4 ms·

There's a limit, though. I end up browsing most modern websites at ~60% zoom, because the text is so huge I find it distracting. Luckily the browser zoom featur

by coldpie 10y ago

There's a limit, though. I end up browsing most modern websites at ~60% zoom, because the text is so huge I find it distracting. Luckily the browser zoom feature is pretty great these days, so users can view at any size they like.

Swizec 10y ago
There's a limit, though. I end up browsing most modern websites at ~120% zoom when I'm tired, because it's more comfortable. Lay back in chair, still read comfortably. There's so much wasted whitespace it usually doesn't even break the layout. I'm 29 and my eyesight with glasses is ok. Been wearing 'em for 22 years. But really the worst offenders are gray text on lighter gray background websites. Whyyyy designers why?
- s_kilk 10y ago
  > Whyyyy designers why? Because A E S T H E T I C I've yet to see any designer articulate a reasonable defense of this shit.
  - thatwebdude 10y ago
    That's too often a "reason".
  - ralusek 10y ago
    Wait, aesthetic is not a valid reason for a designer to do something?
    - s_kilk 10y ago
      Not if it results in piss-poor UX
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Since the browsers remember zoom level I just set it to be comfortable for whatever it is and forget all about it, I had to check what I have HN set to on my desktop and it's 190%. It's not that I can't read it at 100 it's just tiring and I have mild astigmatism so I get eye strain.
  - Androider 10y ago
    The HN default of tiny text is headache inducing. I have pretty good vision, but HN is one of the few sites where I have to crank it up to 150% zoom minimum. https://blog.attackthefront.io/your-body-text-is-too-small-5e02d36dc902 https://blog.attackthefront.io/your-body-text-is-too-small-5... makes a pretty compelling argument that 18px is the new minimum, and I think I'll be following this advice on any of my future sites.
    - coldpie 10y ago
      It's weird, I think HN's text size is perfect and view the site at 100%. I clicked through to your link and immediately scaled it down to 66% to make it readable.
- neogodless 10y ago
  I think that's why I still do so much more of my reading on a desktop than on a mobile device. Right-click, inspect. Uncheck font-color setting on article!
- adrianN 10y ago
  The less a website changes when I turn on Reader Mode in Firefox, the more I like the website.
  - giardini 10y ago
    But Reader Mode is not always available. I've settled into using the menu option "View..Page Style...No Style" on noisy pages. Now I need a "No Style" browser that finds the beginning of the narrative automatically.
    - a3n 10y ago
      On Firefox that's "View ... Page Style ... No style." And I do that enough times per day (precious snowflake designers, take note) that I installed the Firefox addon "Disable Style button" which adds a red/white "CSS" stop sign button. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-style-button/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-style... Honestly, that one button fixes almost every UI/UX problem I encounter. I never use Reader Mode, I never open developer tools, I just nuke styles, read the site and move on.
      - giardini 10y ago
        Ooooh! Thanks for that one!
- leni536 10y ago
  I would bet those designers never try to read the text on the site, they just adjust the contrast until it "looks good" with Lorem ipsum.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    The problem is the contrast ratios. The contrast between 0% black and 100% white on a good screen is so high, it physically causes pain, even migraines. Which is why on HDR screens, the colors of CSS are actually limited to avoid ever going darker than grey or brighter than grey, and the contrast is still very large. #000000 on a cheap screen is equivalent to #666666 on an HDR screen, #ffffff on a cheap screen is equivalent to #aaaaaa on an HDR screen. So if a designer uses something that looks exactly like newspaper contrast to them, it’ll look unreadable on a cheap screen.
    - twanvl 10y ago
      > The problem is the contrast ratios. The contrast between 0% black and 100% white on a good screen is so high, it physically causes pain, even migraines. Maybe that means you need to turn down your screen's brightness.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        No, that’d be exactly the wrong solution. Because then displaying color-calibrated content on your display (such as movies, games, photos) is also completely distorted. Instead, we need a way to specify CSS colors relative to a colorspace and contrast ratio.
        leni536 9y ago
        >CSS colors It's called sRGB and it supposedly has a "black point" which is not entirely black. Nobody uses it though, on photos it would be useless. Also for me black on white is perfectly fine in a well lit room. White on pitch black is indeed problematic. Anyway, it could be a user/browser preference instead of a designer preference. Lowering brightness shouldn't distort color-calibration too. You are supposed to match your brightness to the surrounding lighting too.
- fastball 10y ago
  Your eyesight with glasses is just "ok"?? How bad is your eyesight with corrective lenses?
  - Swizec 10y ago
    As alluded to, yes it's "ok". How good it is varies based on how tired I am. I like sites at 100% or less zoom in the morning, and often at 110% or more zoom towards the end of the day. Also depends on how far away my screen is. For example, I tend to put my phone screen very near my face in the evening. No such thing as perfect eyesight when you've been wearing glasses since you were 8 ;)
- kuschku 10y ago
  > But really the worst offenders are gray text on lighter gray background websites. Whyyyy designers why? Color calibration. On a good monitor, 10 or 12bit depth, 1000 to 10000nits of contrast, which designers tend to have, black text on white background has such a high contrast that it creates actual pain, and migraine. So they use dark grey on light grey instead, and then, for them, it looks exactly like newspaper text. A customer on a cheap, garbage monitor – maybe just 6bit of colors, 50nits of contrast – on the other hand, can’t even reach the contrast of a newspaper if they’d go full black on white contrast. The contrast between the darkest black and the brightest white on a cheap monitor is equivalent to the contrast ratio between 40% (approx #666666) and 60% grey (approx #aaaaaa) on a designer’s monitor.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    Yeah I know. I use the same monitors that designers use. Or at least used to a few years ago when Apple monitors were still The Thing To Have. Haven't upgraded in a while. You know what happens with those gorgeous monitors with perfect contrast and beautiful calibration when it's sunny outside and my blinds aren't down or I'm physically outside with my laptop? They turn flat black. Can't see shit. Also designers sometimes push the contrast thing too far. In both directions.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Send the offending designers to http://contrastrebellion.com/ http://contrastrebellion.com/
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    How does that help the situation?
    - Symbiote 9y ago
      It shows nice designs with good contrast.
      - GrinningFool 9y ago
        Actually, I misread what you'd written. I read it as "send offending designs to..." - like it was a 'name and shame' kind of site instead of the reasonably helpful resource that it is. My apologies.

by coldpie 10y ago

Swizec 10y ago

There's a limit, though. I end up browsing most modern websites at ~120% zoom when I'm tired, because it's more comfortable. Lay back in chair, still read comfortably. There's so much wasted whitespace it usually doesn't even break the layout. I'm 29 and my eyesight with glasses is ok. Been wearing 'em for 22 years. But really the worst offenders are gray text on lighter gray background websites. Whyyyy designers why?

s_kilk 10y ago
> Whyyyy designers why? Because A E S T H E T I C I've yet to see any designer articulate a reasonable defense of this shit.
- thatwebdude 10y ago
  That's too often a "reason".
- ralusek 10y ago
  Wait, aesthetic is not a valid reason for a designer to do something?
  - s_kilk 10y ago
    Not if it results in piss-poor UX
noir_lord 10y ago
Since the browsers remember zoom level I just set it to be comfortable for whatever it is and forget all about it, I had to check what I have HN set to on my desktop and it's 190%. It's not that I can't read it at 100 it's just tiring and I have mild astigmatism so I get eye strain.
- Androider 10y ago
  The HN default of tiny text is headache inducing. I have pretty good vision, but HN is one of the few sites where I have to crank it up to 150% zoom minimum. https://blog.attackthefront.io/your-body-text-is-too-small-5e02d36dc902 https://blog.attackthefront.io/your-body-text-is-too-small-5... makes a pretty compelling argument that 18px is the new minimum, and I think I'll be following this advice on any of my future sites.
  - coldpie 10y ago
    It's weird, I think HN's text size is perfect and view the site at 100%. I clicked through to your link and immediately scaled it down to 66% to make it readable.
neogodless 10y ago
I think that's why I still do so much more of my reading on a desktop than on a mobile device. Right-click, inspect. Uncheck font-color setting on article!
adrianN 10y ago
The less a website changes when I turn on Reader Mode in Firefox, the more I like the website.
- giardini 10y ago
  But Reader Mode is not always available. I've settled into using the menu option "View..Page Style...No Style" on noisy pages. Now I need a "No Style" browser that finds the beginning of the narrative automatically.
  - a3n 10y ago
    On Firefox that's "View ... Page Style ... No style." And I do that enough times per day (precious snowflake designers, take note) that I installed the Firefox addon "Disable Style button" which adds a red/white "CSS" stop sign button. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-style-button/?src=search https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/disable-style... Honestly, that one button fixes almost every UI/UX problem I encounter. I never use Reader Mode, I never open developer tools, I just nuke styles, read the site and move on.
    - giardini 10y ago
      Ooooh! Thanks for that one!
leni536 10y ago
I would bet those designers never try to read the text on the site, they just adjust the contrast until it "looks good" with Lorem ipsum.
- kuschku 10y ago
  The problem is the contrast ratios. The contrast between 0% black and 100% white on a good screen is so high, it physically causes pain, even migraines. Which is why on HDR screens, the colors of CSS are actually limited to avoid ever going darker than grey or brighter than grey, and the contrast is still very large. #000000 on a cheap screen is equivalent to #666666 on an HDR screen, #ffffff on a cheap screen is equivalent to #aaaaaa on an HDR screen. So if a designer uses something that looks exactly like newspaper contrast to them, it’ll look unreadable on a cheap screen.
  - twanvl 10y ago
    > The problem is the contrast ratios. The contrast between 0% black and 100% white on a good screen is so high, it physically causes pain, even migraines. Maybe that means you need to turn down your screen's brightness.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      No, that’d be exactly the wrong solution. Because then displaying color-calibrated content on your display (such as movies, games, photos) is also completely distorted. Instead, we need a way to specify CSS colors relative to a colorspace and contrast ratio.
      - leni536 9y ago
        >CSS colors It's called sRGB and it supposedly has a "black point" which is not entirely black. Nobody uses it though, on photos it would be useless. Also for me black on white is perfectly fine in a well lit room. White on pitch black is indeed problematic. Anyway, it could be a user/browser preference instead of a designer preference. Lowering brightness shouldn't distort color-calibration too. You are supposed to match your brightness to the surrounding lighting too.
fastball 10y ago
Your eyesight with glasses is just "ok"?? How bad is your eyesight with corrective lenses?
- Swizec 10y ago
  As alluded to, yes it's "ok". How good it is varies based on how tired I am. I like sites at 100% or less zoom in the morning, and often at 110% or more zoom towards the end of the day. Also depends on how far away my screen is. For example, I tend to put my phone screen very near my face in the evening. No such thing as perfect eyesight when you've been wearing glasses since you were 8 ;)
kuschku 10y ago
> But really the worst offenders are gray text on lighter gray background websites. Whyyyy designers why? Color calibration. On a good monitor, 10 or 12bit depth, 1000 to 10000nits of contrast, which designers tend to have, black text on white background has such a high contrast that it creates actual pain, and migraine. So they use dark grey on light grey instead, and then, for them, it looks exactly like newspaper text. A customer on a cheap, garbage monitor – maybe just 6bit of colors, 50nits of contrast – on the other hand, can’t even reach the contrast of a newspaper if they’d go full black on white contrast. The contrast between the darkest black and the brightest white on a cheap monitor is equivalent to the contrast ratio between 40% (approx #666666) and 60% grey (approx #aaaaaa) on a designer’s monitor.
- Swizec 10y ago
  Yeah I know. I use the same monitors that designers use. Or at least used to a few years ago when Apple monitors were still The Thing To Have. Haven't upgraded in a while. You know what happens with those gorgeous monitors with perfect contrast and beautiful calibration when it's sunny outside and my blinds aren't down or I'm physically outside with my laptop? They turn flat black. Can't see shit. Also designers sometimes push the contrast thing too far. In both directions.
Symbiote 10y ago
Send the offending designers to http://contrastrebellion.com/ http://contrastrebellion.com/
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  How does that help the situation?
  - Symbiote 9y ago
    It shows nice designs with good contrast.
    - GrinningFool 9y ago
      Actually, I misread what you'd written. I read it as "send offending designs to..." - like it was a 'name and shame' kind of site instead of the reasonably helpful resource that it is. My apologies.