5 ms·
I audit sites frequently, the most common flaw is designers treating text as an afterthought. This article had one point that probably assists in the poor contr
by theartfuldodger 6y ago
I audit sites frequently, the most common flaw is designers treating text as an afterthought. This article had one point that probably assists in the poor contrast choices that are so common. As I type in black on white in this text box I have trouble understanding why design professionals would call "black" on white unnatural. It is not. Unnatural isn't even an appropriate word to use for images and text displayed on a screen unless you are describing the entire experience. Do yourself ( and us) a favor and throw that whole idea out the window and start at #333 to pure black on white as your minimum contrast unless something particularly important in the overall aesthetic changes that priority.
In at least 100 examples where one of the audit fixes was "change font to #000" was the follow up feedback by a client or user tester saying that the gray was better or that "its unnatural" or "way too legible" nor a single case of analytics showing less dwell or read time ( or conversions) from users.
Complete design myth and it should die
- wmeredith 6y agoBlack on white is considered unnatural because it doesn't really ever occur in nature. I agree on the text is not an afterthought thing. It should be the first thought. Content is and always will be king.
- nerdponx 6y agoBut it occurs in print, which humans have become very accustomed to over the last 500 years. It's like the "paleo food" argument that somehow we aren't properly evolved to digest grains.
- blisse 6y agoBooks don't have white backgrounds, it's usually a lighter gray, which doesn't introduce the contrast problem. This is also a problem for text on printer paper, where most people would benefit from a larger font and slightly less than 100% black.
- Aeolun 6y agoMaybe we’re not perfect for grains, but I’d say we’re doing pretty damn well :P
- ZoomZoomZoom 6y agoBooks don't emit light.
- ssijak 6y agoZebra would like to disagree
- dawnerd 6y agoThey’re not pure black or pure white, kind of the point.
- neop1x 6y agoSome web designers like to do gray background with just a bit darker text. Little contrast, hard to read. Even code editors often have "dark theme" with gray background an not-light-enough text color. Sometimes I am able to override CSS rules, sometimes I have to modify theme to create "black theme". But reducing contrast seems to be a bad modern habit, unfortunatelly.
- kuschku 6y agoGet a properly calibrated 1000 nits screen and display #000 on #fff (without wearing sunglasses). Have fun ;) One of the major issues on the web currently is that colors aren't properly colorspaced or matched to a brightness curve, so on shitty 6-bit 100 nits panels #000 on #fff will still be grey-on-grey while on a proper 10 or 12-bit 1000 or 4000 nits panel #000 on #fff will be a color contrast of "literally looking into the sun" vs "the darkness of the darkest night".
- kroltan 6y agoOn the other hand, for most use-cases users will be using a shitty old monitor not only uncalibrated, but with "digital vibrancy" and "sharpness" or whatnot set to 1000% and all careful color design is pointless. You have to design to what users will be using, just like game developers test their games on toaster-PCs. I've had many situations that I tell someone to "click on the button in that blue box over yonder" and they reply "what blue box?" because the light-blue background got washed to white on their screen.
- kuschku 6y agoTrue, but you have to be able to support both. And unless we actually have a coloraware workflow for everything, the "too much/too little" contrast war won’t ever end. Personally I've got a Dell UP2718Q right next to a Fujitsu Siemens P17-2, with two decisively different color, brightness, and resolution experiences, and try to make sure everything I design works well on both of these displays.