4 ms·

Get 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 t

Get 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 ago
On 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 ago
  True, 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.
  - kroltan 6y ago
    That is true. I also do the same with my screens. (though as I'm not a designer by trade I couldn't justify to myself buying a pro-grade screen)
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Isn't the web supposed to be in sRGB?
    - kuschku 6y ago
      It is, but most systems aren't using a color managed workflow. And sRGB content on an sRGB screen looks exactly the same as on a DCI-P3 panel if you're using a color-managed workflow. The only issue is that less than 15% of monitors today actually match the 95% sRGB, 300 nits, 8-bit panel specs which e.g. DisplayHDR 400 sets. Just think about it, 85% of monitors can't actually display all CSS colors, and that doesn't even begin to handle issues like AdobeRGB, DCI-P3, and other WCG content. On a true sRGB/300nits/8-bit screen #414141 on #dddddd contrast is actually fine (and meets WCAG guidelines, btw). But if you display this same contrast on a 6-bit 150nits ~70% sRGB panel (standard cheap monitor from 2014) you won’t be able to read it under most conditions.
XCSme 6y ago
How many users are navigating the web on a 1000 nits screen? Are there any consumer monitors reaching 1000 nits?
- kuschku 6y ago
  I am, and many other designers are as well. With HDR monitors becoming more popular, more and more gamers are now using such monitors, too. The distance in quality between a typical prosumer (be it gamer or designer) panel and a common cheap panel is increasing significantly. Asus, Apple and Dell are the companies at the forefront of this change, while other companies still sell 6-bit monitors that don't even reach 70% sRGB (~85% of the current market don't have 8-bit/300 nits/95% sRGB)
  - XCSme 6y ago
    I do have a "HDR" monitor, but as far as I know most gaming HDR monitors don't have true HDR, and usually have a peak brightness of 250nits (or 400-500 nits for the more expensive ones). Also, I am on Windows, and HDR is unusable on Windows in normal usage, and very few games/applications actually support HDR. I understand that some enthusiast monitors do exist that might reach 1000 nits and are actually used in HDR mode, but I think that those users are way under 1% (even 0.1%) of the traffic for the most websites.
    - kuschku 6y ago
      That's the point I was trying to make: those extremely high-quality monitors are basically ~0% of users, but a significant percentage of creators. And creators often design stuff so it looks great on their own displays.

kroltan 6y ago

On 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 ago
True, 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.
- kroltan 6y ago
  That is true. I also do the same with my screens. (though as I'm not a designer by trade I couldn't justify to myself buying a pro-grade screen)
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Isn't the web supposed to be in sRGB?
  - kuschku 6y ago
    It is, but most systems aren't using a color managed workflow. And sRGB content on an sRGB screen looks exactly the same as on a DCI-P3 panel if you're using a color-managed workflow. The only issue is that less than 15% of monitors today actually match the 95% sRGB, 300 nits, 8-bit panel specs which e.g. DisplayHDR 400 sets. Just think about it, 85% of monitors can't actually display all CSS colors, and that doesn't even begin to handle issues like AdobeRGB, DCI-P3, and other WCG content. On a true sRGB/300nits/8-bit screen #414141 on #dddddd contrast is actually fine (and meets WCAG guidelines, btw). But if you display this same contrast on a 6-bit 150nits ~70% sRGB panel (standard cheap monitor from 2014) you won’t be able to read it under most conditions.

XCSme 6y ago

How many users are navigating the web on a 1000 nits screen? Are there any consumer monitors reaching 1000 nits?

kuschku 6y ago
I am, and many other designers are as well. With HDR monitors becoming more popular, more and more gamers are now using such monitors, too. The distance in quality between a typical prosumer (be it gamer or designer) panel and a common cheap panel is increasing significantly. Asus, Apple and Dell are the companies at the forefront of this change, while other companies still sell 6-bit monitors that don't even reach 70% sRGB (~85% of the current market don't have 8-bit/300 nits/95% sRGB)
- XCSme 6y ago
  I do have a "HDR" monitor, but as far as I know most gaming HDR monitors don't have true HDR, and usually have a peak brightness of 250nits (or 400-500 nits for the more expensive ones). Also, I am on Windows, and HDR is unusable on Windows in normal usage, and very few games/applications actually support HDR. I understand that some enthusiast monitors do exist that might reach 1000 nits and are actually used in HDR mode, but I think that those users are way under 1% (even 0.1%) of the traffic for the most websites.
  - kuschku 6y ago
    That's the point I was trying to make: those extremely high-quality monitors are basically ~0% of users, but a significant percentage of creators. And creators often design stuff so it looks great on their own displays.