3 ms·
To be fair, he could’ve cut to the chase sooner. Since it was a UI UX article, HN readers probably aren’t aware that it’s a contrast between fonts and backgroun
by pipeline_peak 4y ago
To be fair, he could’ve cut to the chase sooner. Since it was a UI UX article, HN readers probably aren’t aware that it’s a contrast between fonts and background, not blue vs green or green vs dark green.
- onychomys 4y agoHe could have cut to the chase sooner than the header to paragraph 2?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y agoIt opens with an image of two green bubbles, one higher contrast than the other. The higher contrast one is labeled "Good" and the lower contrast "Gross". After a two sentence paragraph expressing how the green/blue technical differentiation has become a social one, it then asks the question "Why is green worse than blue?" The next line: "The answer is color contrast." What could they have realistically done to cut to the chase sooner in a meaningful way? The only real thing is ditching those two context building sentences. But it's two short sentences, providing relevant context. Doesn't really feel like a valid criticism IMO.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoThey could sum it up in the first paragraph and then extrapolate, but like most of these things they stretch it out until the bottom.
- r12343a_19 4y agoHN readers are aware about poor contrast. Eg, your comment (which seems tame) is downvoted and has some lovely light color on light background combo.
- pipeline_peak 4y agoWhat a weirdly snide comment.