole article just annoys me. If they could focus less on "oh dear, this isn't going to win any design award" and more on making the software more efficient to use, I am confident they would not have faced the wholesale rejection that they complain about. The current design is easy on the eyes. A black background with bright text is easier on the eyes than a glaring white flashlight with some thin black text on it. (I wonder if the misconception that dark background is bad stems from print, where it is a legitimate complaint?) Fun test: try using each of black-on-white and white-on-black at 3AM with bloodshot eyes and see which one gives you a pounding headache and which one allows you to focus on your work. The current design is compact, and uses nice color-contrast techniques to group regions, while the "improved design" wastes a ton of pixels for spacing between the regions instead. Less eye-travel, less scrolling, less next-page-ing makes for more efficient (and therefore more relaxed) use.