9 ms·

This post seems to boil down to, "I read a summary of one study, so I am confident in telling you all how wrong you are". Thanks but I'll let the scientific pr

by alpos 4y ago

This post seems to boil down to, "I read a summary of one study, so I am confident in telling you all how wrong you are". Thanks but I'll let the scientific process play itself out over time. In the mean time, I appreciate that the public debate has induced phones, apps, and many web sites to give me the option to enjoy reading things all day without eye strain. The fact that more stuff defaults dark mode or follows a system setting also means I spend less time having to re-style sites with a browser plugin. This is probably already an endless back and forth like the editor wars but I'm okay with that as the long term status quo. It'll mean that most designers learn that they just have to use themes and include an option for either preference. Some even go as far as making their sites look good in both modes. It pleases my counter-culture senses to see them exploring more angles on the color wheel.

taneq 4y ago
I think your summary here more or less applies to the entire debate, and many other similar debates. When did we forget that personal preference an entirely sufficient reason to make a personal choice? I don't use dark mode because a meta-analysis of opthalmological studies indicates it may improve eye health, I use it because I like it and my eyes feel more comfortable using it.
- thayne 4y ago
  This 100%. I've seen things extolling the virtues of light mode, and I try it out for a little while, and I just don't like it.
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  > When did we forget that personal preference an entirely sufficient reason to make a personal choice? I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. If you want to smoke cigarettes, you have the license to do so. But that doesn't mean there aren't objective reasons no to do so. Generally speaking, preferences aren't beyond scrutiny or axiomatic, or outside rational consideration. If a preference is meaningfully harmful (dark mode probably does not qualify), then in a rational person it tends to shift accordingly once the harmfulness is understood. Stubborn irrational preferences (like those that involve addiction) may require some effort or intervention to recondition them to conform with our objective good. At the very least, we ought to avoid indulging them.
  - swayvil 4y ago
    The independent thinker is an irrational addict. And the healthy intelligent person invariably conforms to the consensus. Is that how it is?
  - antifa 4y ago
    > I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. Au contraire, the problem is literally that we are forcing people. People are claiming medical issues (on both sides), too, so this is probably going to end up in some future debates about accessibility rules/laws. You have the right to put a flashlight up to your eyes for 8 hours/day, you do not have the same right to do this to me.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  Personal choice, 41% battery reduction, and a distrust that any of the studies were on 8-12 hour reading sessions.
- Stratoscope 4y ago
  Same here. I don't need some silly scientific study to tell me what is best for my eyes. It is light mode, all the way. It's ridiculous to think that all our eyes are the same, and that some study can determine what is best for everyone. And it's not that I've only used light modes and don't know any better. Our eyes and preferences change over time. I grew up on what might be called "light modes": Teletype paper with black print on yellowish paper, and then punch cards and 11x13 fanfold paper with the white and green alternating stripes. Later I spent many years using "glass teletypes" and the IBM Monochrome Display, both with green-on-nothing. I guess you would call that a dark mode. When I started using Windows in the mid-1980s, I adapted to "light mode", but I had to turn the background down to a medium gray because even on a high end CRT display of the day, the flicker was so awful and it was less noticeable with a subdued background. Then high-quality LCD displays came along and the flicker went away. Around the same time, my eyes were changing. I developed astigmatism, and even with good single vision prescription lenses (a must!) I found that text was much easier to read in a light mode. Perhaps for the same reason that I now have more trouble driving at night than I used to. There is one bit of science to this: the light background causes your eyes' irises to stop down, and just as with a camera lens, this can result in a sharper image than a wide open aperture. But again, my eyes are not your eyes, and I'm not disputing your preference for a dark mode. I will say that one key to using a light mode successfully is to turn the brightness down. And maybe turn your room lighting up a bit. Someone else in the thread mentioned this, but a white background on your screen should be about the same brightness as a white sheet of paper in the same lighting conditions.
- theclansman 4y ago
  I have many reasons to distrust a study like this anyway, just like a lot of medical studies trying to find causations in everyday activities. 1. If the results aren't controversial it probably wouldn't get published ("dark mode is good for your eyes" is a boring result) 2. They can discard results that contradict the thesis without having to make them public. 3. How many people do we need to trust the results of a study like this? Whatever the number you think of, they probably used less than that. When it comes to stuff like this, you can probably find studies stating the opposite anyway, it's not like there's a consensus on this stuff.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BeetleB 4y ago
> This post seems to boil down to, "I read a summary of one study, so I am confident in telling you all how wrong you are". Most/all of the points were well known back in the days when I used CRT monitors - he's not reporting something new. In fact, reading some of the comments, I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it. It's just a preference thing. I myself prefer it as I grew up on terminals where dark was the default (and often, the only option). For those who prefer the opposite: Totally OK.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > In fact, reading some of the comments, I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it. That's actually kind of ridiculous. I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes.
  - verinus 4y ago
    err well- anecdotal evidence may be a good basis for a theory that could be validated using an experiment, but it does not suffice to be calling somebody elses' argument ridiculous...
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal. It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark. That should be obvious.
      - BossingAround 4y ago
        > My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal. It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evidence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evide...
KaiserPro 4y ago
Look, darkmode, and the bluelight fear is not really based on that much science. Yes, UV and top end blue does cause cataracts in people, but thats from the sun, not monitors. There are at least two strands to darkmode, one is the "It stops me from sleeping" and the other is eye strain. the sleeping part is almost certainly nothing to do with the colour temperature of the light coming out of your device. If you go outside at dusk, you will note that its overwhelmingly blue in most places, most of the year (in london its orange for an hour in april and october.) yes, sunset tends to be orange, but the long bit after (again depending on longitude) is overwhelmingly blue. The moon casts blue light. You can't get to sleep because you've been hooked on twitter/instagram/ticktok and are revved up because that's what they do. "YOU NEED TO DO THIS NOW" or "THE SITUATION IS REALLY BAD, BECAUSE YOU DIDNT X" and "OMG THEY ARE SO HOT" finally "YOU ARE FAILING BECAUSE YOU DIDNT DO THIS ONE OLD WEIRD TRICK" You have tension headaches because you've been frowning at a screen for many hours. Or you've not blinked, looked up moved your eyes, or generally changed position. Now, there are some people for whom this doesn't apply, and that blue light is the cause of their woes. But for 99.5% of you, it won't be.
- MPSimmons 4y ago
  The moon wasn't the predominant source of light at night for most pre-industrial people. Fire was, and is what we evolved with, which is likely why red light doesn't cause your eyes to constrict (https://thehikingauthority.com/red-light-night-vision-a-myth/ https://thehikingauthority.com/red-light-night-vision-a-myth...)
  - bregma 4y ago
    I would hesitate to believe that crowds sitting around a bright fire at night will produce more viable offspring than those fumbling in the dark away from the light. The evolutionary mechanism for selecting blue-sensitive rod cells in our retinas along with red-sensitive cone cells must surely be unrelated to the sodium emission spectrum, given that so may other mammals have similar retinas but lack fire-making skills.
    - 4y ago

by alpos 4y ago

taneq 4y ago

I think your summary here more or less applies to the entire debate, and many other similar debates. When did we forget that personal preference an entirely sufficient reason to make a personal choice? I don't use dark mode because a meta-analysis of opthalmological studies indicates it may improve eye health, I use it because I like it and my eyes feel more comfortable using it.

thayne 4y ago
This 100%. I've seen things extolling the virtues of light mode, and I try it out for a little while, and I just don't like it.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
> When did we forget that personal preference an entirely sufficient reason to make a personal choice? I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. If you want to smoke cigarettes, you have the license to do so. But that doesn't mean there aren't objective reasons no to do so. Generally speaking, preferences aren't beyond scrutiny or axiomatic, or outside rational consideration. If a preference is meaningfully harmful (dark mode probably does not qualify), then in a rational person it tends to shift accordingly once the harmfulness is understood. Stubborn irrational preferences (like those that involve addiction) may require some effort or intervention to recondition them to conform with our objective good. At the very least, we ought to avoid indulging them.
- swayvil 4y ago
  The independent thinker is an irrational addict. And the healthy intelligent person invariably conforms to the consensus. Is that how it is?
- antifa 4y ago
  > I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do anything. Au contraire, the problem is literally that we are forcing people. People are claiming medical issues (on both sides), too, so this is probably going to end up in some future debates about accessibility rules/laws. You have the right to put a flashlight up to your eyes for 8 hours/day, you do not have the same right to do this to me.
readthenotes1 4y ago
Personal choice, 41% battery reduction, and a distrust that any of the studies were on 8-12 hour reading sessions.
Stratoscope 4y ago
Same here. I don't need some silly scientific study to tell me what is best for my eyes. It is light mode, all the way. It's ridiculous to think that all our eyes are the same, and that some study can determine what is best for everyone. And it's not that I've only used light modes and don't know any better. Our eyes and preferences change over time. I grew up on what might be called "light modes": Teletype paper with black print on yellowish paper, and then punch cards and 11x13 fanfold paper with the white and green alternating stripes. Later I spent many years using "glass teletypes" and the IBM Monochrome Display, both with green-on-nothing. I guess you would call that a dark mode. When I started using Windows in the mid-1980s, I adapted to "light mode", but I had to turn the background down to a medium gray because even on a high end CRT display of the day, the flicker was so awful and it was less noticeable with a subdued background. Then high-quality LCD displays came along and the flicker went away. Around the same time, my eyes were changing. I developed astigmatism, and even with good single vision prescription lenses (a must!) I found that text was much easier to read in a light mode. Perhaps for the same reason that I now have more trouble driving at night than I used to. There is one bit of science to this: the light background causes your eyes' irises to stop down, and just as with a camera lens, this can result in a sharper image than a wide open aperture. But again, my eyes are not your eyes, and I'm not disputing your preference for a dark mode. I will say that one key to using a light mode successfully is to turn the brightness down. And maybe turn your room lighting up a bit. Someone else in the thread mentioned this, but a white background on your screen should be about the same brightness as a white sheet of paper in the same lighting conditions.
theclansman 4y ago
I have many reasons to distrust a study like this anyway, just like a lot of medical studies trying to find causations in everyday activities. 1. If the results aren't controversial it probably wouldn't get published ("dark mode is good for your eyes" is a boring result) 2. They can discard results that contradict the thesis without having to make them public. 3. How many people do we need to trust the results of a study like this? Whatever the number you think of, they probably used less than that. When it comes to stuff like this, you can probably find studies stating the opposite anyway, it's not like there's a consensus on this stuff.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BeetleB 4y ago

> This post seems to boil down to, "I read a summary of one study, so I am confident in telling you all how wrong you are". Most/all of the points were well known back in the days when I used CRT monitors - he's not reporting something new. In fact, reading some of the comments, I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it. It's just a preference thing. I myself prefer it as I grew up on terminals where dark was the default (and often, the only option). For those who prefer the opposite: Totally OK.

IncRnd 4y ago
> In fact, reading some of the comments, I'm quite surprised people still believe there are inherent benefits to dark mode. There's not really much research supporting it. That's actually kind of ridiculous. I don't need to read other's research about dark mode to know how it lessens eye-strain. I have performed the experiment myself with my own eyes.
- verinus 4y ago
  err well- anecdotal evidence may be a good basis for a theory that could be validated using an experiment, but it does not suffice to be calling somebody elses' argument ridiculous...
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal. It is ridiculous for people with eyes to not use their own eyes except to read studies as to whether their own eyes prefer light or dark. That should be obvious.
    - BossingAround 4y ago
      > My comment does not mention anecdotal evidence but a person using their eyes to perform an experiment. That is clearly not anecdotal. It is clearly anecdotal [1] at the very least to everyone else that reads your comment. It is also clearly insufficient to draw any scientifically valid conclusions. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evidence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal%20evide...

KaiserPro 4y ago

Look, darkmode, and the bluelight fear is not really based on that much science. Yes, UV and top end blue does cause cataracts in people, but thats from the sun, not monitors. There are at least two strands to darkmode, one is the "It stops me from sleeping" and the other is eye strain. the sleeping part is almost certainly nothing to do with the colour temperature of the light coming out of your device. If you go outside at dusk, you will note that its overwhelmingly blue in most places, most of the year (in london its orange for an hour in april and october.) yes, sunset tends to be orange, but the long bit after (again depending on longitude) is overwhelmingly blue. The moon casts blue light. You can't get to sleep because you've been hooked on twitter/instagram/ticktok and are revved up because that's what they do. "YOU NEED TO DO THIS NOW" or "THE SITUATION IS REALLY BAD, BECAUSE YOU DIDNT X" and "OMG THEY ARE SO HOT" finally "YOU ARE FAILING BECAUSE YOU DIDNT DO THIS ONE OLD WEIRD TRICK" You have tension headaches because you've been frowning at a screen for many hours. Or you've not blinked, looked up moved your eyes, or generally changed position. Now, there are some people for whom this doesn't apply, and that blue light is the cause of their woes. But for 99.5% of you, it won't be.

MPSimmons 4y ago
The moon wasn't the predominant source of light at night for most pre-industrial people. Fire was, and is what we evolved with, which is likely why red light doesn't cause your eyes to constrict (https://thehikingauthority.com/red-light-night-vision-a-myth/ https://thehikingauthority.com/red-light-night-vision-a-myth...)
- bregma 4y ago
  I would hesitate to believe that crowds sitting around a bright fire at night will produce more viable offspring than those fumbling in the dark away from the light. The evolutionary mechanism for selecting blue-sensitive rod cells in our retinas along with red-sensitive cone cells must surely be unrelated to the sodium emission spectrum, given that so may other mammals have similar retinas but lack fire-making skills.
  - 4y ago