3 ms·

> Readability, reduced visual noise, Semantically colored text, by definition, reduces visual noise. After doing a bit of googling there are infact a number of

> Readability, reduced visual noise, Semantically colored text, by definition, reduces visual noise. After doing a bit of googling there are infact a number of studies that show that colored text seems to positively affect both short term free and serial recall.

ori_b 3y ago
Then, by definition, most use of color in the command line is not semantic, because it increases visual noise for me. You may like color, that's fine. But for me, the effect of colored text as it is used today is akin to prose with every other word randomly colored[1], often in a color that blends in with the background of the page. Turning off the colors, for me, is a large improvement. Using them sparingly, carefully, with a preference for bolding and italicizing to make metadata stand out from data, would be better. This is far harder to patch in to most programs, and a much larger uphill battle. Turning off colors is, by and large, the low hanging fruit. [1] https://cdn.gbraad.nl/images/blog/english-text-highlighting.png https://cdn.gbraad.nl/images/blog/english-text-highlighting....
tgv 3y ago
> Semantically colored text, by definition, reduces visual noise. Not by definition. It adds information. If that matches the text 100%, it is redundant. If it isn't, it adds noise. So it depends very much of what you consider "noise". > After doing a bit of googling there are infact a number of studies that show that colored text seems to positively affect both short term free and serial recall. I'm curious what you think are good sources for that. Many studies have been done on color and text, but I've never seen one that gives a good argument in favor of coloring command line output. Note: recall isn't a goal of color in (most) command line output. Perhaps there is some case, but I wouldn't know which one.
- account42 3y ago
  > If that matches the text 100%, it is redundant. If it isn't, it adds noise. Information is only noise if it isn't the signal you are after. Also if the text contains some information that doesn't mean color can't make it easier to distinguish.

ori_b 3y ago

Then, by definition, most use of color in the command line is not semantic, because it increases visual noise for me. You may like color, that's fine. But for me, the effect of colored text as it is used today is akin to prose with every other word randomly colored[1], often in a color that blends in with the background of the page. Turning off the colors, for me, is a large improvement. Using them sparingly, carefully, with a preference for bolding and italicizing to make metadata stand out from data, would be better. This is far harder to patch in to most programs, and a much larger uphill battle. Turning off colors is, by and large, the low hanging fruit. [1] https://cdn.gbraad.nl/images/blog/english-text-highlighting.png https://cdn.gbraad.nl/images/blog/english-text-highlighting....

tgv 3y ago

> Semantically colored text, by definition, reduces visual noise. Not by definition. It adds information. If that matches the text 100%, it is redundant. If it isn't, it adds noise. So it depends very much of what you consider "noise". > After doing a bit of googling there are infact a number of studies that show that colored text seems to positively affect both short term free and serial recall. I'm curious what you think are good sources for that. Many studies have been done on color and text, but I've never seen one that gives a good argument in favor of coloring command line output. Note: recall isn't a goal of color in (most) command line output. Perhaps there is some case, but I wouldn't know which one.

account42 3y ago
> If that matches the text 100%, it is redundant. If it isn't, it adds noise. Information is only noise if it isn't the signal you are after. Also if the text contains some information that doesn't mean color can't make it easier to distinguish.