4 ms·

Geez, have you heard of a contrast checker before? https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/

TimWolla 6y ago
The contrast is fine, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26160608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26160608
- idreyn 6y ago
  I (presumably along with GP) am using Firefox where the background shows up white and the contrast ratio weighs in at 1.43:1. But it looks fine on Chrome.
  - waiseristy 6y ago
    What's funny, is chrome renders the page worst out of the 3 browsers installed on my machine https://imgur.com/a/fh0BAzV https://imgur.com/a/fh0BAzV E: Edge F: Firefox C: Chrome
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  Believe it or not, just because a tool says the contrast is fine doesn't mean that it is. Even assuming a "normal" human range of color spectrum vision, many of these tools measure contrast ratios in color spaces that aren't even representative of that "normal" spectrum. All of the color spaces in native use on the web are not proportional to "normal" perception of color. Of course that gets even more complicated when different vision conditions are introduced. Don't just quote some automated tool at people who very clearly experience something else.
  - true_religion 6y ago
    This seems like a hard job then. If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. Maybe that’s why CSS was originally made to be overridden client side, so everyone can make their own choices about font and background.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      > This seems like a hard job then. If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. I don’t think it works like that. Generally speaking most people with good or limited vision share the luminance spectrum and portions of the color spectrum. Increasing contrast doesn’t hurt anyone (though dark mode users generally prefer slightly lower contrast for lower luminance overall). Increasing type size doesn’t hurt anyone but might make HN users complain about information density. > Maybe that’s why CSS was originally made to be overridden client side, so everyone can make their own choices about font and background. It still can be! In fact it’s standardized in web extensions. As an example you can try my HNDarkMode theme on my GitHub (same handle).
      - gugagore 6y ago
        > I don’t think it works like that. Generally speaking most people with good or limited vision share the luminance spectrum and portions of the color spectrum. Increasing contrast doesn’t hurt anyone (though dark mode users generally prefer slightly lower contrast for lower luminance overall). Increasing type size doesn’t hurt anyone but might make HN users complain about information density. I think there's enough human variation that it can be hard to say anything general like this. Setting aside the semantic debate about what is a disability, or what is accessibility, let me take for granted that "attention disorder" is a thing and anything that anything that distracts a reader could hurt. It is hard to determine flat-out which complaints are valid. I like to watch captioned content. Others find it distracting, or hate having the punchline to a joke come early (usually due to bad captioning!). I am hearing and AFAIK don't have an audio-processing disorder. I don't "need" captions, otherwise it would probably be a clear case of definitely my needs override someone who just doesn't "want" captions. But that's also another semantic debate. I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve.
        eyelidlessness 6y ago
        > "attention disorder" is a thing and anything that distracts a reader could hurt. This is true and I have ADHD so I can speak to it from experience, although not for everyone with ADHD of course. At least for me, motion is far more distracting than contrast as such. The places where contrast may distract me tend to be places where there are already accessibility issues for people with color blindness. You’re right to say I’ve overgeneralized a bit. But for the vast majority of people with vision suitable enough for them to choose to read, the things I said tend to be true. > I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve. Full agree here!
  - TimWolla 6y ago
    > Don't just quote some automated tool at people who very clearly experience something else. I don't think that's a fair response to my comment when it was GP who specifically brought contrast into the discussion and even linked to a contrast checker that also checks two colors against the WCAG guidelines. I wasn't I claiming that everyone is able to read it. I was just saying that according to the standard they themselves referenced it was fine. The fact that it actually was not fine for certain dark mode configurations is orthogonal to that and was not taken into account by both of us.
feifan 6y ago
Geez, have you heard of being nice? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26161659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26161659 > author here — sorry about that. I don't use/didn't test with Firefox, but it looks like it's not setting the page background properly in dark mode. I'll get that fixed!
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  [Speaking only for myself, with poor eyesight, a cognitive hearing disorder, and a variety of sensory sensitivities related to ADHD] Hey, it's awesome that you were so quick to address the issue. But I think you might want to take this one with a little grace. Putting aside the contrast you intended and missed by mistake, try to understand that accessibility is a pretty sore spot for people who need it. It's often ignored completely, or just jammed into a Lighthouse or similar score/checklist without regard for whether people can actually... access things. When people have difficulty with vision or hearing or any other sense, and when it's commonplace for that to be disregarded in very pronounced ways, it's not uncommon to feel invisible and react that way.
  - appletrotter 6y ago
    Snark isn't the way to go.
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      That seems like the literal opposite of snark.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      Thank you for policing my self advocacy but I don’t need your help. Edit: oh my god please downvote this. I definitely need more people telling me they don’t approve of me clearly stating what actually helps my sensory limitations and offering nothing constructive at all.
  - feifan 6y ago
    This is totally understandable! Thanks for pointing this out.

TimWolla 6y ago

The contrast is fine, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26160608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26160608

idreyn 6y ago
I (presumably along with GP) am using Firefox where the background shows up white and the contrast ratio weighs in at 1.43:1. But it looks fine on Chrome.
- waiseristy 6y ago
  What's funny, is chrome renders the page worst out of the 3 browsers installed on my machine https://imgur.com/a/fh0BAzV https://imgur.com/a/fh0BAzV E: Edge F: Firefox C: Chrome
eyelidlessness 6y ago
Believe it or not, just because a tool says the contrast is fine doesn't mean that it is. Even assuming a "normal" human range of color spectrum vision, many of these tools measure contrast ratios in color spaces that aren't even representative of that "normal" spectrum. All of the color spaces in native use on the web are not proportional to "normal" perception of color. Of course that gets even more complicated when different vision conditions are introduced. Don't just quote some automated tool at people who very clearly experience something else.
- true_religion 6y ago
  This seems like a hard job then. If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. Maybe that’s why CSS was originally made to be overridden client side, so everyone can make their own choices about font and background.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > This seems like a hard job then. If we adjust the site to make it accessible for you, then we might make it less accessible for me. I don’t think it works like that. Generally speaking most people with good or limited vision share the luminance spectrum and portions of the color spectrum. Increasing contrast doesn’t hurt anyone (though dark mode users generally prefer slightly lower contrast for lower luminance overall). Increasing type size doesn’t hurt anyone but might make HN users complain about information density. > Maybe that’s why CSS was originally made to be overridden client side, so everyone can make their own choices about font and background. It still can be! In fact it’s standardized in web extensions. As an example you can try my HNDarkMode theme on my GitHub (same handle).
    - gugagore 6y ago
      > I don’t think it works like that. Generally speaking most people with good or limited vision share the luminance spectrum and portions of the color spectrum. Increasing contrast doesn’t hurt anyone (though dark mode users generally prefer slightly lower contrast for lower luminance overall). Increasing type size doesn’t hurt anyone but might make HN users complain about information density. I think there's enough human variation that it can be hard to say anything general like this. Setting aside the semantic debate about what is a disability, or what is accessibility, let me take for granted that "attention disorder" is a thing and anything that anything that distracts a reader could hurt. It is hard to determine flat-out which complaints are valid. I like to watch captioned content. Others find it distracting, or hate having the punchline to a joke come early (usually due to bad captioning!). I am hearing and AFAIK don't have an audio-processing disorder. I don't "need" captions, otherwise it would probably be a clear case of definitely my needs override someone who just doesn't "want" captions. But that's also another semantic debate. I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve.
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        > "attention disorder" is a thing and anything that distracts a reader could hurt. This is true and I have ADHD so I can speak to it from experience, although not for everyone with ADHD of course. At least for me, motion is far more distracting than contrast as such. The places where contrast may distract me tend to be places where there are already accessibility issues for people with color blindness. You’re right to say I’ve overgeneralized a bit. But for the vast majority of people with vision suitable enough for them to choose to read, the things I said tend to be true. > I don't think that should be used as an argument for not trying to improve accessibility in the first place. But it certainly is something to continually improve. Full agree here!
- TimWolla 6y ago
  > Don't just quote some automated tool at people who very clearly experience something else. I don't think that's a fair response to my comment when it was GP who specifically brought contrast into the discussion and even linked to a contrast checker that also checks two colors against the WCAG guidelines. I wasn't I claiming that everyone is able to read it. I was just saying that according to the standard they themselves referenced it was fine. The fact that it actually was not fine for certain dark mode configurations is orthogonal to that and was not taken into account by both of us.

feifan 6y ago

Geez, have you heard of being nice? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26161659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26161659 > author here — sorry about that. I don't use/didn't test with Firefox, but it looks like it's not setting the page background properly in dark mode. I'll get that fixed!

eyelidlessness 6y ago
[Speaking only for myself, with poor eyesight, a cognitive hearing disorder, and a variety of sensory sensitivities related to ADHD] Hey, it's awesome that you were so quick to address the issue. But I think you might want to take this one with a little grace. Putting aside the contrast you intended and missed by mistake, try to understand that accessibility is a pretty sore spot for people who need it. It's often ignored completely, or just jammed into a Lighthouse or similar score/checklist without regard for whether people can actually... access things. When people have difficulty with vision or hearing or any other sense, and when it's commonplace for that to be disregarded in very pronounced ways, it's not uncommon to feel invisible and react that way.
- appletrotter 6y ago
  Snark isn't the way to go.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    That seems like the literal opposite of snark.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    Thank you for policing my self advocacy but I don’t need your help. Edit: oh my god please downvote this. I definitely need more people telling me they don’t approve of me clearly stating what actually helps my sensory limitations and offering nothing constructive at all.
- feifan 6y ago
  This is totally understandable! Thanks for pointing this out.