3 ms·

Interesting... I find it absolutely terrible. White monospace font on a black background - no thanks. Without reader mode I wouldn't stay a second on such a pa

Interesting... I find it absolutely terrible. White monospace font on a black background - no thanks. Without reader mode I wouldn't stay a second on such a page.

rectang 7y ago
You're not alone. The book "Type and Layout" by Colin Wheildon describes a "readability" experiment measuring the impact of various typographical techniques on whether subjects comprehend a magazine article. Light text on black background performed abysmally. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1875750223 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1875750223 (Naturally I believe people who say white-on-black works for them, but I don't believe that preference is universal or should be a default if readability is an important criteria.)
- e12e 7y ago
  Print and screen are not the same - as print is reflective, while screens are typically a light source. E-ink is closer to (low resolution, poor quality paper) print.
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    > E-ink is closer to (low resolution, poor quality paper) print. Was curious so I checked - high-end ereaders are 300 PPI, which tends to be the minimum PPI for good quality print.
    - e12e 7y ago
      Granted, dpi and ppi aren't the same - but print would normally be more like 1200 dpi. Even low en laser printers are 600 dpi. So while you might print a 300 ppi image, you'd probably print it at much higher than 300 dpi. E-ink screens are in a kind of middleground - they certainly have lower contrast and resolution than movable type (depending a bit on paper quality, but compared to say printed books).
- upofadown 7y ago
  Was this on some sort of glowing screen? Or white paper surrounded by a lot of black ink? Like anything else, you would have to have sufficient practice with light on dark to be able to be good at it. Light on dark is known to be better for people with contrast decreasing visual problems. Black on white is generally lower contrast as the large bright areas tend to bleed into the tiny text areas.

Interesting... I find it absolutely terrible. White monospace font on a black background - no thanks. Without reader mode I wouldn't stay a second on such a page.

rectang 7y ago

You're not alone. The book "Type and Layout" by Colin Wheildon describes a "readability" experiment measuring the impact of various typographical techniques on whether subjects comprehend a magazine article. Light text on black background performed abysmally. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1875750223 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1875750223 (Naturally I believe people who say white-on-black works for them, but I don't believe that preference is universal or should be a default if readability is an important criteria.)

e12e 7y ago
Print and screen are not the same - as print is reflective, while screens are typically a light source. E-ink is closer to (low resolution, poor quality paper) print.
- Marsymars 7y ago
  > E-ink is closer to (low resolution, poor quality paper) print. Was curious so I checked - high-end ereaders are 300 PPI, which tends to be the minimum PPI for good quality print.
  - e12e 7y ago
    Granted, dpi and ppi aren't the same - but print would normally be more like 1200 dpi. Even low en laser printers are 600 dpi. So while you might print a 300 ppi image, you'd probably print it at much higher than 300 dpi. E-ink screens are in a kind of middleground - they certainly have lower contrast and resolution than movable type (depending a bit on paper quality, but compared to say printed books).
upofadown 7y ago
Was this on some sort of glowing screen? Or white paper surrounded by a lot of black ink? Like anything else, you would have to have sufficient practice with light on dark to be able to be good at it. Light on dark is known to be better for people with contrast decreasing visual problems. Black on white is generally lower contrast as the large bright areas tend to bleed into the tiny text areas.