3 ms·
> IMHO a screen which displays a common black and white website with so much contrast that it strains the eye is a 100% failed product which completely ignores
by kuschku 6y ago
> IMHO a screen which displays a common black and white website with so much contrast that it strains the eye is a 100% failed product which completely ignores reality.
A website which has so much contrast that it strains the eye on any spec-compliant monitor or a cheap 1990s CRT is a failed product. Reducing the quality of monitors to compensate for shitty websites can't be the solution.
- dathinab 6y agoBlack and white web pages had been pretty much the standard since well the invention of the internet... Same for black and white text documents. Or black and white shell promts. And so on. So it's pretty obviously for me what is detached from reality and what isn't. EDIT: It's the color space which is broken I guess, white (on a website) should be neutral background white not eye hurting brightness and the color space should have some "whiter then (normal,neutral) white" colors. I.e. the normal white color should not have defaulted to maximal brightness.
- kuschku 6y ago> EDIT: It's the color space which is broken I guess, white (on a website) should be neutral background white not eye hurting brightness and the color space should have some "whiter then (normal,neutral) white" colors. I.e. the normal white color should not have defaulted to maximal brightness. Sure, but that's already the standard. The people who obsess over using #fff as default white just happen to be the ones whose monitors show #fff the way #ccc was supposed to be shown (and used to be shown, on CRTs)