7 ms·

Did anyone else find the green background and the white text clash in a way that made it difficult to read? I found that ironic given the article.

kps 3y ago
Not because of the hue, but because the page doesn't respect `prefers-color-scheme`, which makes it hard to take any claim of ‘accessibility’ seriously. Edit: nor `prefers-reduced-motion`, neither.
- ppbjj 3y ago
  Oh, come on. They're using Squarespace. Maybe complain about the state of WYSIWYG editors before dismissing someone's work.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    It doesn't matter what tools and facilities they used, they still designed and produced a web page. They are the ones who chose to use squarespace, and use that template, and be ok with the end result. It's not like a pizza shop or a hairdresser who never claimed that their very reason for existing and mission and product was accessibility. This is a completely topical and fair challenge.
  - YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
    Why did they need a WYSIWYG editor to lay out static content in an entirely standard format? That could be done in Markdown, or plain html. These have the advantage of being trivial to handle with accessibility layers.
eadmund 3y ago
> Did anyone else find the green background and the white text clash in a way that made it difficult to read? No, but only because with Javascript disabled there is literally nothing but an olive green page. Truly remarkable, given that it is supposed to be inclusive.
- pqdbr 3y ago
  This is an honest question: are you browsing the web in 2024 with javascript disabled?
  - Gualdrapo 3y ago
    You'd be surprised by the number of people who does that. Not everyone has a fancy browser and not everyone can see.
    - WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
      If you cannot see, what use is a font?
      - stonogo 3y ago
        And what if you arrive at the site not knowing it's about a font? How are you supposed to find out?
    - extra88 3y ago
      Supporting JavaScript makes a browser "fancy?" People who can't see use the same browsers as everyone else and they run JavaScript. https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey10/#javascript https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey10/#javascript
  - MrVandemar 3y ago
    Not the parent, but, why yes! I AM browsing the web in 2024 with javascript disabled. It's a technology that adds no value to any of the content I am interested in, you know, just reading -- content that can be expressed in HTML tags without being injected into a DOM. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-simple-html/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven...
    - eadmund 3y ago
      Hey now, Javascript adds plenty of value to advertisers, crackers, CPU vendors and browser manufacturers seeking lock-in! Seriously, it does have use in building web apps, but the vast, vast majority of web sites I encounter should be static, or progressively enhanced.
geraldwhen 3y ago
The fade in effect made me nauseous. I hate animation on webpages unless I’m seeking out gifs.
andy99 3y ago
Yeah I still can't tell if I'm just overanalyzing because it's supposed to be easy to read, but I found the webpage, especially the italicized bit, pretty jarring, even in contrast with my usual squinting at HN's tiny font on my phone.
- smeej 3y ago
  I did too, and I've been sight-reading without thinking about it since preschool. I'm really unaccustomed to having to look hard at a word to see what it says, and that was the only way I could get through this page.
nottorp 3y ago
Same here. I can't evaluate the font because of the background. Don't see why I should wait for images to fade in either.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kps 3y ago

Not because of the hue, but because the page doesn't respect `prefers-color-scheme`, which makes it hard to take any claim of ‘accessibility’ seriously. Edit: nor `prefers-reduced-motion`, neither.

ppbjj 3y ago
Oh, come on. They're using Squarespace. Maybe complain about the state of WYSIWYG editors before dismissing someone's work.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  It doesn't matter what tools and facilities they used, they still designed and produced a web page. They are the ones who chose to use squarespace, and use that template, and be ok with the end result. It's not like a pizza shop or a hairdresser who never claimed that their very reason for existing and mission and product was accessibility. This is a completely topical and fair challenge.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
  Why did they need a WYSIWYG editor to lay out static content in an entirely standard format? That could be done in Markdown, or plain html. These have the advantage of being trivial to handle with accessibility layers.

eadmund 3y ago

> Did anyone else find the green background and the white text clash in a way that made it difficult to read? No, but only because with Javascript disabled there is literally nothing but an olive green page. Truly remarkable, given that it is supposed to be inclusive.

pqdbr 3y ago
This is an honest question: are you browsing the web in 2024 with javascript disabled?
- Gualdrapo 3y ago
  You'd be surprised by the number of people who does that. Not everyone has a fancy browser and not everyone can see.
  - WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
    If you cannot see, what use is a font?
    - stonogo 3y ago
      And what if you arrive at the site not knowing it's about a font? How are you supposed to find out?
  - extra88 3y ago
    Supporting JavaScript makes a browser "fancy?" People who can't see use the same browsers as everyone else and they run JavaScript. https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey10/#javascript https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey10/#javascript
- MrVandemar 3y ago
  Not the parent, but, why yes! I AM browsing the web in 2024 with javascript disabled. It's a technology that adds no value to any of the content I am interested in, you know, just reading -- content that can be expressed in HTML tags without being injected into a DOM. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-simple-html/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven...
  - eadmund 3y ago
    Hey now, Javascript adds plenty of value to advertisers, crackers, CPU vendors and browser manufacturers seeking lock-in! Seriously, it does have use in building web apps, but the vast, vast majority of web sites I encounter should be static, or progressively enhanced.

geraldwhen 3y ago

The fade in effect made me nauseous. I hate animation on webpages unless I’m seeking out gifs.

andy99 3y ago

Yeah I still can't tell if I'm just overanalyzing because it's supposed to be easy to read, but I found the webpage, especially the italicized bit, pretty jarring, even in contrast with my usual squinting at HN's tiny font on my phone.

smeej 3y ago
I did too, and I've been sight-reading without thinking about it since preschool. I'm really unaccustomed to having to look hard at a word to see what it says, and that was the only way I could get through this page.

nottorp 3y ago

Same here. I can't evaluate the font because of the background. Don't see why I should wait for images to fade in either.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]